https://observatoryfordefenders.org/fr/ Wed, 08 Apr 2026 13:28:36 +0000 fr-FR hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 https://observatoryfordefenders.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/cropped-OB-eye-orange-32x32.png https://observatoryfordefenders.org/fr/ 32 32 https://observatoryfordefenders.org/fr/alert/nicaragua-organizaciones-de-derechos-humanos-exigen-la-liberacion-inmediata-de-defensores-indigenas-mayangna-condenados-a-cadena-perpetua/ Thu, 02 Apr 2026 13:19:10 +0000 https://observatoryfordefenders.org/?post_type=alert&p=24611 Ignacio Celso Lino, Argüello Celso Lino, Donald Andrés Bruno Arcángel y Dionisio Robins Zacarías, autoridades indígenas y guardianes forestales del Territorio Mayangna Sauni As, ubicado en la Reserva de la Biosfera de Bosawás, quienes se encuentran privados de libertad desde 2021 en el Centro Penitenciario Jorge Navarro, conocido como “La Modelo”. Los cuatro defensores han desempeñado un rol fundamental en la protección de su territorio ancestral frente a invasiones de colonos armados, actividades extractivas ilegales y proyectos mineros impuestos sin el consentimiento libre, previo e informado de sus comunidades. Su labor como autoridades comunitarias y como guardianes forestales constituyen una expresión legítima del derecho de los pueblos indígenas a la autodeterminación, al control de sus tierras y a la defensa del medio ambiente, derechos reconocidos por instrumentos internacionales de los que el Estado de Nicaragua es parte. El 23 de agosto de 2021 se produjo un ataque armado en el punto de minería artesanal de Kiwakumbaih, en el que fueron asesinadas varias personas, incluidos muchos familiares de los hermanos Celso Lino, y se registraron actos de violencia sexual. Una de las personas asesinadas fue el administrador de la mina, quien era cuñado de los hermanos Celso Lino. Su viuda, hermana de los guardabosques, nunca inculpó a sus hermanos de estos hechos. Las personas sobrevivientes señalaron reiteradamente que los atacantes eran hombres no indígenas, que hablaban español, portaban armas de guerra y vestían indumentaria militar. Sin embargo, en lugar de investigar de manera diligente e imparcial la responsabilidad de estos grupos armados, la Policía Nacional acusó arbitrariamente a miembros del propio pueblo Mayangna, entre ellos a los cuatro defensores mencionados. Las detenciones se realizaron sin orden judicial, sin informarles los motivos de su arresto y sin garantizarles acceso inmediato a defensa técnica ni a interpretación, pese a que su lengua materna es el Mayangna. Tras su captura fueron víctimas de desaparición forzada durante varios meses, mientras sus familias interponían recursos de exhibición personal, que fueron rechazados. El proceso judicial contra estos defensores estuvo marcado por graves irregularidades. El juicio se celebró a puerta cerrada y jamás se individualizaron los hechos atribuidos a cada uno de los acusados. Solo uno de los guardabosques se encontraba en cerca del lugar de los hechos y los propios testigos afirmaron haberlo visto huir del ataque, al igual que otras personas sobrevivientes; los otros tres se encontraban lejos del sitio al momento de la masacre, lo que hacía imposible su participación. Por otro lado, no se presentaron pruebas materiales que los vincularan con los delitos imputados, no se exhibieron armas y la acusación se sustentó principalmente en testimonios de funcionarios públicos y agentes policiales que no estuvieron presentes durante el ataque. Antes de la sentencia, la Policía presentó públicamente a los guardabosques como autores materiales e intelectuales de los crímenes, vulnerando su presunción de inocencia. A pesar de la ausencia de pruebas suficientes, fueron condenados a cadena perpetua más años adicionales por cargos que no fueron debidamente acreditados. Actualmente su caso se encuentra pendiente de resolución mediante un recurso de casación ante la Sala Penal de la Corte Suprema de Justicia. Desde su traslado al sistema penitenciario en diciembre de 2021, los cuatro defensores han permanecido en condiciones inhumanas, sometidos a aislamiento prolongado, incomunicación, tratos crueles, amenazas y agresiones físicas y sexuales. Se les ha negado atención médica adecuada pese a su delicado estado de salud. Sus familiares, que cuentan con recursos limitados, deben recorrer aproximadamente 500 kilómetros para visitarlos y con frecuencia se les impide entregar alimentos y medicinas. Las visitas, cuando se autorizan, se limitan a breves conversaciones a través de un vidrio, sin contacto físico. Además, han sido hostigados por custodios y otros internos cuando hablan Mayangna. La violencia y los impactos físicos y psicosociales derivados de esta detención arbitraria y de este proceso judicial abusivo se ven aún más agravados por un enfoque discriminatorio que reproduce patrones de exclusión y racismo institucional contra los pueblos indígenas. Estos patrones se manifiestan particularmente en la falsa acusación, la negación sistemática de comunicaciones adecuadas, en la falta de acceso efectivo a defensa e interpretación en su propio idioma, en la desvalorización de su identidad cultural y en condiciones de reclusión que desconocen completamente su cosmovisión y dignidad como autoridades tradicionales, que profundizan el sufrimiento individual y colectivo de ellos y de sus comunidades. El caso ha sido objeto de pronunciamientos de mecanismos internacionales de protección. La Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos otorgó medidas cautelares a su favor mediante la Resolución 20/2023 y la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos ordenó el 27 de junio de 2023 su liberación. El 2 de octubre de 2024 el Grupo de Trabajo de las Naciones Unidas sobre la Detención Arbitraria emitió la Opinión A/HRC/WGAD/2024/30 declarando que su detención es arbitraria, que fueron privados de libertad por ejercer derechos protegidos por la Declaración sobre Defensores de Derechos Humanos y que el Estado debe proceder a su liberación y reparación. Hasta la fecha, estas decisiones no han sido cumplidas. El Grupo de Trabajo concluyó además que la falta de independencia e imparcialidad del sistema judicial en Nicaragua vulneró su derecho al debido proceso y que su encarcelamiento ha estado acompañado de aislamiento y tortura. El Observatorio para la Protección de los Defensores de Derechos Humanos (OMCT-FIDH) ha denunciado reiteradamente esta situación ante instancias nacionales e internacionales y ha documentado el patrón de persecución contra autoridades indígenas en la Costa Caribe de Nicaragua. Asimismo, en el marco de su campaña internacional “Faces of Hope” (Rostros de Esperanza), la OMCT ha visibilizado el caso de Ignacio Celso Lino, Argüello Celso Lino, Donald Andrés Bruno Arcángel y Dionisio Robins Zacarías, junto con el de otras personas defensoras en situación de detención arbitraria, con el objetivo de exigir su liberación y reafirmar que la defensa de los derechos humanos no puede ser criminalizada. El Observatorio y las demás organizaciones firmantes recuerdan que la criminalización de autoridades indígenas que defienden sus territorios constituye una violación del derecho a defender derechos humanos, del derecho a la libertad personal, del derecho al debido proceso y de los derechos colectivos de los pueblos indígenas sobre el territorio. En vista de los hechos expuestos, solicitamos a las autoridades del Estado de Nicaragua que:

• Garanticen de manera inmediata el derecho al debido proceso y a la tutela judicial efectiva en el marco del recurso de casación pendiente;
• Procedan a la liberación inmediata e incondicional de Ignacio Celso Lino, Argüello Celso Lino, Donald Andrés Bruno Arcángel y Dionisio Robins Zacarías, en cumplimiento de las decisiones internacionales vigentes;
• Investiguen de manera independiente las denuncias de tortura y malos tratos en el sistema penitenciario;
• Garanticen que las autoridades y líderes indígenas puedan ejercer legítimamente sus funciones de defensa del territorio y del medio ambiente sin temor a represalias, criminalización o detención arbitraria.

Confiando en su responsabilidad internacional y en su obligación de respetar y garantizar los derechos humanos, quedamos a su disposición para proporcionar cualquier información adicional que consideren necesaria y reiteramos nuestro llamado urgente a poner fin a esta situación de injusticia.]]> Ignacio Celso Lino, Argüello Celso Lino, Donald Andrés Bruno Arcángel y Dionisio Robins Zacarías, autoridades indígenas y guardianes forestales del Territorio Mayangna Sauni As, ubicado en la Reserva de la Biosfera de Bosawás, quienes se encuentran privados de libertad desde 2021 en el Centro Penitenciario Jorge Navarro, conocido como “La Modelo”. Los cuatro defensores han desempeñado un rol fundamental en la protección de su territorio ancestral frente a invasiones de colonos armados, actividades extractivas ilegales y proyectos mineros impuestos sin el consentimiento libre, previo e informado de sus comunidades. Su labor como autoridades comunitarias y como guardianes forestales constituyen una expresión legítima del derecho de los pueblos indígenas a la autodeterminación, al control de sus tierras y a la defensa del medio ambiente, derechos reconocidos por instrumentos internacionales de los que el Estado de Nicaragua es parte. El 23 de agosto de 2021 se produjo un ataque armado en el punto de minería artesanal de Kiwakumbaih, en el que fueron asesinadas varias personas, incluidos muchos familiares de los hermanos Celso Lino, y se registraron actos de violencia sexual. Una de las personas asesinadas fue el administrador de la mina, quien era cuñado de los hermanos Celso Lino. Su viuda, hermana de los guardabosques, nunca inculpó a sus hermanos de estos hechos. Las personas sobrevivientes señalaron reiteradamente que los atacantes eran hombres no indígenas, que hablaban español, portaban armas de guerra y vestían indumentaria militar. Sin embargo, en lugar de investigar de manera diligente e imparcial la responsabilidad de estos grupos armados, la Policía Nacional acusó arbitrariamente a miembros del propio pueblo Mayangna, entre ellos a los cuatro defensores mencionados. Las detenciones se realizaron sin orden judicial, sin informarles los motivos de su arresto y sin garantizarles acceso inmediato a defensa técnica ni a interpretación, pese a que su lengua materna es el Mayangna. Tras su captura fueron víctimas de desaparición forzada durante varios meses, mientras sus familias interponían recursos de exhibición personal, que fueron rechazados. El proceso judicial contra estos defensores estuvo marcado por graves irregularidades. El juicio se celebró a puerta cerrada y jamás se individualizaron los hechos atribuidos a cada uno de los acusados. Solo uno de los guardabosques se encontraba en cerca del lugar de los hechos y los propios testigos afirmaron haberlo visto huir del ataque, al igual que otras personas sobrevivientes; los otros tres se encontraban lejos del sitio al momento de la masacre, lo que hacía imposible su participación. Por otro lado, no se presentaron pruebas materiales que los vincularan con los delitos imputados, no se exhibieron armas y la acusación se sustentó principalmente en testimonios de funcionarios públicos y agentes policiales que no estuvieron presentes durante el ataque. Antes de la sentencia, la Policía presentó públicamente a los guardabosques como autores materiales e intelectuales de los crímenes, vulnerando su presunción de inocencia. A pesar de la ausencia de pruebas suficientes, fueron condenados a cadena perpetua más años adicionales por cargos que no fueron debidamente acreditados. Actualmente su caso se encuentra pendiente de resolución mediante un recurso de casación ante la Sala Penal de la Corte Suprema de Justicia. Desde su traslado al sistema penitenciario en diciembre de 2021, los cuatro defensores han permanecido en condiciones inhumanas, sometidos a aislamiento prolongado, incomunicación, tratos crueles, amenazas y agresiones físicas y sexuales. Se les ha negado atención médica adecuada pese a su delicado estado de salud. Sus familiares, que cuentan con recursos limitados, deben recorrer aproximadamente 500 kilómetros para visitarlos y con frecuencia se les impide entregar alimentos y medicinas. Las visitas, cuando se autorizan, se limitan a breves conversaciones a través de un vidrio, sin contacto físico. Además, han sido hostigados por custodios y otros internos cuando hablan Mayangna. La violencia y los impactos físicos y psicosociales derivados de esta detención arbitraria y de este proceso judicial abusivo se ven aún más agravados por un enfoque discriminatorio que reproduce patrones de exclusión y racismo institucional contra los pueblos indígenas. Estos patrones se manifiestan particularmente en la falsa acusación, la negación sistemática de comunicaciones adecuadas, en la falta de acceso efectivo a defensa e interpretación en su propio idioma, en la desvalorización de su identidad cultural y en condiciones de reclusión que desconocen completamente su cosmovisión y dignidad como autoridades tradicionales, que profundizan el sufrimiento individual y colectivo de ellos y de sus comunidades. El caso ha sido objeto de pronunciamientos de mecanismos internacionales de protección. La Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos otorgó medidas cautelares a su favor mediante la Resolución 20/2023 y la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos ordenó el 27 de junio de 2023 su liberación. El 2 de octubre de 2024 el Grupo de Trabajo de las Naciones Unidas sobre la Detención Arbitraria emitió la Opinión A/HRC/WGAD/2024/30 declarando que su detención es arbitraria, que fueron privados de libertad por ejercer derechos protegidos por la Declaración sobre Defensores de Derechos Humanos y que el Estado debe proceder a su liberación y reparación. Hasta la fecha, estas decisiones no han sido cumplidas. El Grupo de Trabajo concluyó además que la falta de independencia e imparcialidad del sistema judicial en Nicaragua vulneró su derecho al debido proceso y que su encarcelamiento ha estado acompañado de aislamiento y tortura. El Observatorio para la Protección de los Defensores de Derechos Humanos (OMCT-FIDH) ha denunciado reiteradamente esta situación ante instancias nacionales e internacionales y ha documentado el patrón de persecución contra autoridades indígenas en la Costa Caribe de Nicaragua. Asimismo, en el marco de su campaña internacional “Faces of Hope” (Rostros de Esperanza), la OMCT ha visibilizado el caso de Ignacio Celso Lino, Argüello Celso Lino, Donald Andrés Bruno Arcángel y Dionisio Robins Zacarías, junto con el de otras personas defensoras en situación de detención arbitraria, con el objetivo de exigir su liberación y reafirmar que la defensa de los derechos humanos no puede ser criminalizada. El Observatorio y las demás organizaciones firmantes recuerdan que la criminalización de autoridades indígenas que defienden sus territorios constituye una violación del derecho a defender derechos humanos, del derecho a la libertad personal, del derecho al debido proceso y de los derechos colectivos de los pueblos indígenas sobre el territorio. En vista de los hechos expuestos, solicitamos a las autoridades del Estado de Nicaragua que:

• Garanticen de manera inmediata el derecho al debido proceso y a la tutela judicial efectiva en el marco del recurso de casación pendiente;
• Procedan a la liberación inmediata e incondicional de Ignacio Celso Lino, Argüello Celso Lino, Donald Andrés Bruno Arcángel y Dionisio Robins Zacarías, en cumplimiento de las decisiones internacionales vigentes;
• Investiguen de manera independiente las denuncias de tortura y malos tratos en el sistema penitenciario;
• Garanticen que las autoridades y líderes indígenas puedan ejercer legítimamente sus funciones de defensa del territorio y del medio ambiente sin temor a represalias, criminalización o detención arbitraria.

Confiando en su responsabilidad internacional y en su obligación de respetar y garantizar los derechos humanos, quedamos a su disposición para proporcionar cualquier información adicional que consideren necesaria y reiteramos nuestro llamado urgente a poner fin a esta situación de injusticia.]]> https://observatoryfordefenders.org/fr/alert/norway-greece-aegean-boat-report-founder-tommy-olsen-arrested-in-norway-following-an-arrest-warrant-issued-by-the-greek-authorities/ Tue, 31 Mar 2026 13:13:00 +0000 https://observatoryfordefenders.org/?post_type=alert&p=24606 Tommy Olsen, a Norwegian human rights defender and founder of the NGO Aegean Boat Report, in relation to a European arrest warrant issued by the Greek authorities. Mr Olsen is the founder of Aegean Boat Report, created in 2017 as a platform documenting arrivals and distress situations of people on the move in the Aegean Sea, and formally established as a nongovernmental organisation in 2018. Aegean Boat Report also documented and denounced human rights violations committed against people on the move, including illegal pushbacks committed by authorities. On 16 March 2026, Tommy Olsen was arrested by the Norwegian police in Tromsø, in the North of Norway, in execution of a European arrest warrant following an investigation initiated in 2022 by the Greek authorities. On the same day, the Byretten City Court ruled that Mr Olsen would be extradited to Greece, and he was remanded in custody in Tromsø prison. His defence lawyer appealed the extradition ruling and his detention to the Hålogaland Court of Appeals, based in Tromsø. On 20 March 2026, Mr Olsen was released, but he still faces extradition. On 27 March 2026, the appeal judge ruled that the case will be processed by the Court of Appeals, without specifying the date of the hearing. If extradited to Greece, Mr Olsen could face prolonged pretrial detention of up to 18 months, as well as a potential prison sentence of up to 15 years, on charges that constitute a reprisal for his legitimate human rights activities. On 14 May 2024, the Investigating Magistrate of Kos issued an arrest warrant No 14/14-05-2024 against Mr Olsen. The warrant stems from a criminal investigation opened in 2022 against Mr Olsen and Mr Panayote Dimitras, co-founder and spokesperson of the Greek Helsinki Monitor, in retaliation for their legitimate work defending the rights of people on the move. As reported by the Observatory in 2022, the investigation against both Mr Olsen and Mr Dimitras is based on charges including “participation and membership of a criminal organisation”, “facilitating the entry into Greek territory of a third-country national, committed by two or more persons for profit and in the course of their professional activity, and committed repeatedly” and “facilitating the unlawful residence of a third country national for profit and on a repeated basis”, although past case law of similar trials, including Supreme Court case law, indicates individuals cannot be charged under “criminal organisation” for one action, without clear hierarchical organisation or financial benefits, nor can there be “facilitation of entry” when supporting people with accessing the universal right to asylum. The charges stem from their work of alerting authorities such as Hellenic Police, the Coast Guard, migration authorities, the United Nations Refugee Agency and the Greek Ombudsman of the presence of people arriving on the Greek islands of Kos in July 2021 and of their intention of applying for asylum, in alleged coordination with individuals in Turkey. Mr Olsen was only notified of the investigation in January 2023. The Observatory recalls that the case has been marked by smear campaigns and judicial harassment, including preventive measures imposed on Mr Dimitras and, more recently, reprisals for Mr Dimitras’ anti-racist activism. The Observatory recalls that non-governmental organisations that work on migrants’ rights play an essential role to defend the human rights of people on the move in a context of systematic violations of international human rights standards by the Greek authorities, including illegal pushbacks and collective expulsions of migrants, as denounced in 2020 by the UN Committee Against Torture (UNCAT). The Greek state has consistently failed to submit the information concerning the alleged intimidation and harassment of human rights defenders and humanitarian workers and volunteers that was required by the UNCAT. Yet, migrants’ rights defenders have been heavily criminalised for years. They have consistently been targeted for their legitimate work and have faced different types of attacks, including surveillance, judicial harassment, smear campaigns, entry bans and expulsion from the country. The Greek investigative authorities often leak alleged criminal investigations initiated against migrants’ rights defenders to the media, creating a climate of fear and a chilling effect among all rights defenders, as documented by the Observatory in its 2021 report “Europe: Open Season on Solidarity”. The Observatory notes that cooperation between Greek and Norwegian authorities to arbitrarily detain Mr Olsen, a human rights defender in reprisal for his legitimate human rights activities, constitutes an act of transnational repression. The Observatory also notes Norway’s historical role to emphasise the right of human rights defenders to exercise the right to defend rights without obstacles and free from reprisals, including through the promotion of United Nations General Assembly and Human Rights Council resolutions. The Observatory further recalls that the European Parliament, in its resolution of 13 November 2025, recognised transnational repression as encompassing the misuse of legal instruments, including arrest warrants and extradition procedures, to target human rights defenders beyond national borders. It also denounces the occurrence of such practices within European Union territory and, in some instances, with the involvement or cooperation of Member States. In this context, the Observatory expresses serious concern that the actions undertaken by the Greek authorities, a Member State of the European Union, together with Norway as a partner country, constitute an instance of such practices. The Observatory further highlights the European Parliament’s call on the European Union and its Member States to hold accountable those responsible for acts of transnational repression in violation of international human rights law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, the Convention against Torture, and the Refugee Convention, and to consider targeted sanctions against perpetrators. The Observatory strongly condemns the arrest of Mr Tommy Olsen and reiterates that human rights defenders working to protect people on the move are playing a crucial role in a context where serious violations, including illegal pushbacks and collective expulsions, have been widely documented.]]> Tommy Olsen, a Norwegian human rights defender and founder of the NGO Aegean Boat Report, in relation to a European arrest warrant issued by the Greek authorities. Mr Olsen is the founder of Aegean Boat Report, created in 2017 as a platform documenting arrivals and distress situations of people on the move in the Aegean Sea, and formally established as a nongovernmental organisation in 2018. Aegean Boat Report also documented and denounced human rights violations committed against people on the move, including illegal pushbacks committed by authorities. On 16 March 2026, Tommy Olsen was arrested by the Norwegian police in Tromsø, in the North of Norway, in execution of a European arrest warrant following an investigation initiated in 2022 by the Greek authorities. On the same day, the Byretten City Court ruled that Mr Olsen would be extradited to Greece, and he was remanded in custody in Tromsø prison. His defence lawyer appealed the extradition ruling and his detention to the Hålogaland Court of Appeals, based in Tromsø. On 20 March 2026, Mr Olsen was released, but he still faces extradition. On 27 March 2026, the appeal judge ruled that the case will be processed by the Court of Appeals, without specifying the date of the hearing. If extradited to Greece, Mr Olsen could face prolonged pretrial detention of up to 18 months, as well as a potential prison sentence of up to 15 years, on charges that constitute a reprisal for his legitimate human rights activities. On 14 May 2024, the Investigating Magistrate of Kos issued an arrest warrant No 14/14-05-2024 against Mr Olsen. The warrant stems from a criminal investigation opened in 2022 against Mr Olsen and Mr Panayote Dimitras, co-founder and spokesperson of the Greek Helsinki Monitor, in retaliation for their legitimate work defending the rights of people on the move. As reported by the Observatory in 2022, the investigation against both Mr Olsen and Mr Dimitras is based on charges including “participation and membership of a criminal organisation”, “facilitating the entry into Greek territory of a third-country national, committed by two or more persons for profit and in the course of their professional activity, and committed repeatedly” and “facilitating the unlawful residence of a third country national for profit and on a repeated basis”, although past case law of similar trials, including Supreme Court case law, indicates individuals cannot be charged under “criminal organisation” for one action, without clear hierarchical organisation or financial benefits, nor can there be “facilitation of entry” when supporting people with accessing the universal right to asylum. The charges stem from their work of alerting authorities such as Hellenic Police, the Coast Guard, migration authorities, the United Nations Refugee Agency and the Greek Ombudsman of the presence of people arriving on the Greek islands of Kos in July 2021 and of their intention of applying for asylum, in alleged coordination with individuals in Turkey. Mr Olsen was only notified of the investigation in January 2023. The Observatory recalls that the case has been marked by smear campaigns and judicial harassment, including preventive measures imposed on Mr Dimitras and, more recently, reprisals for Mr Dimitras’ anti-racist activism. The Observatory recalls that non-governmental organisations that work on migrants’ rights play an essential role to defend the human rights of people on the move in a context of systematic violations of international human rights standards by the Greek authorities, including illegal pushbacks and collective expulsions of migrants, as denounced in 2020 by the UN Committee Against Torture (UNCAT). The Greek state has consistently failed to submit the information concerning the alleged intimidation and harassment of human rights defenders and humanitarian workers and volunteers that was required by the UNCAT. Yet, migrants’ rights defenders have been heavily criminalised for years. They have consistently been targeted for their legitimate work and have faced different types of attacks, including surveillance, judicial harassment, smear campaigns, entry bans and expulsion from the country. The Greek investigative authorities often leak alleged criminal investigations initiated against migrants’ rights defenders to the media, creating a climate of fear and a chilling effect among all rights defenders, as documented by the Observatory in its 2021 report “Europe: Open Season on Solidarity”. The Observatory notes that cooperation between Greek and Norwegian authorities to arbitrarily detain Mr Olsen, a human rights defender in reprisal for his legitimate human rights activities, constitutes an act of transnational repression. The Observatory also notes Norway’s historical role to emphasise the right of human rights defenders to exercise the right to defend rights without obstacles and free from reprisals, including through the promotion of United Nations General Assembly and Human Rights Council resolutions. The Observatory further recalls that the European Parliament, in its resolution of 13 November 2025, recognised transnational repression as encompassing the misuse of legal instruments, including arrest warrants and extradition procedures, to target human rights defenders beyond national borders. It also denounces the occurrence of such practices within European Union territory and, in some instances, with the involvement or cooperation of Member States. In this context, the Observatory expresses serious concern that the actions undertaken by the Greek authorities, a Member State of the European Union, together with Norway as a partner country, constitute an instance of such practices. The Observatory further highlights the European Parliament’s call on the European Union and its Member States to hold accountable those responsible for acts of transnational repression in violation of international human rights law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, the Convention against Torture, and the Refugee Convention, and to consider targeted sanctions against perpetrators. The Observatory strongly condemns the arrest of Mr Tommy Olsen and reiterates that human rights defenders working to protect people on the move are playing a crucial role in a context where serious violations, including illegal pushbacks and collective expulsions, have been widely documented.]]> https://observatoryfordefenders.org/fr/alert/india-kashmiri-journalist-and-human-rights-defender-irfan-mehraj-held-for-three-years-in-pre-trial-detention/ Thu, 19 Mar 2026 16:06:18 +0000 https://observatoryfordefenders.org/?post_type=alert&p=24547 19 March 2026. On 20 March 2023, Irfan Mehraj was detained by India’s National Investigation Agency (NIA) under provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) on politically motivated and fabricated charges. According to the NIA, Irfan Mehraj was arrested for being ‘a close associate of Khurram Parvez’. Khurram Parvez is a HRD and the Program Coordinator of the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS), a leading civil society organisation in Jammu and Kashmir. Indian authorities continue to arbitrarily detain Khurram Parvez for over four years now on politically motivated and fabricated charges. The ongoing detentions of Irfan Mehraj and Khurram Parvez highlight a broader pattern of persecution of human rights defenders and journalists in Jammu and Kashmir. The authorities have used the UAPA – a draconian anti-terror law - and the repressive Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), which permits long-term detention without trial, to criminalise and silence journalists and human rights defenders in Jammu and Kashmir. This has worsened since the unilateral abrogation of Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood in August 2019. In recent months, the police continued to harass and intimidate journalists from Indian-administered Kashmir for their reporting, including through summoning them for repeated police interrogations and demanding that journalists sign a bond undertaking that they will not do anything that would ‘disturb peace’. The Indian government has continuously failed to respond to concerns regarding human rights violations in Kashmir raised by United Nations experts and international human rights organisations. India should respect its international human rights obligations and end its reprisal against human rights defenders and journalists, especially in Jammu and Kashmir. Other countries at the UN Human Rights Council should address these flagrant violations by a sitting member state. Our organisations urge the Indian authorities to repeal repressive laws including the UAPA and the PSA and to create an enabling environment for civil society and the media to freely and independently operate in Jammu and Kashmir. As India continues to work towards securing stronger multilateral and bilateral relations, we call on the international community to urge the Indian government to comply with its international human rights obligations, release Irfan Mehraj, Khurram Parvez and all other detained Kashmiri human rights defenders and end its repression in Jammu and Kashmir.]]> 19 March 2026. On 20 March 2023, Irfan Mehraj was detained by India’s National Investigation Agency (NIA) under provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) on politically motivated and fabricated charges. According to the NIA, Irfan Mehraj was arrested for being ‘a close associate of Khurram Parvez’. Khurram Parvez is a HRD and the Program Coordinator of the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS), a leading civil society organisation in Jammu and Kashmir. Indian authorities continue to arbitrarily detain Khurram Parvez for over four years now on politically motivated and fabricated charges. The ongoing detentions of Irfan Mehraj and Khurram Parvez highlight a broader pattern of persecution of human rights defenders and journalists in Jammu and Kashmir. The authorities have used the UAPA – a draconian anti-terror law - and the repressive Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), which permits long-term detention without trial, to criminalise and silence journalists and human rights defenders in Jammu and Kashmir. This has worsened since the unilateral abrogation of Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood in August 2019. In recent months, the police continued to harass and intimidate journalists from Indian-administered Kashmir for their reporting, including through summoning them for repeated police interrogations and demanding that journalists sign a bond undertaking that they will not do anything that would ‘disturb peace’. The Indian government has continuously failed to respond to concerns regarding human rights violations in Kashmir raised by United Nations experts and international human rights organisations. India should respect its international human rights obligations and end its reprisal against human rights defenders and journalists, especially in Jammu and Kashmir. Other countries at the UN Human Rights Council should address these flagrant violations by a sitting member state. Our organisations urge the Indian authorities to repeal repressive laws including the UAPA and the PSA and to create an enabling environment for civil society and the media to freely and independently operate in Jammu and Kashmir. As India continues to work towards securing stronger multilateral and bilateral relations, we call on the international community to urge the Indian government to comply with its international human rights obligations, release Irfan Mehraj, Khurram Parvez and all other detained Kashmiri human rights defenders and end its repression in Jammu and Kashmir.]]> https://observatoryfordefenders.org/fr/alert/tunisie-la-defenseure-des-droits-humains-saadia-mosbah-doit-etre-liberee/ Wed, 18 Mar 2026 16:09:08 +0000 https://observatoryfordefenders.org/?post_type=alert&p=24568 Saadia Mosbah, défenseure des droits humains tunisienne, militante antiraciste et présidente de l’association M’nemty, engagée contre les discriminations raciales et pour les droits des personnes en déplacement en Tunisie. Elle a notamment contribué aux mobilisations ayant conduit à l’adoption en 2018 d’une loi tunisienne criminalisant les discriminations raciales. Le 12 mars 2026, Mme Saadia Mosbah a comparu devant la chambre criminelle du tribunal de première instance de Tunis, dans le cadre d’une affaire dans laquelle elle est poursuivie pour blanchiment d’argent en vertu de la loi n°26 de 2015 relative à la lutte contre le terrorisme et le blanchiment d’argent, pour enrichissement illicite et constitution d’une entente criminelle en lien avec les activités de l’association M’nemty, qu’elle préside. Lors de cette audience, ses avocat·es et ses proches ont demandé sa libération, dénonçant un « dossier vide et sans preuves ». Selon sa défense, l’état de santé de Mme Mosbah s’est fortement dégradé au cours de sa détention prolongée. La juridiction a toutefois rejeté sa demande de remise en liberté, et a fixé la prochaine audience au 19 mars 2026 afin d’examiner l’affaire sur le fond. Le 6 mai 2024, les autorités tunisiennes ont arrêté Mme Saadia Mosbah à son domicile dans le cadre d’une enquête judiciaire visant l’association M’nemty. L’enquête porte notamment sur les financements reçus par M’nemty dans le cadre de ses activités de soutien aux personnes en déplacement et de lutte contre les discriminations raciales. Le lendemain de cette arrestation, le 7 mai, les forces de l’ordre ont perquisitionné le siège de l’association M’nemty ainsi que le domicile de Mme Mosbah à Tunis. À l’issue de cette opération, les autorités ont placé la défenseure en détention provisoire à la prison pour femmes de Manouba, au nord du pays. Plusieurs membres de l’association ont également été convoqué·es, interrogé·es puis poursuivi·es pour les mêmes accusations par les autorités judiciaires dans les jours et semaines qui ont suivi, sans être incarcéré·es. Au cours des mois qui ont suivi l’arrestation de Mme Mosbah, le parquet près le tribunal de première instance de Tunis a prolongé à plusieurs reprises sa détention provisoire. En mars 2025, un rapport d’expertise comptable versé au dossier a conclu que les financements de l’association M’nemty étaient légaux, transparents et de faible ampleur, ce qui contredit les accusations de blanchiment d’argent portées contre Mme Mosbah. Malgré ces conclusions, les poursuites ont été maintenues. Le 22 décembre 2025, le procès de Mme Saadia Mosbah s’était ouvert devant la chambre criminelle du tribunal de première instance de Tunis, où plusieurs dizaines de personnes se sont rassemblées pour demander sa libération. Plusieurs membres de l’association M’nemty, également poursuivi·es, comparaissaient libres. Depuis le début de sa détention, Mme Mosbah a également dénoncé des conditions de détention difficiles. Transférée de la prison pour femmes de Manouba vers celle de Béni Khalled, dans le gouvernorat de Nabeul, elle a signalé dans des lettres rendues publiques en septembre et octobre 2025 des difficultés d’accès à l’eau potable, des restrictions concernant la réception de livres ainsi que des limitations dans les visites familiales. L’Observatoire rappelle qu’en février 2023, le président tunisien Kaïs Saïed a prononcé un discours dénonçant l’arrivée de personnes migrantes d’Afrique subsaharienne et évoquant un prétendu complot visant à modifier la composition démographique du pays. L’arrestation de Mme Mosbah est intervenue dans ce contexte de campagnes de diffamation et de harcèlement visant l’association M’nemty et plusieurs de ses membres sur les réseaux sociaux, accusant notamment l’organisation de participer à ce prétendu complot. L’Observatoire rappelle également que les poursuites visant Mme Mosbah s’inscrivent dans un contexte de répression croissante de la société civile en Tunisie, marqué par des poursuites judiciaires contre des défenseur·es des droits humains, des campagnes de dénigrement dans les médias et des restrictions visant les organisations travaillant sur les questions migratoires. L’Observatoire exprime sa vive inquiétude face au maintien en détention de Mme Saadia Mosbah depuis près de deux ans et considère que les poursuites engagées contre elle semblent viser à entraver ses activités légitimes de défense des droits humains, notamment son engagement contre le racisme et pour la défense des droits des personnes en déplacement. L’Observatoire appelle les autorités tunisiennes à libérer immédiatement Mme Mosbah et note également que ces conditions de détention, compte tenu notamment de son âge (66 ans) et des préoccupations relatives à son état de santé, pourraient constituer des traitements cruels, inhumains ou dégradants contraires aux obligations internationales de la Tunisie, notamment de l’article 7 et de l’article 10 du Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques, ainsi que de l’article 16 de la Convention des Nations unies contre la torture. Actions requises : L’Observatoire vous prie de bien vouloir écrire aux autorités tunisiennes en leur demandant de : Garantir en toutes circonstances l’intégrité physique et le bien-être psychologique de Saadia Mosbah et de l’ensemble des défenseur·es des droits humains en Tunisie, et garantir son accès à des soins adéquats et aux visites ; Libérer immédiatement et de manière inconditionnelle Saadia Mosbah et tou·tes les défenseur·es des droits humains arbitrairement détenu·es pour leur travail légitime de défense des droits humains ; Mettre un terme à tout acte de harcèlement, y compris au niveau judiciaire, à l’encontre de Saadia Mosbah ainsi que de tou·tes les défenseur·es des droits humains ; Garantir le respect effectif du droit à un procès équitable pour Saadia Mosbah et l’ensemble des défenseur·es des droits humains et détenu·e·s en Tunisie ; et Cesser de cibler les défenseur.es et les organisations de droits humains, les journalistes et les médias en Tunisie et garantir en toutes circonstances qu’ils et elles puissent mener leurs activités légitimes en faveur des droits humains sans entraves ni crainte de représailles. Adresses : • M. Kaïs Saïed, Président de la République, Email : contact@carthage.tn ; X : @TnPresidency • Mme Sarra Zaafrani Zanzri, Cheffe de gouvernement, Email : boc@pm.gov.tn ; X : @TunisiaPM • Mme Leila Jaffel, Ministre de la Justice, Email : info@e-justice.tn • M. Khaled Nouri , Ministre de l’Intérieur, Email : boc@interieur.gov.tn • M. Sabri Bachtobji, Ambassadeur, Représentant permanent de la Tunisie auprès des Nations unies à Genève, Suisse, Email : at.geneve@diplomatie.gov.tn • M. Sahbi Khalfallah, Ambassadeur, Ambassade de la Tunisie à Bruxelles, Belgique, Email : at.belgique@diplomatie.gov.tn Prière d’écrire également aux représentations diplomatiques de Tunisie dans vos pays respectifs. *** Genève-Paris, le 18 Mars 2026 Merci de bien vouloir informer l’Observatoire de toutes actions entreprises en indiquant le code de cet appel. L’Observatoire partenariat de la FIDH et de l’OMCT, a vocation à protéger les défenseur·es des droits humains victimes de violations et à leur apporter une aide aussi concrète que possible. La FIDH et l’OMCT sont membres de ProtectDefenders.eu, le mécanisme de l’Union européenne pour les défenseur·es des droits humains mis en œuvre par la société civile internationale. Pour contacter l’Observatoire, appeler La Ligne d’Urgence : · E-mail : alert@observatoryfordefenders.org · Tel FIDH : +33 1 43 55 25 18 · Tel OMCT : + 41 22 809 49 39]]> Saadia Mosbah, défenseure des droits humains tunisienne, militante antiraciste et présidente de l’association M’nemty, engagée contre les discriminations raciales et pour les droits des personnes en déplacement en Tunisie. Elle a notamment contribué aux mobilisations ayant conduit à l’adoption en 2018 d’une loi tunisienne criminalisant les discriminations raciales. Le 12 mars 2026, Mme Saadia Mosbah a comparu devant la chambre criminelle du tribunal de première instance de Tunis, dans le cadre d’une affaire dans laquelle elle est poursuivie pour blanchiment d’argent en vertu de la loi n°26 de 2015 relative à la lutte contre le terrorisme et le blanchiment d’argent, pour enrichissement illicite et constitution d’une entente criminelle en lien avec les activités de l’association M’nemty, qu’elle préside. Lors de cette audience, ses avocat·es et ses proches ont demandé sa libération, dénonçant un « dossier vide et sans preuves ». Selon sa défense, l’état de santé de Mme Mosbah s’est fortement dégradé au cours de sa détention prolongée. La juridiction a toutefois rejeté sa demande de remise en liberté, et a fixé la prochaine audience au 19 mars 2026 afin d’examiner l’affaire sur le fond. Le 6 mai 2024, les autorités tunisiennes ont arrêté Mme Saadia Mosbah à son domicile dans le cadre d’une enquête judiciaire visant l’association M’nemty. L’enquête porte notamment sur les financements reçus par M’nemty dans le cadre de ses activités de soutien aux personnes en déplacement et de lutte contre les discriminations raciales. Le lendemain de cette arrestation, le 7 mai, les forces de l’ordre ont perquisitionné le siège de l’association M’nemty ainsi que le domicile de Mme Mosbah à Tunis. À l’issue de cette opération, les autorités ont placé la défenseure en détention provisoire à la prison pour femmes de Manouba, au nord du pays. Plusieurs membres de l’association ont également été convoqué·es, interrogé·es puis poursuivi·es pour les mêmes accusations par les autorités judiciaires dans les jours et semaines qui ont suivi, sans être incarcéré·es. Au cours des mois qui ont suivi l’arrestation de Mme Mosbah, le parquet près le tribunal de première instance de Tunis a prolongé à plusieurs reprises sa détention provisoire. En mars 2025, un rapport d’expertise comptable versé au dossier a conclu que les financements de l’association M’nemty étaient légaux, transparents et de faible ampleur, ce qui contredit les accusations de blanchiment d’argent portées contre Mme Mosbah. Malgré ces conclusions, les poursuites ont été maintenues. Le 22 décembre 2025, le procès de Mme Saadia Mosbah s’était ouvert devant la chambre criminelle du tribunal de première instance de Tunis, où plusieurs dizaines de personnes se sont rassemblées pour demander sa libération. Plusieurs membres de l’association M’nemty, également poursuivi·es, comparaissaient libres. Depuis le début de sa détention, Mme Mosbah a également dénoncé des conditions de détention difficiles. Transférée de la prison pour femmes de Manouba vers celle de Béni Khalled, dans le gouvernorat de Nabeul, elle a signalé dans des lettres rendues publiques en septembre et octobre 2025 des difficultés d’accès à l’eau potable, des restrictions concernant la réception de livres ainsi que des limitations dans les visites familiales. L’Observatoire rappelle qu’en février 2023, le président tunisien Kaïs Saïed a prononcé un discours dénonçant l’arrivée de personnes migrantes d’Afrique subsaharienne et évoquant un prétendu complot visant à modifier la composition démographique du pays. L’arrestation de Mme Mosbah est intervenue dans ce contexte de campagnes de diffamation et de harcèlement visant l’association M’nemty et plusieurs de ses membres sur les réseaux sociaux, accusant notamment l’organisation de participer à ce prétendu complot. L’Observatoire rappelle également que les poursuites visant Mme Mosbah s’inscrivent dans un contexte de répression croissante de la société civile en Tunisie, marqué par des poursuites judiciaires contre des défenseur·es des droits humains, des campagnes de dénigrement dans les médias et des restrictions visant les organisations travaillant sur les questions migratoires. L’Observatoire exprime sa vive inquiétude face au maintien en détention de Mme Saadia Mosbah depuis près de deux ans et considère que les poursuites engagées contre elle semblent viser à entraver ses activités légitimes de défense des droits humains, notamment son engagement contre le racisme et pour la défense des droits des personnes en déplacement. L’Observatoire appelle les autorités tunisiennes à libérer immédiatement Mme Mosbah et note également que ces conditions de détention, compte tenu notamment de son âge (66 ans) et des préoccupations relatives à son état de santé, pourraient constituer des traitements cruels, inhumains ou dégradants contraires aux obligations internationales de la Tunisie, notamment de l’article 7 et de l’article 10 du Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques, ainsi que de l’article 16 de la Convention des Nations unies contre la torture. Actions requises : L’Observatoire vous prie de bien vouloir écrire aux autorités tunisiennes en leur demandant de : Garantir en toutes circonstances l’intégrité physique et le bien-être psychologique de Saadia Mosbah et de l’ensemble des défenseur·es des droits humains en Tunisie, et garantir son accès à des soins adéquats et aux visites ; Libérer immédiatement et de manière inconditionnelle Saadia Mosbah et tou·tes les défenseur·es des droits humains arbitrairement détenu·es pour leur travail légitime de défense des droits humains ; Mettre un terme à tout acte de harcèlement, y compris au niveau judiciaire, à l’encontre de Saadia Mosbah ainsi que de tou·tes les défenseur·es des droits humains ; Garantir le respect effectif du droit à un procès équitable pour Saadia Mosbah et l’ensemble des défenseur·es des droits humains et détenu·e·s en Tunisie ; et Cesser de cibler les défenseur.es et les organisations de droits humains, les journalistes et les médias en Tunisie et garantir en toutes circonstances qu’ils et elles puissent mener leurs activités légitimes en faveur des droits humains sans entraves ni crainte de représailles. Adresses : • M. Kaïs Saïed, Président de la République, Email : contact@carthage.tn ; X : @TnPresidency • Mme Sarra Zaafrani Zanzri, Cheffe de gouvernement, Email : boc@pm.gov.tn ; X : @TunisiaPM • Mme Leila Jaffel, Ministre de la Justice, Email : info@e-justice.tn • M. Khaled Nouri , Ministre de l’Intérieur, Email : boc@interieur.gov.tn • M. Sabri Bachtobji, Ambassadeur, Représentant permanent de la Tunisie auprès des Nations unies à Genève, Suisse, Email : at.geneve@diplomatie.gov.tn • M. Sahbi Khalfallah, Ambassadeur, Ambassade de la Tunisie à Bruxelles, Belgique, Email : at.belgique@diplomatie.gov.tn Prière d’écrire également aux représentations diplomatiques de Tunisie dans vos pays respectifs. *** Genève-Paris, le 18 Mars 2026 Merci de bien vouloir informer l’Observatoire de toutes actions entreprises en indiquant le code de cet appel. L’Observatoire partenariat de la FIDH et de l’OMCT, a vocation à protéger les défenseur·es des droits humains victimes de violations et à leur apporter une aide aussi concrète que possible. La FIDH et l’OMCT sont membres de ProtectDefenders.eu, le mécanisme de l’Union européenne pour les défenseur·es des droits humains mis en œuvre par la société civile internationale. Pour contacter l’Observatoire, appeler La Ligne d’Urgence : · E-mail : alert@observatoryfordefenders.org · Tel FIDH : +33 1 43 55 25 18 · Tel OMCT : + 41 22 809 49 39]]> https://observatoryfordefenders.org/fr/alert/bahrain-release-human-rights-defender-dr-abduljalil-al-singace/ Tue, 17 Mar 2026 16:10:09 +0000 https://observatoryfordefenders.org/?post_type=alert&p=24557 18 March 2026 His Majesty King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa King of Bahrain His Royal Highness Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa Crown Prince and Prime Minister Your Majesties, We are writing to respectfully urge Your Majesties to order the release of human rights defender Dr Abduljalil Al-Singace, who has now completed 15 years of arbitrary imprisonment while serving a life sentence for his role in the pro-democracy movement. Bahrain is currently facing unprecedented challenges as the regional conflict intensifies. The country has been subjected to multiple attacks and its airspace has been closed. At such a difficult time for the nation, acts that promote compassion, unity, and reconciliation are more important than ever. The release of Dr Al-Singace and others imprisoned for their human rights work and political views would send an important message during this difficult time. Dr Al-Singace, now 64 years old, has been held in medical facilities since July 2021 and is currently detained at Muharraq Specialised Health Care Centre. He began a hunger strike in protest of the confiscation of his manuscripts and academic research. Since then, he has survived primarily on liquid intake, including multivitamin supplements. At times, he has resorted to full hunger strikes to protest the denial of medication and access to specialised medical treatment. In November 2025, the UN Committee against Torture expressed serious concerns regarding his ongoing detention and urged Bahrain to release Dr Al-Singace, alongside fellow human rights defenders Hassan Mushaima and Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja. We remain deeply concerned that Dr Al-Singace continues to suffer from the systematic denial of adequate medical care. For example, since 2021, he has experienced severe shoulder pain. After prolonged delays in obtaining a proper diagnosis, he finally received an MRI scan last year and doctors advised that surgery is required. However, there has been no indication as to when this operation will take place. He also continues to be denied physiotherapy despite his disability. These medical concerns should be addressed without further delay. With Eid Al-Fitr approaching, an occasion traditionally marked by royal pardons, we respectfully ask that Dr Al-Singace be included among those pardoned. In the meantime, we urge Your Majesties to ensure that he is held in conditions that meet international standards, receives his medication without delay, and has access to adequate healthcare in compliance with medical ethics. We also urge the relevant authorities to facilitate the return of his confiscated research to his family at the earliest opportunity. At a time when the region is experiencing profound turmoil, the release of political prisoners, including Dr Al-Singace, would offer a meaningful gesture of compassion and help ease the suffering felt by many families in Bahrain. Yours sincerely,]]> 18 March 2026 His Majesty King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa King of Bahrain His Royal Highness Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa Crown Prince and Prime Minister Your Majesties, We are writing to respectfully urge Your Majesties to order the release of human rights defender Dr Abduljalil Al-Singace, who has now completed 15 years of arbitrary imprisonment while serving a life sentence for his role in the pro-democracy movement. Bahrain is currently facing unprecedented challenges as the regional conflict intensifies. The country has been subjected to multiple attacks and its airspace has been closed. At such a difficult time for the nation, acts that promote compassion, unity, and reconciliation are more important than ever. The release of Dr Al-Singace and others imprisoned for their human rights work and political views would send an important message during this difficult time. Dr Al-Singace, now 64 years old, has been held in medical facilities since July 2021 and is currently detained at Muharraq Specialised Health Care Centre. He began a hunger strike in protest of the confiscation of his manuscripts and academic research. Since then, he has survived primarily on liquid intake, including multivitamin supplements. At times, he has resorted to full hunger strikes to protest the denial of medication and access to specialised medical treatment. In November 2025, the UN Committee against Torture expressed serious concerns regarding his ongoing detention and urged Bahrain to release Dr Al-Singace, alongside fellow human rights defenders Hassan Mushaima and Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja. We remain deeply concerned that Dr Al-Singace continues to suffer from the systematic denial of adequate medical care. For example, since 2021, he has experienced severe shoulder pain. After prolonged delays in obtaining a proper diagnosis, he finally received an MRI scan last year and doctors advised that surgery is required. However, there has been no indication as to when this operation will take place. He also continues to be denied physiotherapy despite his disability. These medical concerns should be addressed without further delay. With Eid Al-Fitr approaching, an occasion traditionally marked by royal pardons, we respectfully ask that Dr Al-Singace be included among those pardoned. In the meantime, we urge Your Majesties to ensure that he is held in conditions that meet international standards, receives his medication without delay, and has access to adequate healthcare in compliance with medical ethics. We also urge the relevant authorities to facilitate the return of his confiscated research to his family at the earliest opportunity. At a time when the region is experiencing profound turmoil, the release of political prisoners, including Dr Al-Singace, would offer a meaningful gesture of compassion and help ease the suffering felt by many families in Bahrain. Yours sincerely,]]> https://observatoryfordefenders.org/fr/alert/turkey-urgent-call-to-un-special-rapporteurs-to-address-the-prosecution-and-conviction-of-lawyers-and-human-rights-defenders-in-turkey/ Wed, 11 Mar 2026 16:13:06 +0000 https://observatoryfordefenders.org/?post_type=alert&p=24539 Paris-Geneva-Ankara, 11 March 2026. In a joint letter addressed to several UN Special Rapporteurs, the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, a partnership of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), along with other organisations, raise concerns over the prosecution and conviction of lawyers and human rights defenders affiliated with ÖHD and TUAD in Turkey.   FOR THE ATTENTION OF: • Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers • Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders • Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism • Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression • Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association • Special Rapporteur on minority issues URGENT ACTION: Prosecution and conviction of lawyers and human rights defenders who are members of Özgürlükçü Hukukçular Derneği (ÖHD, Association of Lawyers for Freedom) and Tutuklu Aileleri ile Dayanışma Derneği (TUAD, the Prisoners’ Families Solidarity Association) on 28 January 2026 in Türkiye.   Dear Mandate Holders, 1. We write to express our deep and urgent concern regarding the prosecution, conviction and sentencing of lawyers and human rights defenders affiliated with Özgürlükçü Hukukçular Derneği (ÖHD, Association of Lawyers for Freedom) and Tutuklu Aileleri ile Dayanışma Derneği (TUAD, the Prisoners’ Families Solidarity Association) following a decade-long trial before the Istanbul 14th Heavy Penal Court. 2. On 28 January 2026, in proceedings dating back to 2016, the trial court convicted 30 lawyers and human rights defenders, on terrorism-related and expression-based charges, imposing lengthy prison sentences. The prosecutions and resulting convictions appear to be based predominantly on lawyers’ lawful professional conduct - including prison visits, contact with clients, legal correspondence, court monitoring, and public engagement on human rights issues - rather than any credible evidence of criminal conduct. These mirror prior patterns of targeting lawyers for their professional activities. TUAD activists were likewise targeted solely for their legitimate human rights work, including documenting prison conditions, publicly reporting on human rights violations, and advocating for the protection of prisoners’ health and dignity, activities that fall within the protected scope of human rights defence. 3. The convictions follow proceedings marked by serious due process concerns, including extensive reliance on surveillance evidence obtained through wiretapping and technical monitoring measures authorised by judges who were later dismissed or prosecuted in connection with alleged links to the Gülenist organisation, as well as the routine rejection of defence challenges without reasoned judicial assessment. These practices raise serious concerns regarding compliance with international standards protecting the professional independence of lawyers and the lawful activities of human rights defenders. 4. In light of the gravity of these concerns, we respectfully request your urgent intervention. We urge you to call on the Turkish authorities to quash the convictions and to terminate all criminal proceedings against the lawyers and human rights defenders concerned, in accordance with international human rights standards, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and relevant jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). We further invite you to urge the authorities to cease all forms of judicial harassment and undue interference with the legal profession and with human rights defence, and to ensure that lawyers and human rights defenders can carry out their lawful activities freely, independently, and without fear of reprisal. BACKGROUND AND SYSTEMIC CONTEXT 5. Since the attempted coup of July 2016, Türkiye has experienced a sustained deterioration of the rule of law and judicial independence, accompanied by widespread persecution of lawyers, human rights defenders, journalists, and civil society actors. Under the pretext of counterterrorism, the authorities have systematically targeted members of the legal profession and civil society through arbitrary arrests, prolonged pre-trial detention, and criminal prosecutions based on vague and overly broad terrorism provisions, particularly Articles 314 and 220 of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC) and Article 7(2) of the Law on Anti-Terrorism. These measures have been repeatedly criticised by international bodies for their lack of foreseeability, their misuse against lawful expression and association, and their chilling effect on the exercise of fundamental rights. 6. This pattern has been facilitated by profound structural damage to judicial independence, including the mass dismissal and replacement of judges and prosecutors, expanded executive control over judicial appointments, and the routine disregard by domestic courts of binding judgments of the ECtHR. As documented by UN mechanisms and regional bodies, these developments have enabled the instrumentalization of criminal law against lawyers and human rights defenders perceived as critical of state policies, particularly in cases relating to Kurdish issue, political opposition, prison conditions, and allegations of torture and ill-treatment. 7. For instance, in March 2019 the Istanbul 37th Heavy Penal Court sentenced 18 lawyers to a combined total of 159 years, 1 month, and 30 days in prison on terrorism-related charges linked to the outlawed Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party–Front (DHKP-C). The defendants included lawyers from the People’s Law Office (HHB) and the Progressive Lawyers Association (ÇHD), many of whom had been providing legal representation in politically sensitive cases. Human rights organisations and bar associations condemned the verdicts as unjust and politically motivated, stressing that the convictions were based on lawyers’ professional activities rather than any demonstrable criminal conduct. They further warned that the proceedings reflected serious due process violations, political interference in the judiciary, and the systematic criminalisation of legal defence work, undermining the independence of the legal profession in Türkiye. 8. Another illustrative example of the criminalisation of legal defence work took place in Ankara in 2017. In June of that year, 52 lawyers were charged with “membership of a terrorist organisation” under Article 314 of the TPC. The prosecution alleged that their professional association, the Law and Life Association, formed part of the Gülen organisation, despite a police report finding no evidence of criminal activity. The indictment relied on routine legal activities such as assigning cases, representing clients linked to the Gülenist organisation, and making public statements on due process as purported proof of “aiding terrorism”. Human Rights Watch condemned the proceedings, warning that treating legal representation as evidence of criminality “threatens the very core of fair trial rights” and undermines the independence of the legal profession. 9. According to reports, more than 1,500 lawyers have been prosecuted in Türkiye since 2016, hundreds have been detained, and many have received lengthy prison sentences. These prosecutions frequently rely on evidence obtained from lawyers’ professional activities, including prison visits, client communications, participation in hearings, and public advocacy on human rights and rule of law. 10. These concerns are reflected in reporting by international media and civil society organisations concerning large-scale police operations carried out in April 2023 in Diyarbakır and other predominantly Kurdish southeastern provinces. According to media reports, Turkish police detained more than 100 individuals - including lawyers, journalists, political actors and civil society representatives - in coordinated raids targeting organisations allegedly linked to the PKK. Reports indicated that the raids involved searches of lawyers’ offices, media outlets and NGO premises, and that the total number of detainees may have reached approximately 150. 11. A series of other ongoing cases further illustrates the entrenched and continuing nature of these practices. In the context of the Gezi Park proceedings, domestic courts have repeatedly refused to give effect to binding ECtHR judgments requesting the release of human rights defender Osman Kavala. Trial courts and the Court of Cassation repeatedly failed to give effect to multiple rulings of the Constitutional Court ordering the release of opposition MP Can Atalay on the basis of his parliamentary immunity and have continued to detain Gezi Park co-defendant Tayfun Kahraman despite a Constitutional Court judgment finding violations of his rights. 12. Parallel concerns arise in relation to the continued imprisonment of human rights lawyer Selçuk Kozağaçlı, following the arbitrary and punitive refusal of his conditional release. In late 2024, the authorities also initiated criminal and civil proceedings against the leadership of the Istanbul Bar Association in response to a public statement addressing alleged human rights violations in Syria attributed to Turkish security forces. Earlier, in October 2022, prominent forensic expert and human rights defender Şebnem Korur (Fincancı) was detained and prosecuted for her professional assessment on the allegations concerning the use of chemical weapons in Iraqi Kurdistan by Turkish military forces. Although she was released after a period of detention, she was subsequently convicted on charge of “propaganda for a terrorist organisation”, in proceedings later criticised by UN experts as incompatible with international standards. 13. International human rights monitoring mechanisms has further highlighted the systemic nature of these practices. In its concluding observations adopted in November 2024, the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) expressed serious concern about persecution, harassment, intimidation, and reprisals against human rights defenders, journalists, lawyers, Kurdish activists, environmental defenders, opposition politicians, academics, and civil society members perceived as critical of the government. The Committee also raised alarm over the alleged use of arbitrary detention and politically motivated prosecutions to suppress dissent, noting that this climate of intimidation has forced some organisations to close or curtail their activities and has driven many individuals into self-censorship or self-imposed exile. CONVICTION OF ÖHD LAWYERS AND MEMBERS AND ACTIVISTS FROM TUAD 14. On 28 January 2026, the Istanbul 14th Heavy Penal Court delivered its judgment in a criminal case initiated in 2016 against lawyers affiliated with the ÖHD, members and staff of the TUAD. At the conclusion of nearly ten years of proceedings, the court convicted 30 lawyers and human rights defenders on terrorism-related and expression-based charges and imposed custodial sentences ranging from several months to multiple years of imprisonment. The convictions concerned 10 ÖHD lawyers and 20 TUAD members, while a limited number of co-defendants were acquitted15. Among the convicted lawyers were Adem Çalışçı, Ayşe Acinikli, Ayşe Gösterişlioğlu, Hüseyin Boğatekin, Ramazan Demir, Raziye Öztürk, Ruhşen Mahmutoğlu, Sinan Zincir, Şefik Çelik, and Tamer Doğan. The convictions were based on Article 314(2) of the TPC (“membership of an armed organisation”), Article 7(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Law (“propaganda”), and, in one instance, Article 299 of the TPC (“insult to the President”).13Custodial sentences imposed on the lawyers ranged from 1 year and 3 months to 7 years and 6 months, with several lawyers receiving multiple cumulative sentences under different provisions. The remaining convictions concerned TUAD members or those affiliated with the organisation. 16. The conduct relied upon by the prosecution and the trial court as evidence of criminal liability consisted of lawful professional and human rights activities. In the case of the ÖHD lawyers, this included prison visits, confidential communications with clients, legal correspondence, participation in court hearings, trial monitoring, public statements, and professional coordination with colleagues. In the case of TUAD members, the evidence related to activities such as documenting prison conditions, monitoring prisoners’ health - particularly during hunger strikes - issuing public statements on rights violations and providing support to prisoners’ families. None of these acts involved incitement to violence, coercion, or participation in unlawful conduct. 17. According to reports, the prosecution was built almost exclusively on unlawfully obtained surveillance material, including wiretapping and technical monitoring measures extended over prolonged periods in breach of procedural safeguards, as well as recordings obtained from within TUAD premises and during lawyer–client meetings in prisons. Defence requests to exclude this evidence were repeatedly rejected, notwithstanding that several of the surveillance authorisations had been issued by judges and prosecutors who were in connection with alleged links to the Gülen organisation. authorisations had been issued by judges and prosecutors who were in connection with alleged links to the Gülen organisation. 18. Throughout the trial, defence lawyers raised serious and persistent concerns regarding violations of fair trial guarantees. These included the reliance on intelligence material disconnected from any criminal act, the absence of an individualised assessment of each defendant’s conduct, the conflation of lawful association membership with criminal liability, and severe restrictions on the defence’s ability to effectively challenge evidence. The length of the proceedings, combined with the mechanical attribution of liability based on professional or associative ties, deprived the defendants of a genuine opportunity to contest the accusations against them. 19. The convictions of TUAD members and affiliates further raise grave concerns regarding the criminalisation of human rights defenders’ work. TUAD’s activities - focused on prison monitoring, prevention of ill-treatment, and advocacy for prisoners’ rights - fall directly within the protected sphere of human rights defence under international law. Prosecuting and sentencing individuals for such activities not only violates their individual rights to freedom of expression and association, but also undermines independent oversight of detention conditions, increasing the risk of torture and ill-treatment and weakening safeguards for some of the most vulnerable individuals in custody. 20. Taken together these violations take place within a broader context of weakened judicial safeguards, increasing executive influence over the courts, and restricted access to case files. The prosecution and conviction of ÖHD lawyers and TUAD members reflect a broader pattern of judicial harassment aimed at silencing lawyers and human rights defenders engaged in sensitive work, particularly in cases relating to Kurdish issue, detention, and allegations of state abuse. These practices have a profound chilling effect on the legal profession and civil society, deter lawyers from undertaking defence work in politically sensitive cases, and erode access to justice for detainees. They are incompatible with international standards governing the role and protection of lawyers and human rights defenders, as discussed in the section below. TURKEY’S OBLIGATION UNDER DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW A. Rights of Lawyers and Rule of Law 21. Under international and regional human rights law, the rights of lawyers - including their rights to liberty and security, freedom of expression and association, and the independent exercise of their profession - are protected by a coherent body of standards. These include the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (1990), paragraph 7 of UN Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2004/33, Recommendation No. (2000)21 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the freedom of exercise of the profession of lawyer, and, most recently, the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer. Taken together, these instruments recognise the legal profession as a cornerstone of the administration of justice and an indispensable safeguard for the rule of law. 22. The Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers affirm that lawyers are entitled to enjoy the rights and freedoms guaranteed under international human rights law insofar as they relate to their professional functions. Principle 16 obliges States to ensure that lawyers are able to perform their duties “without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference”, and without being subjected to sanctions or prosecution for actions taken in accordance with recognised professional duties and standards. Principle 23 further guarantees lawyers’ rights to freedom of expression, opinion, and association, including the right to participate in public debate on matters concerning the law, the administration of justice, and the promotion and protection of human rights, without suffering professional or criminal repercussions. 23. These guarantees are reinforced and developed at the regional level by the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer, which was adopted in response to increasing reports of harassment, criminalisation, and undue interference with lawyers’ professional activities in Council of Europe member States, including Türkiye. The Convention affirms States’ obligations to protect lawyers from identification with their clients or causes, to safeguard the confidentiality of lawyer–client communications, and to ensure that lawyers are not subjected to criminal, civil, or administrative sanctions for carrying out their professional duties in accordance with the law and professional standards. It further emphasises that attacks on the legal profession undermine access to justice and the effective protection of human rights. 24. The prosecution and conviction of ÖHD lawyers for routine professional activities - including client representation, prison visits, confidential communications, court monitoring, and public engagement on human rights issues - constitute a direct violation of these standards. By treating lawful legal work and expression as evidence of criminal liability, the authorities have interfered with lawyers’ freedom of expression and association, undermined their professional independence, and breached Articles 14 and 19 of the ICCPR, as well as Article 6 of the ECHR. Such measures not only punish individual lawyers but also deter others from undertaking defence work in politically sensitive cases, thereby denying current and future defendants’ effective access to legal representation. B. Protection of Human Rights Defenders and Legitimate Civil Society Activity 25. TUAD members and activists fall within the definition of human rights defenders, as their activities are directed at the protection of the rights of prisoners and their families, including through prison monitoring, documentation of detention conditions, public reporting, and advocacy aimed at preventing abuse and safeguarding human dignity. These activities are expressly protected under international human rights law, including the UN Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognised Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders”). 26. Article 9 of the Declaration affirms the right of everyone to “offer and provide professionally qualified legal assistance or other relevant advice and assistance in defending human rights and fundamental freedoms”, while Article 11 obliges States to ensure the right to the lawful exercise of one’s occupation or profession. Articles 5 and 6 further protect the rights of human rights defenders to form associations, to communicate with the public and international bodies, and to disseminate information on human rights issues. These guarantees are reinforced by Article 12 of the Declaration, which requires States to take all necessary measures to protect human rights defenders against intimidation, harassment, retaliation, and other arbitrary actions arising from their legitimate activities. They are further underpinned by Articles 19, 21, and 22 of the ICCPR and Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR which protect freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association. 27. The prosecution and conviction of TUAD members for activities such as documenting prison conditions, supporting prisoners’ families, issuing public statements, and advocating for prisoners’ rights therefore constitute a clear violation of Türkiye’s obligations under international law. Criminalising such conduct not only interferes with the individual rights of the defenders concerned but also undermines independent oversight of places of detention and weakens safeguards against abuse. These measures are incompatible with the State’s duty to create a safe and enabling environment in which human rights defenders can operate freely, without intimidation, harassment, or fear of criminal sanction. 28. Taken together, the prosecution and convictions of ÖHD lawyers and TUAD members reflect the misuse of counter-terrorism legislation to suppress lawful professional and human rights activities. This practice represents a serious breach of Türkiye’s international obligations, erodes the rule of law, and contributes to a climate in which legal defence and human rights work are treated as illegitimate or criminalised, rather than recognised as essential components of a democratic society. ACTIONS REQUESTED 29. In light of the above, we respectfully request that the Special Rapporteurs take the following urgent actions: (a) Call on the Turkish authorities to quash the convictions and sentences imposed on ÖHD lawyers and TUAD members and to ensure their immediate acquittal, including in respect of the lawyers Adem Çalışçı, Ayşe Acinikli, Ayşe Gösterişlioğlu, Hüseyin Boğatekin, Ramazan Demir, Raziye Öztürk, Ruhşen Mahmutoğlu, Sinan Zincir, Şefik Çelik, and Tamer Doğan; (b) Seek detailed information from the Government of Türkiye regarding the use of surveillance and intelligence evidence authorised by judicial officials who were later dismissed or convicted, and its compatibility with international fair trial standards, including safeguards relating to legality, necessity, proportionality, and effective judicial scrutiny; (c) Urge the authorities to end all forms of harassment, including judicial harassment, against the individuals concerned and against lawyers and human rights defenders more broadly, and to guarantee that they are able to carry out their professional and lawful activities freely, independently, and without intimidation or improper interference; (d) Raise, as a matter of priority, concerns regarding the criminalisation of legal defence work and prisoners’ rights advocacy, including through joint communications, given the cross-cutting implications for judicial independence, freedom of expression and association, and the protection of human rights defenders; (e) Call on the authorities to immediately cease the misuse of counter-terrorism legislation and related criminal provisions against lawyers and human rights defenders who expose, document, or challenge human rights violations, including those committed by security forces; (f) Urge Türkiye to take concrete measures, in law and in practice, to safeguard judicial independence, prevent undue interference with judges, prosecutors, and lawyers, and ensure compliance with binding judgments of the ECtHR; (g) Remind the Government of Türkiye of its binding international obligations, including under the ICCPR, the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, and relevant Council of Europe standards, and of its duty to ensure that criminal, administrative, or counter-terrorism measures are not used as tools of retaliation against lawyers and human rights defenders engaged in politically sensitive or human rights-related work. 30. We would be grateful to be informed of any action taken on this communication and of any response received from the Turkish authorities, and we kindly request acknowledgment of receipt of this submission. Signatories Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (Conseil des Barreaux Européens, CCBE) European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights (ELDH) Human Rights Association (İnsan Hakları Derneği, IHD) Human Rights Fundation of Turkey (Türkiye İnsan Hakları Vakfı, TİHV) International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), in the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders International Observatory of Lawyers at Risk (OIAD) Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada (LRWC) Rights Initiative Association (Hak İnsiyatifi Derneği) Social Policy, Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Association (SPoD) The Law Society of England and Wales (LSEW) Truth Justice Memory Center (Hakikat Adalet Hafıza Merkezi) World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), in the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders]]> Paris-Geneva-Ankara, 11 March 2026. In a joint letter addressed to several UN Special Rapporteurs, the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, a partnership of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), along with other organisations, raise concerns over the prosecution and conviction of lawyers and human rights defenders affiliated with ÖHD and TUAD in Turkey.   FOR THE ATTENTION OF: • Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers • Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders • Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism • Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression • Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association • Special Rapporteur on minority issues URGENT ACTION: Prosecution and conviction of lawyers and human rights defenders who are members of Özgürlükçü Hukukçular Derneği (ÖHD, Association of Lawyers for Freedom) and Tutuklu Aileleri ile Dayanışma Derneği (TUAD, the Prisoners’ Families Solidarity Association) on 28 January 2026 in Türkiye.   Dear Mandate Holders, 1. We write to express our deep and urgent concern regarding the prosecution, conviction and sentencing of lawyers and human rights defenders affiliated with Özgürlükçü Hukukçular Derneği (ÖHD, Association of Lawyers for Freedom) and Tutuklu Aileleri ile Dayanışma Derneği (TUAD, the Prisoners’ Families Solidarity Association) following a decade-long trial before the Istanbul 14th Heavy Penal Court. 2. On 28 January 2026, in proceedings dating back to 2016, the trial court convicted 30 lawyers and human rights defenders, on terrorism-related and expression-based charges, imposing lengthy prison sentences. The prosecutions and resulting convictions appear to be based predominantly on lawyers’ lawful professional conduct - including prison visits, contact with clients, legal correspondence, court monitoring, and public engagement on human rights issues - rather than any credible evidence of criminal conduct. These mirror prior patterns of targeting lawyers for their professional activities. TUAD activists were likewise targeted solely for their legitimate human rights work, including documenting prison conditions, publicly reporting on human rights violations, and advocating for the protection of prisoners’ health and dignity, activities that fall within the protected scope of human rights defence. 3. The convictions follow proceedings marked by serious due process concerns, including extensive reliance on surveillance evidence obtained through wiretapping and technical monitoring measures authorised by judges who were later dismissed or prosecuted in connection with alleged links to the Gülenist organisation, as well as the routine rejection of defence challenges without reasoned judicial assessment. These practices raise serious concerns regarding compliance with international standards protecting the professional independence of lawyers and the lawful activities of human rights defenders. 4. In light of the gravity of these concerns, we respectfully request your urgent intervention. We urge you to call on the Turkish authorities to quash the convictions and to terminate all criminal proceedings against the lawyers and human rights defenders concerned, in accordance with international human rights standards, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and relevant jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). We further invite you to urge the authorities to cease all forms of judicial harassment and undue interference with the legal profession and with human rights defence, and to ensure that lawyers and human rights defenders can carry out their lawful activities freely, independently, and without fear of reprisal. BACKGROUND AND SYSTEMIC CONTEXT 5. Since the attempted coup of July 2016, Türkiye has experienced a sustained deterioration of the rule of law and judicial independence, accompanied by widespread persecution of lawyers, human rights defenders, journalists, and civil society actors. Under the pretext of counterterrorism, the authorities have systematically targeted members of the legal profession and civil society through arbitrary arrests, prolonged pre-trial detention, and criminal prosecutions based on vague and overly broad terrorism provisions, particularly Articles 314 and 220 of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC) and Article 7(2) of the Law on Anti-Terrorism. These measures have been repeatedly criticised by international bodies for their lack of foreseeability, their misuse against lawful expression and association, and their chilling effect on the exercise of fundamental rights. 6. This pattern has been facilitated by profound structural damage to judicial independence, including the mass dismissal and replacement of judges and prosecutors, expanded executive control over judicial appointments, and the routine disregard by domestic courts of binding judgments of the ECtHR. As documented by UN mechanisms and regional bodies, these developments have enabled the instrumentalization of criminal law against lawyers and human rights defenders perceived as critical of state policies, particularly in cases relating to Kurdish issue, political opposition, prison conditions, and allegations of torture and ill-treatment. 7. For instance, in March 2019 the Istanbul 37th Heavy Penal Court sentenced 18 lawyers to a combined total of 159 years, 1 month, and 30 days in prison on terrorism-related charges linked to the outlawed Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party–Front (DHKP-C). The defendants included lawyers from the People’s Law Office (HHB) and the Progressive Lawyers Association (ÇHD), many of whom had been providing legal representation in politically sensitive cases. Human rights organisations and bar associations condemned the verdicts as unjust and politically motivated, stressing that the convictions were based on lawyers’ professional activities rather than any demonstrable criminal conduct. They further warned that the proceedings reflected serious due process violations, political interference in the judiciary, and the systematic criminalisation of legal defence work, undermining the independence of the legal profession in Türkiye. 8. Another illustrative example of the criminalisation of legal defence work took place in Ankara in 2017. In June of that year, 52 lawyers were charged with “membership of a terrorist organisation” under Article 314 of the TPC. The prosecution alleged that their professional association, the Law and Life Association, formed part of the Gülen organisation, despite a police report finding no evidence of criminal activity. The indictment relied on routine legal activities such as assigning cases, representing clients linked to the Gülenist organisation, and making public statements on due process as purported proof of “aiding terrorism”. Human Rights Watch condemned the proceedings, warning that treating legal representation as evidence of criminality “threatens the very core of fair trial rights” and undermines the independence of the legal profession. 9. According to reports, more than 1,500 lawyers have been prosecuted in Türkiye since 2016, hundreds have been detained, and many have received lengthy prison sentences. These prosecutions frequently rely on evidence obtained from lawyers’ professional activities, including prison visits, client communications, participation in hearings, and public advocacy on human rights and rule of law. 10. These concerns are reflected in reporting by international media and civil society organisations concerning large-scale police operations carried out in April 2023 in Diyarbakır and other predominantly Kurdish southeastern provinces. According to media reports, Turkish police detained more than 100 individuals - including lawyers, journalists, political actors and civil society representatives - in coordinated raids targeting organisations allegedly linked to the PKK. Reports indicated that the raids involved searches of lawyers’ offices, media outlets and NGO premises, and that the total number of detainees may have reached approximately 150. 11. A series of other ongoing cases further illustrates the entrenched and continuing nature of these practices. In the context of the Gezi Park proceedings, domestic courts have repeatedly refused to give effect to binding ECtHR judgments requesting the release of human rights defender Osman Kavala. Trial courts and the Court of Cassation repeatedly failed to give effect to multiple rulings of the Constitutional Court ordering the release of opposition MP Can Atalay on the basis of his parliamentary immunity and have continued to detain Gezi Park co-defendant Tayfun Kahraman despite a Constitutional Court judgment finding violations of his rights. 12. Parallel concerns arise in relation to the continued imprisonment of human rights lawyer Selçuk Kozağaçlı, following the arbitrary and punitive refusal of his conditional release. In late 2024, the authorities also initiated criminal and civil proceedings against the leadership of the Istanbul Bar Association in response to a public statement addressing alleged human rights violations in Syria attributed to Turkish security forces. Earlier, in October 2022, prominent forensic expert and human rights defender Şebnem Korur (Fincancı) was detained and prosecuted for her professional assessment on the allegations concerning the use of chemical weapons in Iraqi Kurdistan by Turkish military forces. Although she was released after a period of detention, she was subsequently convicted on charge of “propaganda for a terrorist organisation”, in proceedings later criticised by UN experts as incompatible with international standards. 13. International human rights monitoring mechanisms has further highlighted the systemic nature of these practices. In its concluding observations adopted in November 2024, the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) expressed serious concern about persecution, harassment, intimidation, and reprisals against human rights defenders, journalists, lawyers, Kurdish activists, environmental defenders, opposition politicians, academics, and civil society members perceived as critical of the government. The Committee also raised alarm over the alleged use of arbitrary detention and politically motivated prosecutions to suppress dissent, noting that this climate of intimidation has forced some organisations to close or curtail their activities and has driven many individuals into self-censorship or self-imposed exile. CONVICTION OF ÖHD LAWYERS AND MEMBERS AND ACTIVISTS FROM TUAD 14. On 28 January 2026, the Istanbul 14th Heavy Penal Court delivered its judgment in a criminal case initiated in 2016 against lawyers affiliated with the ÖHD, members and staff of the TUAD. At the conclusion of nearly ten years of proceedings, the court convicted 30 lawyers and human rights defenders on terrorism-related and expression-based charges and imposed custodial sentences ranging from several months to multiple years of imprisonment. The convictions concerned 10 ÖHD lawyers and 20 TUAD members, while a limited number of co-defendants were acquitted15. Among the convicted lawyers were Adem Çalışçı, Ayşe Acinikli, Ayşe Gösterişlioğlu, Hüseyin Boğatekin, Ramazan Demir, Raziye Öztürk, Ruhşen Mahmutoğlu, Sinan Zincir, Şefik Çelik, and Tamer Doğan. The convictions were based on Article 314(2) of the TPC (“membership of an armed organisation”), Article 7(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Law (“propaganda”), and, in one instance, Article 299 of the TPC (“insult to the President”).13Custodial sentences imposed on the lawyers ranged from 1 year and 3 months to 7 years and 6 months, with several lawyers receiving multiple cumulative sentences under different provisions. The remaining convictions concerned TUAD members or those affiliated with the organisation. 16. The conduct relied upon by the prosecution and the trial court as evidence of criminal liability consisted of lawful professional and human rights activities. In the case of the ÖHD lawyers, this included prison visits, confidential communications with clients, legal correspondence, participation in court hearings, trial monitoring, public statements, and professional coordination with colleagues. In the case of TUAD members, the evidence related to activities such as documenting prison conditions, monitoring prisoners’ health - particularly during hunger strikes - issuing public statements on rights violations and providing support to prisoners’ families. None of these acts involved incitement to violence, coercion, or participation in unlawful conduct. 17. According to reports, the prosecution was built almost exclusively on unlawfully obtained surveillance material, including wiretapping and technical monitoring measures extended over prolonged periods in breach of procedural safeguards, as well as recordings obtained from within TUAD premises and during lawyer–client meetings in prisons. Defence requests to exclude this evidence were repeatedly rejected, notwithstanding that several of the surveillance authorisations had been issued by judges and prosecutors who were in connection with alleged links to the Gülen organisation. authorisations had been issued by judges and prosecutors who were in connection with alleged links to the Gülen organisation. 18. Throughout the trial, defence lawyers raised serious and persistent concerns regarding violations of fair trial guarantees. These included the reliance on intelligence material disconnected from any criminal act, the absence of an individualised assessment of each defendant’s conduct, the conflation of lawful association membership with criminal liability, and severe restrictions on the defence’s ability to effectively challenge evidence. The length of the proceedings, combined with the mechanical attribution of liability based on professional or associative ties, deprived the defendants of a genuine opportunity to contest the accusations against them. 19. The convictions of TUAD members and affiliates further raise grave concerns regarding the criminalisation of human rights defenders’ work. TUAD’s activities - focused on prison monitoring, prevention of ill-treatment, and advocacy for prisoners’ rights - fall directly within the protected sphere of human rights defence under international law. Prosecuting and sentencing individuals for such activities not only violates their individual rights to freedom of expression and association, but also undermines independent oversight of detention conditions, increasing the risk of torture and ill-treatment and weakening safeguards for some of the most vulnerable individuals in custody. 20. Taken together these violations take place within a broader context of weakened judicial safeguards, increasing executive influence over the courts, and restricted access to case files. The prosecution and conviction of ÖHD lawyers and TUAD members reflect a broader pattern of judicial harassment aimed at silencing lawyers and human rights defenders engaged in sensitive work, particularly in cases relating to Kurdish issue, detention, and allegations of state abuse. These practices have a profound chilling effect on the legal profession and civil society, deter lawyers from undertaking defence work in politically sensitive cases, and erode access to justice for detainees. They are incompatible with international standards governing the role and protection of lawyers and human rights defenders, as discussed in the section below. TURKEY’S OBLIGATION UNDER DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW A. Rights of Lawyers and Rule of Law 21. Under international and regional human rights law, the rights of lawyers - including their rights to liberty and security, freedom of expression and association, and the independent exercise of their profession - are protected by a coherent body of standards. These include the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (1990), paragraph 7 of UN Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2004/33, Recommendation No. (2000)21 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the freedom of exercise of the profession of lawyer, and, most recently, the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer. Taken together, these instruments recognise the legal profession as a cornerstone of the administration of justice and an indispensable safeguard for the rule of law. 22. The Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers affirm that lawyers are entitled to enjoy the rights and freedoms guaranteed under international human rights law insofar as they relate to their professional functions. Principle 16 obliges States to ensure that lawyers are able to perform their duties “without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference”, and without being subjected to sanctions or prosecution for actions taken in accordance with recognised professional duties and standards. Principle 23 further guarantees lawyers’ rights to freedom of expression, opinion, and association, including the right to participate in public debate on matters concerning the law, the administration of justice, and the promotion and protection of human rights, without suffering professional or criminal repercussions. 23. These guarantees are reinforced and developed at the regional level by the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer, which was adopted in response to increasing reports of harassment, criminalisation, and undue interference with lawyers’ professional activities in Council of Europe member States, including Türkiye. The Convention affirms States’ obligations to protect lawyers from identification with their clients or causes, to safeguard the confidentiality of lawyer–client communications, and to ensure that lawyers are not subjected to criminal, civil, or administrative sanctions for carrying out their professional duties in accordance with the law and professional standards. It further emphasises that attacks on the legal profession undermine access to justice and the effective protection of human rights. 24. The prosecution and conviction of ÖHD lawyers for routine professional activities - including client representation, prison visits, confidential communications, court monitoring, and public engagement on human rights issues - constitute a direct violation of these standards. By treating lawful legal work and expression as evidence of criminal liability, the authorities have interfered with lawyers’ freedom of expression and association, undermined their professional independence, and breached Articles 14 and 19 of the ICCPR, as well as Article 6 of the ECHR. Such measures not only punish individual lawyers but also deter others from undertaking defence work in politically sensitive cases, thereby denying current and future defendants’ effective access to legal representation. B. Protection of Human Rights Defenders and Legitimate Civil Society Activity 25. TUAD members and activists fall within the definition of human rights defenders, as their activities are directed at the protection of the rights of prisoners and their families, including through prison monitoring, documentation of detention conditions, public reporting, and advocacy aimed at preventing abuse and safeguarding human dignity. These activities are expressly protected under international human rights law, including the UN Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognised Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders”). 26. Article 9 of the Declaration affirms the right of everyone to “offer and provide professionally qualified legal assistance or other relevant advice and assistance in defending human rights and fundamental freedoms”, while Article 11 obliges States to ensure the right to the lawful exercise of one’s occupation or profession. Articles 5 and 6 further protect the rights of human rights defenders to form associations, to communicate with the public and international bodies, and to disseminate information on human rights issues. These guarantees are reinforced by Article 12 of the Declaration, which requires States to take all necessary measures to protect human rights defenders against intimidation, harassment, retaliation, and other arbitrary actions arising from their legitimate activities. They are further underpinned by Articles 19, 21, and 22 of the ICCPR and Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR which protect freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association. 27. The prosecution and conviction of TUAD members for activities such as documenting prison conditions, supporting prisoners’ families, issuing public statements, and advocating for prisoners’ rights therefore constitute a clear violation of Türkiye’s obligations under international law. Criminalising such conduct not only interferes with the individual rights of the defenders concerned but also undermines independent oversight of places of detention and weakens safeguards against abuse. These measures are incompatible with the State’s duty to create a safe and enabling environment in which human rights defenders can operate freely, without intimidation, harassment, or fear of criminal sanction. 28. Taken together, the prosecution and convictions of ÖHD lawyers and TUAD members reflect the misuse of counter-terrorism legislation to suppress lawful professional and human rights activities. This practice represents a serious breach of Türkiye’s international obligations, erodes the rule of law, and contributes to a climate in which legal defence and human rights work are treated as illegitimate or criminalised, rather than recognised as essential components of a democratic society. ACTIONS REQUESTED 29. In light of the above, we respectfully request that the Special Rapporteurs take the following urgent actions: (a) Call on the Turkish authorities to quash the convictions and sentences imposed on ÖHD lawyers and TUAD members and to ensure their immediate acquittal, including in respect of the lawyers Adem Çalışçı, Ayşe Acinikli, Ayşe Gösterişlioğlu, Hüseyin Boğatekin, Ramazan Demir, Raziye Öztürk, Ruhşen Mahmutoğlu, Sinan Zincir, Şefik Çelik, and Tamer Doğan; (b) Seek detailed information from the Government of Türkiye regarding the use of surveillance and intelligence evidence authorised by judicial officials who were later dismissed or convicted, and its compatibility with international fair trial standards, including safeguards relating to legality, necessity, proportionality, and effective judicial scrutiny; (c) Urge the authorities to end all forms of harassment, including judicial harassment, against the individuals concerned and against lawyers and human rights defenders more broadly, and to guarantee that they are able to carry out their professional and lawful activities freely, independently, and without intimidation or improper interference; (d) Raise, as a matter of priority, concerns regarding the criminalisation of legal defence work and prisoners’ rights advocacy, including through joint communications, given the cross-cutting implications for judicial independence, freedom of expression and association, and the protection of human rights defenders; (e) Call on the authorities to immediately cease the misuse of counter-terrorism legislation and related criminal provisions against lawyers and human rights defenders who expose, document, or challenge human rights violations, including those committed by security forces; (f) Urge Türkiye to take concrete measures, in law and in practice, to safeguard judicial independence, prevent undue interference with judges, prosecutors, and lawyers, and ensure compliance with binding judgments of the ECtHR; (g) Remind the Government of Türkiye of its binding international obligations, including under the ICCPR, the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, and relevant Council of Europe standards, and of its duty to ensure that criminal, administrative, or counter-terrorism measures are not used as tools of retaliation against lawyers and human rights defenders engaged in politically sensitive or human rights-related work. 30. We would be grateful to be informed of any action taken on this communication and of any response received from the Turkish authorities, and we kindly request acknowledgment of receipt of this submission. Signatories Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (Conseil des Barreaux Européens, CCBE) European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights (ELDH) Human Rights Association (İnsan Hakları Derneği, IHD) Human Rights Fundation of Turkey (Türkiye İnsan Hakları Vakfı, TİHV) International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), in the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders International Observatory of Lawyers at Risk (OIAD) Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada (LRWC) Rights Initiative Association (Hak İnsiyatifi Derneği) Social Policy, Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Association (SPoD) The Law Society of England and Wales (LSEW) Truth Justice Memory Center (Hakikat Adalet Hafıza Merkezi) World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), in the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders]]> https://observatoryfordefenders.org/fr/alert/china-released-tibetan-environmental-defender-anya-sengdra-subjected-to-ongoing-harassment/ Wed, 11 Mar 2026 13:45:51 +0000 https://observatoryfordefenders.org/?post_type=alert&p=24469 Paris-Geneva, 25 February 2026. Anya Sengdra, Tibetan nomad and prominent community leader from Gade County in the Tibetan region of Golog (Qinghai Province) was originally due for release on 3 September 2025. However, Chinese authorities failed to free him on that date and instead imposed a one-year extension of his sentence reportedly on the grounds of alleged “prison rule violations” for theft, without any official announcement or transparent judicial procedure. This unlawful extension constituted an arbitrary detention in total violation of international human rights, including the fundamental right to liberty and the right to a fair trial. On 6 December 2019, the Gade County Court sentenced Anya Sengdra to seven years’ imprisonment on charges of “provoking troubles, forming a mob to disturb public order, and other malicious acts” under Article 293 of China’s Criminal Law for his peaceful environmental and anti-corruption activities. Through the grassroots initiative “Mangdon Ling” (“Public Affairs Forum”), he campaigned against illegal mining, poaching of endangered species, and the misappropriation of public funds by local officials for relocated Tibetan nomads. In the early stages of his detention, Anya Sengdra was beaten by officers of the Gade County Public Security Bureau and denied access to legal counsel for 48 days. He was also subjected to years of restricted family visits. Deprived of adequate medical care, his health severely deteriorated in prison, leading to vision loss, kidney disease, and high blood pressure. Although he has now returned to his home in Gade County’s Kyangche Township, he remains prohibited from speaking publicly about his case, sharing images or information online, and seeking necessary medical treatment. The Observatory recalls that in August 2023, three United Nations Special Rapporteurs raised Anya Sengdra’s case in a press release, urging the Chinese government to clarify his whereabouts, the legal basis for his detention, and his health condition. They further urged Chinese authorities to provide him with adequate medical care and to allow visits from his family. The Observatory expresses serious concern over the ongoing restrictions on Anya Sengdra’s freedom of expression and access to healthcare, which amount to continued judicial harassment. The Observatory urges the Chinese authorities to immediately lift all restrictions imposed on Anya Sengdra, ensure his fundamental right to liberty, and guarantee prompt and unhindered access to adequate medical care. It further calls on the authorities to put an end to the criminalisation and harassment of Tibetan environmental rights defenders and ensure that they can carry out their legitimate and peaceful human rights activities without fear of reprisals. The Observatory expresses its full and unequivocal support for Tibetan human rights defenders.]]> Paris-Geneva, 25 February 2026. Anya Sengdra, Tibetan nomad and prominent community leader from Gade County in the Tibetan region of Golog (Qinghai Province) was originally due for release on 3 September 2025. However, Chinese authorities failed to free him on that date and instead imposed a one-year extension of his sentence reportedly on the grounds of alleged “prison rule violations” for theft, without any official announcement or transparent judicial procedure. This unlawful extension constituted an arbitrary detention in total violation of international human rights, including the fundamental right to liberty and the right to a fair trial. On 6 December 2019, the Gade County Court sentenced Anya Sengdra to seven years’ imprisonment on charges of “provoking troubles, forming a mob to disturb public order, and other malicious acts” under Article 293 of China’s Criminal Law for his peaceful environmental and anti-corruption activities. Through the grassroots initiative “Mangdon Ling” (“Public Affairs Forum”), he campaigned against illegal mining, poaching of endangered species, and the misappropriation of public funds by local officials for relocated Tibetan nomads. In the early stages of his detention, Anya Sengdra was beaten by officers of the Gade County Public Security Bureau and denied access to legal counsel for 48 days. He was also subjected to years of restricted family visits. Deprived of adequate medical care, his health severely deteriorated in prison, leading to vision loss, kidney disease, and high blood pressure. Although he has now returned to his home in Gade County’s Kyangche Township, he remains prohibited from speaking publicly about his case, sharing images or information online, and seeking necessary medical treatment. The Observatory recalls that in August 2023, three United Nations Special Rapporteurs raised Anya Sengdra’s case in a press release, urging the Chinese government to clarify his whereabouts, the legal basis for his detention, and his health condition. They further urged Chinese authorities to provide him with adequate medical care and to allow visits from his family. The Observatory expresses serious concern over the ongoing restrictions on Anya Sengdra’s freedom of expression and access to healthcare, which amount to continued judicial harassment. The Observatory urges the Chinese authorities to immediately lift all restrictions imposed on Anya Sengdra, ensure his fundamental right to liberty, and guarantee prompt and unhindered access to adequate medical care. It further calls on the authorities to put an end to the criminalisation and harassment of Tibetan environmental rights defenders and ensure that they can carry out their legitimate and peaceful human rights activities without fear of reprisals. The Observatory expresses its full and unequivocal support for Tibetan human rights defenders.]]> https://observatoryfordefenders.org/fr/alert/philippines-arbitrary-detention-of-edel-parducho-and-three-odena/ Wed, 11 Mar 2026 13:45:24 +0000 https://observatoryfordefenders.org/?post_type=alert&p=24476 Description of the situation: The Observatory has been informed about the arbitrary detention and judicial harassment of Mr Edel Parducho, Human Rights Education Officer at Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA), and Ms Three Odeña, a Samahan ng Progresibong Kabataan (SPARK) youth activist. PAHRA is a non-profit alliance of individuals, institutions, and organisations committed to the promotion, protection, and realisation of human rights in the Philippines, and is a member of FIDH and of the OMCT SOS-Torture network. SPARK is a national organisation of young student-leaders who fight against all forms of oppression and report on social issues, particularly those concerning the youth and marginalised sectors. On 25 February 2026, police officers from the Eastern Police District in Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila, arbitrarily arrested Edel Parducho and Three Odeña during a peaceful protest commemorating the 40th anniversary of the 1986 People Power Revolution on Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA) in Quezon City, Metro Manila. Edel Parducho was acting as a marshal standing between the protesters and the police, and protecting female participants. Several times, the police forcefully pushed the protesters so that they would take up less space on the streets. Edel Parducho was hit multiple times on the back of his head with a shield, and was dragged by the collar of his shirt by the police until he fell to the ground. Once he was on the ground, several officers pinned him down and handcuffed him. Mr Parducho did not resist and remained in a defensive position throughout the incident. Three Odeña was taking photographs when she was pulled by her hair and arrested. On the same day, the two human rights defenders were charged by the National Capital Region Police Office with “direct assault”, “resistance to authority”, “illegal assembly”, and “physical injury”, allegations that are contradicted by video documentation and eyewitness accounts. As of 15:30 (Manila time) on 27 February 2026, Edel Parducho and Three Odeña were still arbitrarily detained at the Mandaluyong City police station. The Observatory notes with concern that the arbitrary arrests of Edel Parducho and Three Odeña occur amid a precarious situation for human rights defenders in the Philippines, who remain at risk of arbitrary detention, criminalisation, harassment, attacks, and, in some cases, killing. In addition, the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), which was passed in July 2020, further compounded the precarious situation for human rights defenders by legally institutionalising the practice of “red-tagging” defenders with overly broad and vague definitions of terrorism. The Observatory strongly condemns the arbitrary detention of Edel Parducho and Three Odeña, which seems to be only aimed at punishing them for their legitimate human rights activities. The Observatory urges the authorities in the Philippines to immediately and unconditionally release Edel Parducho and Three Odeña, drop all unfounded charges against them and put an end to all acts of harassment against them and all human rights defenders in the country. The Observatory further calls on the authorities in the Philippines to guarantee, in all circumstances, the rights to freedom of expression and of peaceful assembly, as enshrined in international human rights law, and in particular in Articles 19 and 21 of the Internation Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which the Philippines has ratified.]]> Description of the situation: The Observatory has been informed about the arbitrary detention and judicial harassment of Mr Edel Parducho, Human Rights Education Officer at Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA), and Ms Three Odeña, a Samahan ng Progresibong Kabataan (SPARK) youth activist. PAHRA is a non-profit alliance of individuals, institutions, and organisations committed to the promotion, protection, and realisation of human rights in the Philippines, and is a member of FIDH and of the OMCT SOS-Torture network. SPARK is a national organisation of young student-leaders who fight against all forms of oppression and report on social issues, particularly those concerning the youth and marginalised sectors. On 25 February 2026, police officers from the Eastern Police District in Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila, arbitrarily arrested Edel Parducho and Three Odeña during a peaceful protest commemorating the 40th anniversary of the 1986 People Power Revolution on Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA) in Quezon City, Metro Manila. Edel Parducho was acting as a marshal standing between the protesters and the police, and protecting female participants. Several times, the police forcefully pushed the protesters so that they would take up less space on the streets. Edel Parducho was hit multiple times on the back of his head with a shield, and was dragged by the collar of his shirt by the police until he fell to the ground. Once he was on the ground, several officers pinned him down and handcuffed him. Mr Parducho did not resist and remained in a defensive position throughout the incident. Three Odeña was taking photographs when she was pulled by her hair and arrested. On the same day, the two human rights defenders were charged by the National Capital Region Police Office with “direct assault”, “resistance to authority”, “illegal assembly”, and “physical injury”, allegations that are contradicted by video documentation and eyewitness accounts. As of 15:30 (Manila time) on 27 February 2026, Edel Parducho and Three Odeña were still arbitrarily detained at the Mandaluyong City police station. The Observatory notes with concern that the arbitrary arrests of Edel Parducho and Three Odeña occur amid a precarious situation for human rights defenders in the Philippines, who remain at risk of arbitrary detention, criminalisation, harassment, attacks, and, in some cases, killing. In addition, the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), which was passed in July 2020, further compounded the precarious situation for human rights defenders by legally institutionalising the practice of “red-tagging” defenders with overly broad and vague definitions of terrorism. The Observatory strongly condemns the arbitrary detention of Edel Parducho and Three Odeña, which seems to be only aimed at punishing them for their legitimate human rights activities. The Observatory urges the authorities in the Philippines to immediately and unconditionally release Edel Parducho and Three Odeña, drop all unfounded charges against them and put an end to all acts of harassment against them and all human rights defenders in the country. The Observatory further calls on the authorities in the Philippines to guarantee, in all circumstances, the rights to freedom of expression and of peaceful assembly, as enshrined in international human rights law, and in particular in Articles 19 and 21 of the Internation Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which the Philippines has ratified.]]> https://observatoryfordefenders.org/fr/alert/kenya-denial-of-entry-detention-and-deportation-of-zimbabwean-human-rights-defender-mr-brian-kagoro/ Wed, 11 Mar 2026 13:44:54 +0000 https://observatoryfordefenders.org/?post_type=alert&p=24482 Description of the situation: The Observatory has been informed about the denial of entry, detention and deportation from Kenya of Mr Brian Kagoro, Zimbabwean human rights defender, constitutional lawyer, and Africa Director of the Open Society Foundations (OSF). Mr Brian Kagoro has long engaged in African human rights and governance initiatives. On 22 February 2026, Kenyan security authorities denied Mr Brian Kagoro entry into Kenya upon his arrival at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport in Nairobi. Officers from the National Intelligence Service held him at the airport for more than 10 hours and questioned him on the basis of allegations made by the Kenyan authorities that he had been involved in financing and coordinating protest activities in Kenya. During this period, authorities denied him access to a lawyer and prevented him from contacting his family or colleagues. Mr Kagoro rejects all the allegations and as an illustration of the false nature of these accusations, the authorities did not present any formal charges or any material evidence. Following his detention, immigration officials issued a removal order authorising the air carrier to return him to Johannesburg, South Africa, from where he had travelled. The removal order reportedly cited Section 54 of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act of 2011, which relates to documentation-related offences, without any written explanation clarifying the factual basis. At the time of publication of this urgent appeal, Kenyan authorities have not formally issued any public information to explain the circumstances that led to their actions, nor have they announced any criminal charges against Mr Kagoro. The Observatory recalls that his deportation from the country ended a two-decade presence in Nairobi, where Mr Kagoro had established professional, academic and civic activities since the mid-2000s, when Nairobi consolidated its position as a regional hub for governance initiatives. This incident follows increased scrutiny by Kenyan authorities of civic actors and alleged foreign involvement in protest movements, particularly after the 2024 nationwide demonstrations against the Finance Bill. Indeed, Mr Kagoro’s deportation is not an isolated case, as the Observatory has already expressed concern about the deportation of Mr Martin Mavenjina, a senior legal advisor at the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC), on 5 July 2025 for similar reasons. As another illustration, Kenya has been added to the CIVICUS Monitor Watchlistdue to the escalation of repression of civic freedoms. These developments raise serious worries regarding the protection of civic space in Kenya and the ability of human rights defenders and civil society actors to operate without interference. The Observatory further recalls that Kenya must comply with its obligations under international and regional human rights law, including the rights to liberty, freedom of movement, freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, as enshrined in Articles 9, 12, 19, 21 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as in Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR). Moreover, Article 47 of the Kenyan Constitution guarantees the right to fair administrative action, including the right to written reasons where rights are adversely affected. The Observatory considers that these administrative measures and patterns of harassment prevent human rights defenders from delivering public interventions or engaging in governance-related initiatives and undermine the democratic participation and respect of human rights in the country. The Observatory is extremely concerned about the absence of written reasons, the lack of formal charges, and the reliance on unsubstantiated allegations which raise serious concerns regarding due process guarantees and the principle of legality. Therefore, the Observatory strongly condemns the denial of entry, detention and deportation of Mr Brian Kagoro, which appear to be solely aimed at preventing him from engaging in legitimate human rights activities and interacting with civil society actors in Kenya. Actions requested: Please write to the authorities of Kenya asking them to: Guarantee in all circumstances the physical integrity and psychological well-being of Mr Brian Kagoro and all human rights defenders in Kenya; Provide a full, official, transparent and legally reasoned explanation of the legal and factual basis for denying Mr Brian Kagoro entry, detaining him and deporting him from Kenya; Ensure that all measures taken in relation to Mr Kagoro fully comply with Kenya’s obligations under the Constitution, the ICCPR and the ACHPR, including the rights to liberty, freedom of movement, freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, and the right to fair administrative action; Guarantee in all circumstances that human rights defenders, including foreign nationals engaging in legitimate civic activities, can carry out their work without arbitrary interference, harassment, intimidation, restrictions or reprisals.]]> Description of the situation: The Observatory has been informed about the denial of entry, detention and deportation from Kenya of Mr Brian Kagoro, Zimbabwean human rights defender, constitutional lawyer, and Africa Director of the Open Society Foundations (OSF). Mr Brian Kagoro has long engaged in African human rights and governance initiatives. On 22 February 2026, Kenyan security authorities denied Mr Brian Kagoro entry into Kenya upon his arrival at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport in Nairobi. Officers from the National Intelligence Service held him at the airport for more than 10 hours and questioned him on the basis of allegations made by the Kenyan authorities that he had been involved in financing and coordinating protest activities in Kenya. During this period, authorities denied him access to a lawyer and prevented him from contacting his family or colleagues. Mr Kagoro rejects all the allegations and as an illustration of the false nature of these accusations, the authorities did not present any formal charges or any material evidence. Following his detention, immigration officials issued a removal order authorising the air carrier to return him to Johannesburg, South Africa, from where he had travelled. The removal order reportedly cited Section 54 of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act of 2011, which relates to documentation-related offences, without any written explanation clarifying the factual basis. At the time of publication of this urgent appeal, Kenyan authorities have not formally issued any public information to explain the circumstances that led to their actions, nor have they announced any criminal charges against Mr Kagoro. The Observatory recalls that his deportation from the country ended a two-decade presence in Nairobi, where Mr Kagoro had established professional, academic and civic activities since the mid-2000s, when Nairobi consolidated its position as a regional hub for governance initiatives. This incident follows increased scrutiny by Kenyan authorities of civic actors and alleged foreign involvement in protest movements, particularly after the 2024 nationwide demonstrations against the Finance Bill. Indeed, Mr Kagoro’s deportation is not an isolated case, as the Observatory has already expressed concern about the deportation of Mr Martin Mavenjina, a senior legal advisor at the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC), on 5 July 2025 for similar reasons. As another illustration, Kenya has been added to the CIVICUS Monitor Watchlistdue to the escalation of repression of civic freedoms. These developments raise serious worries regarding the protection of civic space in Kenya and the ability of human rights defenders and civil society actors to operate without interference. The Observatory further recalls that Kenya must comply with its obligations under international and regional human rights law, including the rights to liberty, freedom of movement, freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, as enshrined in Articles 9, 12, 19, 21 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as in Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR). Moreover, Article 47 of the Kenyan Constitution guarantees the right to fair administrative action, including the right to written reasons where rights are adversely affected. The Observatory considers that these administrative measures and patterns of harassment prevent human rights defenders from delivering public interventions or engaging in governance-related initiatives and undermine the democratic participation and respect of human rights in the country. The Observatory is extremely concerned about the absence of written reasons, the lack of formal charges, and the reliance on unsubstantiated allegations which raise serious concerns regarding due process guarantees and the principle of legality. Therefore, the Observatory strongly condemns the denial of entry, detention and deportation of Mr Brian Kagoro, which appear to be solely aimed at preventing him from engaging in legitimate human rights activities and interacting with civil society actors in Kenya. Actions requested: Please write to the authorities of Kenya asking them to: Guarantee in all circumstances the physical integrity and psychological well-being of Mr Brian Kagoro and all human rights defenders in Kenya; Provide a full, official, transparent and legally reasoned explanation of the legal and factual basis for denying Mr Brian Kagoro entry, detaining him and deporting him from Kenya; Ensure that all measures taken in relation to Mr Kagoro fully comply with Kenya’s obligations under the Constitution, the ICCPR and the ACHPR, including the rights to liberty, freedom of movement, freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, and the right to fair administrative action; Guarantee in all circumstances that human rights defenders, including foreign nationals engaging in legitimate civic activities, can carry out their work without arbitrary interference, harassment, intimidation, restrictions or reprisals.]]>