State actors – The Observatory For Defenders https://observatoryfordefenders.org Thu, 23 Jul 2026 15:55:15 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0.2 https://observatoryfordefenders.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/cropped-OB-eye-orange-32x32.png State actors – The Observatory For Defenders https://observatoryfordefenders.org 32 32 Azerbaijan : Serious concerns over the ill-treatment of five women journalists detained in politically motivated cases https://observatoryfordefenders.org/alert/azerbaijan-serious-concerns-over-the-ill-treatment-of-five-women-journalists-detained-in-politically-motivated-cases/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 15:55:15 +0000 https://observatoryfordefenders.org/?post_type=alert&p=24996 23 July 2026 - The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders (OMCT-FIDH) and the undersigned organisations express their serious concern over credible reports of ill-treatment, intimidation and the denial of adequate medical care affecting five Azerbaijani journalists: Aytaj Ahmadova (Tapdig), Ulviyya (Ali) Guliyeva, Aysel Umudova, Khayala Aghayeva and Nargiz Absalamova. Four of the journalists remain arbitrarily detained in connection with the so-called "Meydan TV case", while Nargiz Absalamova is serving an eight-year prison sentence in connection with the "Abzas Media case". These allegations of physical violence, threats of sexual violence, intimidation against detained journalists, together with the continued impunity of those responsible and the denial of essential medical treatment, raise serious concerns about Azerbaijan's compliance with its obligations under domestic and international human rights law. According to the information received, on 18 February 2026, at approximately 12:00 p.m., a search was conducted in the cell of detained journalists Aysel Umudova, Khayala Aghayeva and Aytaj Ahmadova at the Baku Pre-Trial Detention Facility under the supervision of the facility's deputy head, Javid Gulaliyev. The journalists maintain that the operation was not a routine security measure but was carried out in retaliation for their protest during their hearing before the Baku Grave Crimes Court on 13 February 2026, where they objected to being held inside a glass cage. The journalists reported that, although they had been informed that the search of a women's cell would be carried out exclusively by female officers, male detention officers also participated in the search. The situation escalated after the journalists objected to the manual inspection of their personal belongings. According to their testimonies, an officer forcibly opened the toilet door despite Aysel Umudova requesting one minute to use the bathroom. She was immediately ordered out and subjected to a personal search. Meanwhile, Aytaj Ahmadova and Khayala Aghayeva were allegedly verbally abused, had their arms twisted behind their backs, and were forcibly removed from the cell while being pushed forward with their heads bent down. While Aytaj Ahmadova was reportedly taken to the exercise yard, Khayala Aghayeva was taken to another room. Both journalists reportedly sustained injuries during the incident. The journalists further reported that they were subjected to physical violence, humiliation and psychological abuse in an operation that involved more than twenty detention officers. According to the testimony of the journalists, when they protested against the use of force by the detention officers, Deputy Head of the Baku Pre-Trial Facility Javid Gulaliyev placed his hand across his throat and stated: "I am up to my throat in blood; this is how it should be." They also reported being subjected to repeated verbal abuse throughout the operation. Of particular concern are allegations that during the incident Mr. Gulaliyev made a sexually explicit remark, stating, "My seeds are everywhere," which the journalists understood as a threat of sexual harassment. The incident reportedly took place in a corridor covered by surveillance cameras and in the presence of numerous detention officers. Rather than ensuring an effective investigation, the authorities allegedly subjected the journalists to further intimidation. On 26 February 2026, head of the facility Elnur Ismayilov reportedly summoned Aysel Umudova, Khayala Aghayeva and Aytaj Ahmadova to the facility's medical unit and warned them to "be careful about your statements, your writings and your words," adding that otherwise a new criminal case would be initiated against them. The three journalists subsequently informed the trial court that they had been subjected to violence inside the Baku Pre-Trial Detention Facility and expressed fears for their safety. They also submitted formal complaints to the Prosecutor General's Office, requesting that the surveillance camera footage be secured and examined as evidence. Although the complaints were transferred to the Sabunchu District Prosecutor's Office, the journalists' statements were reportedly not taken until six weeks later. At the time of publication of this statement, no effective investigative decision has been taken. Furthermore, in a written response dated 27 March 2026, the Penitentiary Service summarily rejected the allegations, stating that "no unlawful actions had occurred and that the detainees had not been subjected to pressure or torture," without indicating that any prompt, impartial or effective investigation had been conducted. The Observatory recalls that between December 2024 and August 2025, Azerbaijani authorities arrested at least 11 journalists, including Ms. Ahmadova, Ms. Guliyeva, Ms. Umudova, and Ms. Aghayeva, from the exiled independent media outlet Meydan TV, who are currently standing trial before the Baku Grave Crimes Court on multiple criminal charges widely regarded as politically motivated and aimed at suppressing independent media in Azerbaijan. Their case is emblematic of Azerbaijan's sweeping crackdown on independent journalism. The Observatory is further deeply concerned by the continuing deterioration of Aytaj Ahmadova's and Ulviyya (Ali) Guliyeva’s health in detention. According to the information received, Aytaj Ahmadova suffers from a deviated nasal septum and chronic breathing difficulties, which have significantly worsened during her prolonged detention. During approximately nineteen months in custody, she has reportedly relied on approximately 80 bottles of nasal spray simply to breathe. Ahmadova remains confined almost continuously inside a small cell at the Baku Pre-Trial Detention Facility, where the high humidity inside the facility reportedly further aggravates her respiratory condition. Despite the seriousness of her condition, the authorities have  refused to provide her with access to an ear, nose and throat (ENT) specialist or to arrange the necessary specialist examinations and diagnostic imaging (MRI and CT) required to diagnose and treat her condition. Her lawyer submitted a written request to the Main Medical Department of the Ministry of Justice, requesting specialist examinations and diagnostic procedures. However, no written response has reportedly been provided. Instead, the chief doctor reportedly informed her that the Ministry of Justice had no ENT specialist. As a result, Aytaj Ahmadova continues to be denied access to specialist medical care despite her ongoing health condition. The Observatory is further concerned about the deteriorating health of detained journalist and human rights defender Ulviyya (Ali) Guliyeva and the authorities' continued failure to ensure access to essential diagnostic examinations and specialist medical care. Guliyeva suffers from several chronic health conditions, including a previously diagnosed pituitary microadenoma requiring annual diagnostic imaging (MRI and CT). Since February 2026, her lawyer has repeatedly requested permission for diagnostic imaging (MRI and CT) at a private medical facility, as the necessary equipment is unavailable within the penitentiary system, but the authorities have failed to grant these requests despite such examinations being guaranteed under domestic laws. Furthermore, on 7 July 2026, Guliyeva reported abnormal uterine bleeding, requiring an urgent gynaecological examination upon the recommendation of her private physician, including an ultrasound, at a private medical facility. At the time of publication of this statement, no medical support has been provided to Guliyeva. The Observatory is also concerned about the health of detained journalist Nargiz Absalamova, who is currently serving an eight-year prison sentence in connection with the Abzas Media case. Abzas Media is an independent anti-corruption outlet whose six representatives were arrested from November 2023 on widely regarded as fabricated smuggling-related charges, sentenced in June 2025 to up to nine years' imprisonment. All journalists in this case have also reported ill-treatment, inadequate food and medical care, and violence in detention. According to information received, Nargiz Absalamova  has been requesting access to an MRI examination for over six months without success. She has suffered from chronic sinusitis since adolescence and requires further medical examination and treatment due to persistent breathing difficulties and severe headaches. Her condition has also significantly deteriorated following her transfer to the Lankaran Penitentiary Complex, forcing her to rely on nasal decongestant medication (Naphthyzin) every two hours during the night in order to breathe. Although she was examined by an ENT specialist on 26 May 2026, she was reportedly prescribed only symptomatic medication and was not referred for the requested MRI examination. According to the available information, complaints concerning her medical situation have been submitted to the Penitentiary Service and the Commissioner for Human Rights (Ombudsperson) of the Republic of Azerbaijan; however, no response has reportedly been received to date. The reported physical violence, including sexual harassment, gender–based violence and intimidation against Aysel Umudova, Khayala Aghayeva and Aytaj Ahmadova, together with the authorities' failure to conduct a prompt, impartial and effective investigation, raise serious concerns under Azerbaijan's obligations to prevent and investigate torture and other forms of ill-treatment. The continued refusal to provide Aytaj Ahmadova and Ulviyya (Ali) Guliyeva and Nargiz Absalamova with timely and adequate specialist medical care further raises concerns under the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and the State's obligation to safeguard the health of persons deprived of their liberty. Taken together, these allegations appear to reflect a broader pattern of intimidation and punitive treatment of independent journalists detained in connection with politically motivated criminal proceedings. These allegations suggest that, despite the Observatory's statement of 5 February 2026 concerning the sexual harassment of Aysel Umudova and the torture and rape threats against Ulviyya (Ali) Guliyeva, the Azerbaijani authorities have failed to ensure an impartial and effective investigation and prevent similar abuses or hold those responsible accountable. Instead, reports indicate that violence, threats of sexual violence and intimidation against detained women journalists continue with apparent impunity. The Observatory strongly condemns these acts of ill-treatment, intimidation and denial of adequate medical care, which appear to be aimed solely at punishing the journalists for their legitimate work and silencing independent media in Azerbaijan. The signatory organisations call on the authorities of Azerbaijan to:
  • Immediately conduct a prompt, independent, impartial and effective investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment, threats of sexual violence and intimidation against Aysel Umudova, Khayala Aghayeva, Aytaj Ahmadova, and ensure that all those responsible are held accountable;
  • Ensure that Aytaj Ahmadova is immediately examined by an independent ENT specialist, undergoes all medically necessary MRI and CT examinations, and receives all necessary treatment without delay including at a private medical facility;
  • Ensure that Ulviyya (Ali) Guliyeva  receives immediate permission to be examined by an independent medical specialist and, undergoes all medically necessary MRI, CT and gynaecological examinations at a private facility and receives all necessary treatment without delay in line with her lawyer’s request;
  • Ensure that Nargiz Absalamova is promptly provided with the medically necessary MRI examination, examined by independent medical specialists, and receives all necessary treatment without delay, including, where necessary, at a private medical facility.
  • Immediately and unconditionally release Aysel Umudova, Khayala Aghayeva, Aytaj Ahmadova, Ulviyya (Ali) Guliyeva, Nargiz Absalamova and all other journalists and human rights defenders arbitrarily detained in connection with politically motivated criminal proceedings and drop all charges against them.
The signatory organisations also urge the international community, including the Council of Europe, the European Union, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and relevant United Nations bodies and Special Procedures, to:
  • Publicly condemn the reported ill-treatment, threats of sexual violence and denial of medical care against the arbitrarily detained journalists and HRDs;
  • Raise their cases at the highest political levels with the Azerbaijani authorities;
  • Closely monitor the criminal proceedings, detention conditions and health situation of the detained journalists;
  • Ensure that any enhanced cooperation with Azerbaijan is conditioned on concrete and measurable progress in preventing torture, ensuring accountability for ill-treatment and sexual violence, guaranteeing access to adequate medical care, and ending the persecution of independent journalists and all political prisoners.
]]> 23 July 2026 - The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders (OMCT-FIDH) and the undersigned organisations express their serious concern over credible reports of ill-treatment, intimidation and the denial of adequate medical care affecting five Azerbaijani journalists: Aytaj Ahmadova (Tapdig), Ulviyya (Ali) Guliyeva, Aysel Umudova, Khayala Aghayeva and Nargiz Absalamova. Four of the journalists remain arbitrarily detained in connection with the so-called "Meydan TV case", while Nargiz Absalamova is serving an eight-year prison sentence in connection with the "Abzas Media case". These allegations of physical violence, threats of sexual violence, intimidation against detained journalists, together with the continued impunity of those responsible and the denial of essential medical treatment, raise serious concerns about Azerbaijan's compliance with its obligations under domestic and international human rights law. According to the information received, on 18 February 2026, at approximately 12:00 p.m., a search was conducted in the cell of detained journalists Aysel Umudova, Khayala Aghayeva and Aytaj Ahmadova at the Baku Pre-Trial Detention Facility under the supervision of the facility's deputy head, Javid Gulaliyev. The journalists maintain that the operation was not a routine security measure but was carried out in retaliation for their protest during their hearing before the Baku Grave Crimes Court on 13 February 2026, where they objected to being held inside a glass cage. The journalists reported that, although they had been informed that the search of a women's cell would be carried out exclusively by female officers, male detention officers also participated in the search. The situation escalated after the journalists objected to the manual inspection of their personal belongings. According to their testimonies, an officer forcibly opened the toilet door despite Aysel Umudova requesting one minute to use the bathroom. She was immediately ordered out and subjected to a personal search. Meanwhile, Aytaj Ahmadova and Khayala Aghayeva were allegedly verbally abused, had their arms twisted behind their backs, and were forcibly removed from the cell while being pushed forward with their heads bent down. While Aytaj Ahmadova was reportedly taken to the exercise yard, Khayala Aghayeva was taken to another room. Both journalists reportedly sustained injuries during the incident. The journalists further reported that they were subjected to physical violence, humiliation and psychological abuse in an operation that involved more than twenty detention officers. According to the testimony of the journalists, when they protested against the use of force by the detention officers, Deputy Head of the Baku Pre-Trial Facility Javid Gulaliyev placed his hand across his throat and stated: "I am up to my throat in blood; this is how it should be." They also reported being subjected to repeated verbal abuse throughout the operation. Of particular concern are allegations that during the incident Mr. Gulaliyev made a sexually explicit remark, stating, "My seeds are everywhere," which the journalists understood as a threat of sexual harassment. The incident reportedly took place in a corridor covered by surveillance cameras and in the presence of numerous detention officers. Rather than ensuring an effective investigation, the authorities allegedly subjected the journalists to further intimidation. On 26 February 2026, head of the facility Elnur Ismayilov reportedly summoned Aysel Umudova, Khayala Aghayeva and Aytaj Ahmadova to the facility's medical unit and warned them to "be careful about your statements, your writings and your words," adding that otherwise a new criminal case would be initiated against them. The three journalists subsequently informed the trial court that they had been subjected to violence inside the Baku Pre-Trial Detention Facility and expressed fears for their safety. They also submitted formal complaints to the Prosecutor General's Office, requesting that the surveillance camera footage be secured and examined as evidence. Although the complaints were transferred to the Sabunchu District Prosecutor's Office, the journalists' statements were reportedly not taken until six weeks later. At the time of publication of this statement, no effective investigative decision has been taken. Furthermore, in a written response dated 27 March 2026, the Penitentiary Service summarily rejected the allegations, stating that "no unlawful actions had occurred and that the detainees had not been subjected to pressure or torture," without indicating that any prompt, impartial or effective investigation had been conducted. The Observatory recalls that between December 2024 and August 2025, Azerbaijani authorities arrested at least 11 journalists, including Ms. Ahmadova, Ms. Guliyeva, Ms. Umudova, and Ms. Aghayeva, from the exiled independent media outlet Meydan TV, who are currently standing trial before the Baku Grave Crimes Court on multiple criminal charges widely regarded as politically motivated and aimed at suppressing independent media in Azerbaijan. Their case is emblematic of Azerbaijan's sweeping crackdown on independent journalism. The Observatory is further deeply concerned by the continuing deterioration of Aytaj Ahmadova's and Ulviyya (Ali) Guliyeva’s health in detention. According to the information received, Aytaj Ahmadova suffers from a deviated nasal septum and chronic breathing difficulties, which have significantly worsened during her prolonged detention. During approximately nineteen months in custody, she has reportedly relied on approximately 80 bottles of nasal spray simply to breathe. Ahmadova remains confined almost continuously inside a small cell at the Baku Pre-Trial Detention Facility, where the high humidity inside the facility reportedly further aggravates her respiratory condition. Despite the seriousness of her condition, the authorities have  refused to provide her with access to an ear, nose and throat (ENT) specialist or to arrange the necessary specialist examinations and diagnostic imaging (MRI and CT) required to diagnose and treat her condition. Her lawyer submitted a written request to the Main Medical Department of the Ministry of Justice, requesting specialist examinations and diagnostic procedures. However, no written response has reportedly been provided. Instead, the chief doctor reportedly informed her that the Ministry of Justice had no ENT specialist. As a result, Aytaj Ahmadova continues to be denied access to specialist medical care despite her ongoing health condition. The Observatory is further concerned about the deteriorating health of detained journalist and human rights defender Ulviyya (Ali) Guliyeva and the authorities' continued failure to ensure access to essential diagnostic examinations and specialist medical care. Guliyeva suffers from several chronic health conditions, including a previously diagnosed pituitary microadenoma requiring annual diagnostic imaging (MRI and CT). Since February 2026, her lawyer has repeatedly requested permission for diagnostic imaging (MRI and CT) at a private medical facility, as the necessary equipment is unavailable within the penitentiary system, but the authorities have failed to grant these requests despite such examinations being guaranteed under domestic laws. Furthermore, on 7 July 2026, Guliyeva reported abnormal uterine bleeding, requiring an urgent gynaecological examination upon the recommendation of her private physician, including an ultrasound, at a private medical facility. At the time of publication of this statement, no medical support has been provided to Guliyeva. The Observatory is also concerned about the health of detained journalist Nargiz Absalamova, who is currently serving an eight-year prison sentence in connection with the Abzas Media case. Abzas Media is an independent anti-corruption outlet whose six representatives were arrested from November 2023 on widely regarded as fabricated smuggling-related charges, sentenced in June 2025 to up to nine years' imprisonment. All journalists in this case have also reported ill-treatment, inadequate food and medical care, and violence in detention. According to information received, Nargiz Absalamova  has been requesting access to an MRI examination for over six months without success. She has suffered from chronic sinusitis since adolescence and requires further medical examination and treatment due to persistent breathing difficulties and severe headaches. Her condition has also significantly deteriorated following her transfer to the Lankaran Penitentiary Complex, forcing her to rely on nasal decongestant medication (Naphthyzin) every two hours during the night in order to breathe. Although she was examined by an ENT specialist on 26 May 2026, she was reportedly prescribed only symptomatic medication and was not referred for the requested MRI examination. According to the available information, complaints concerning her medical situation have been submitted to the Penitentiary Service and the Commissioner for Human Rights (Ombudsperson) of the Republic of Azerbaijan; however, no response has reportedly been received to date. The reported physical violence, including sexual harassment, gender–based violence and intimidation against Aysel Umudova, Khayala Aghayeva and Aytaj Ahmadova, together with the authorities' failure to conduct a prompt, impartial and effective investigation, raise serious concerns under Azerbaijan's obligations to prevent and investigate torture and other forms of ill-treatment. The continued refusal to provide Aytaj Ahmadova and Ulviyya (Ali) Guliyeva and Nargiz Absalamova with timely and adequate specialist medical care further raises concerns under the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and the State's obligation to safeguard the health of persons deprived of their liberty. Taken together, these allegations appear to reflect a broader pattern of intimidation and punitive treatment of independent journalists detained in connection with politically motivated criminal proceedings. These allegations suggest that, despite the Observatory's statement of 5 February 2026 concerning the sexual harassment of Aysel Umudova and the torture and rape threats against Ulviyya (Ali) Guliyeva, the Azerbaijani authorities have failed to ensure an impartial and effective investigation and prevent similar abuses or hold those responsible accountable. Instead, reports indicate that violence, threats of sexual violence and intimidation against detained women journalists continue with apparent impunity. The Observatory strongly condemns these acts of ill-treatment, intimidation and denial of adequate medical care, which appear to be aimed solely at punishing the journalists for their legitimate work and silencing independent media in Azerbaijan. The signatory organisations call on the authorities of Azerbaijan to:
  • Immediately conduct a prompt, independent, impartial and effective investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment, threats of sexual violence and intimidation against Aysel Umudova, Khayala Aghayeva, Aytaj Ahmadova, and ensure that all those responsible are held accountable;
  • Ensure that Aytaj Ahmadova is immediately examined by an independent ENT specialist, undergoes all medically necessary MRI and CT examinations, and receives all necessary treatment without delay including at a private medical facility;
  • Ensure that Ulviyya (Ali) Guliyeva  receives immediate permission to be examined by an independent medical specialist and, undergoes all medically necessary MRI, CT and gynaecological examinations at a private facility and receives all necessary treatment without delay in line with her lawyer’s request;
  • Ensure that Nargiz Absalamova is promptly provided with the medically necessary MRI examination, examined by independent medical specialists, and receives all necessary treatment without delay, including, where necessary, at a private medical facility.
  • Immediately and unconditionally release Aysel Umudova, Khayala Aghayeva, Aytaj Ahmadova, Ulviyya (Ali) Guliyeva, Nargiz Absalamova and all other journalists and human rights defenders arbitrarily detained in connection with politically motivated criminal proceedings and drop all charges against them.
The signatory organisations also urge the international community, including the Council of Europe, the European Union, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and relevant United Nations bodies and Special Procedures, to:
  • Publicly condemn the reported ill-treatment, threats of sexual violence and denial of medical care against the arbitrarily detained journalists and HRDs;
  • Raise their cases at the highest political levels with the Azerbaijani authorities;
  • Closely monitor the criminal proceedings, detention conditions and health situation of the detained journalists;
  • Ensure that any enhanced cooperation with Azerbaijan is conditioned on concrete and measurable progress in preventing torture, ensuring accountability for ill-treatment and sexual violence, guaranteeing access to adequate medical care, and ending the persecution of independent journalists and all political prisoners.
]]> Georgia/Azerbaijan: Arbitrary detention of journalist Afgan Sadigov in Azerbaijan following his arbitrary arrest and expulsion from Georgia https://observatoryfordefenders.org/alert/https-www-omct-org-en-resources-urgent-interventions-georgia-azerbaijan-arbitrary-detention-of-journalist-afgan-sadigov-in-azerbaijan-following-his-arbitrary-arrest-and-expulsion-from-georgia/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 14:54:17 +0000 https://observatoryfordefenders.org/?post_type=alert&p=24991 GEO 002 / 0726 / OBS 36 Arbitrary arrest / Arbitrary detention / Transnational repression / Restrictions to freedom of expression Georgia/Azerbaijan 23 July 2026 The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, a partnership of the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), requests your urgent intervention in the following situation in Azerbaijan and Georgia. Description of the situation: The Observatory has been informed about the arbitrary arrest and detention of Mr Afgan Sadigov in Azerbaijan, following his previous arbitrary arrest and expulsion from Georgia to Azerbaijan in April 2026. Mr Afgan Sadigov is the founder and editor of the regional online media platform Azel.tv, known for its critical reporting on the Azerbaijani government. Azel.tv’s YouTube channel features video reports on local corruption, government misconduct, and citizens’ grievances regarding social injustice. On 8 June 2026, Mr Sadigov’s wife, Sevinch Sadigova, stated that her husband had been detained by several masked persons dressed in civilian clothes in Azerbaijan. On the same day, Mr Sadigov’s lawyer reported that Mr Sadigov had been taken to the Prosecutor’s Office of Azerbaijan, and that he had been presented to a court hearing, at which he was ordered to stay in pre-trial detention until 30 July 2026. This arbitrary arrest and detention of Mr Sadigov in Azerbaijan followed his arbitrary arrest and expulsion from Georgia to Azerbaijan on 4 April 2026, after nearly two years of judicial and administrative proceedings in both countries. In August 2023, Mr Sadigov was accused of extorsion under Articles 182.2.2 and 182.2.4 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan. On 3 August 2024, Georgian law enforcement officers first detained Mr Sadigov for the purpose of extradition to Azerbaijan. Despite no concrete evidence against Mr Sadigov, Georgian courts accepted Azerbaijan’s request to expel Mr Sadigov and proceeded to allow his extradition. In January 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued binding interim measures prohibiting Mr Sadigov’s expulsion to Azerbaijan, where he was facing criminal proceedings (see below). On 1 April 2026, the Prosecutor’s Office of Azerbaijan declared this criminal investigation to be officially terminated and informed Georgian authorities about their decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings against Mr Sadigov, which was followed by an order by the Georgian Ministry of Justice to terminate the expulsion procedures. On that basis, the Georgian government argued that Mr Sadigov was no longer at risk of transfer to Azerbaijan and that there was therefore insufficient factual basis for alleged violations of Articles 3 (prohibition of torture), 6 (right to a fair trial), and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). On 3 April 2026, the Tbilisi City Court approved a motion by the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia to annul the bail, the ban on leaving the country and other interim measures applied against Mr Sadigov. Nonetheless, in the late evening of 4 April 2026, dozens of officers from the Georgian Ministry of Internal Affairs and emergency response units arrived at Mr Sadigov’s residential apartment in Tbilisi and arrested him on alleged administrative grounds following, on the basis of statements that  allegedly constituted an “insult of a law enforcement officer” under Article 173(2) of Georgia’s Code of Administrative Offences. Following the arrest, Mr Sadigov was subject to a late-night court hearing before the Tbilisi City Court. Even though Georgian authorities were informed of Mr Sadigov’s chosen legal representatives, the Tbilisi City Court appointed him a public lawyer from the Legal Aid Service. On 5 April 2026, Georgian Judge Tornike Kochkiani found him guilty, fined him with 2,000 lari (approximately 743 Euros) and ordered Mr Sadigov’s expulsion to Azerbaijan and a prohibition to enter Georgia for three years. The decision was immediately implemented, and he was expelled through the Georgian-Azerbaijan land border. Upon crossing into Azerbaijan, he was reportedly questioned by the Azerbaijani Migration Service. On 6 April 2026, Mr Ilham Aliyev, President of Azerbaijan, conducted a visit to Tbilisi, Georgia, which raises concerns on whether this process may have been coordinated at a high political level, with the purpose to punish and expel Mr Sadigov back to Azerbaijan, where he might be subjected to further politically motivated persecution. On 10 April 2026, the European Court of Human Rights sent a request to both parties – the applicant, as well as the governments of Georgia and Azerbaijan – to submit additional observations. In particular, the Court raised a new question as to whether, despite the existence of an interim measure, the applicant’s transfer to Azerbaijan constituted a violation of Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights. On 30 June 2026, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Michael O'Flaherty, addressed a letter requesting clarifications regarding the criminal proceedings against Afgan Sadigov, while reiterating his call for the immediate release of all human rights defenders, journalists, and civil society activists detained solely for their legitimate work or for expressing dissenting or critical views. Prior to these developments, Mr Sadigov had been held in expulsion detention for a period of nine months. Throughout this time, none of the instances of the Georgian judiciary suspended or halted the expulsion proceedings, notwithstanding substantiated concerns regarding a real risk of political persecution, as well as torture and other forms of ill-treatment in Azerbaijan. Furthermore, at all judicial levels, the Georgian courts rejected the requests for international protection submitted by Mr Sadigov and his legal representatives. During his detention, Mr Sadigov undertook a 161-day hunger strike, which resulted in a severely deteriorated and life-threatening health condition. Following his release, Mr Sadigov joined the ongoing continuous protests in Tbilisi, and it was in this context that he was subsequently subjected to administrative detention on two occasions and was fined 55 times under restrictive legislative provisions adopted in Georgia concerning freedom of assembly. The Observatory notes that Mr Sadigov’s expulsion from Georgia, carried out in violation of the interim measures imposed by the ECtHR, constitutes a demonstrative breach of the ECtHR’s decision and of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the principle of non-refoulement and the right to a fair trial. The Observatory further notes that cooperation between Azerbaijani and Georgian authorities to arbitrarily detain and extradite Mr Sadigov in reprisal for his legitimate human rights and journalistic activities constitutes an act of transnational repression. The Observatory strongly condemns the arbitrary detention of Mr Sadigov in Azerbaijan and his previous arbitrary arrest and expulsion by the Georgian authorities and calls on Azerbaijan and Georgia to uphold their human rights obligations, including its duty to protect exiled human rights defenders from transnational repression.]]> GEO 002 / 0726 / OBS 36 Arbitrary arrest / Arbitrary detention / Transnational repression / Restrictions to freedom of expression Georgia/Azerbaijan 23 July 2026 The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, a partnership of the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), requests your urgent intervention in the following situation in Azerbaijan and Georgia. Description of the situation: The Observatory has been informed about the arbitrary arrest and detention of Mr Afgan Sadigov in Azerbaijan, following his previous arbitrary arrest and expulsion from Georgia to Azerbaijan in April 2026. Mr Afgan Sadigov is the founder and editor of the regional online media platform Azel.tv, known for its critical reporting on the Azerbaijani government. Azel.tv’s YouTube channel features video reports on local corruption, government misconduct, and citizens’ grievances regarding social injustice. On 8 June 2026, Mr Sadigov’s wife, Sevinch Sadigova, stated that her husband had been detained by several masked persons dressed in civilian clothes in Azerbaijan. On the same day, Mr Sadigov’s lawyer reported that Mr Sadigov had been taken to the Prosecutor’s Office of Azerbaijan, and that he had been presented to a court hearing, at which he was ordered to stay in pre-trial detention until 30 July 2026. This arbitrary arrest and detention of Mr Sadigov in Azerbaijan followed his arbitrary arrest and expulsion from Georgia to Azerbaijan on 4 April 2026, after nearly two years of judicial and administrative proceedings in both countries. In August 2023, Mr Sadigov was accused of extorsion under Articles 182.2.2 and 182.2.4 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan. On 3 August 2024, Georgian law enforcement officers first detained Mr Sadigov for the purpose of extradition to Azerbaijan. Despite no concrete evidence against Mr Sadigov, Georgian courts accepted Azerbaijan’s request to expel Mr Sadigov and proceeded to allow his extradition. In January 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued binding interim measures prohibiting Mr Sadigov’s expulsion to Azerbaijan, where he was facing criminal proceedings (see below). On 1 April 2026, the Prosecutor’s Office of Azerbaijan declared this criminal investigation to be officially terminated and informed Georgian authorities about their decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings against Mr Sadigov, which was followed by an order by the Georgian Ministry of Justice to terminate the expulsion procedures. On that basis, the Georgian government argued that Mr Sadigov was no longer at risk of transfer to Azerbaijan and that there was therefore insufficient factual basis for alleged violations of Articles 3 (prohibition of torture), 6 (right to a fair trial), and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). On 3 April 2026, the Tbilisi City Court approved a motion by the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia to annul the bail, the ban on leaving the country and other interim measures applied against Mr Sadigov. Nonetheless, in the late evening of 4 April 2026, dozens of officers from the Georgian Ministry of Internal Affairs and emergency response units arrived at Mr Sadigov’s residential apartment in Tbilisi and arrested him on alleged administrative grounds following, on the basis of statements that  allegedly constituted an “insult of a law enforcement officer” under Article 173(2) of Georgia’s Code of Administrative Offences. Following the arrest, Mr Sadigov was subject to a late-night court hearing before the Tbilisi City Court. Even though Georgian authorities were informed of Mr Sadigov’s chosen legal representatives, the Tbilisi City Court appointed him a public lawyer from the Legal Aid Service. On 5 April 2026, Georgian Judge Tornike Kochkiani found him guilty, fined him with 2,000 lari (approximately 743 Euros) and ordered Mr Sadigov’s expulsion to Azerbaijan and a prohibition to enter Georgia for three years. The decision was immediately implemented, and he was expelled through the Georgian-Azerbaijan land border. Upon crossing into Azerbaijan, he was reportedly questioned by the Azerbaijani Migration Service. On 6 April 2026, Mr Ilham Aliyev, President of Azerbaijan, conducted a visit to Tbilisi, Georgia, which raises concerns on whether this process may have been coordinated at a high political level, with the purpose to punish and expel Mr Sadigov back to Azerbaijan, where he might be subjected to further politically motivated persecution. On 10 April 2026, the European Court of Human Rights sent a request to both parties – the applicant, as well as the governments of Georgia and Azerbaijan – to submit additional observations. In particular, the Court raised a new question as to whether, despite the existence of an interim measure, the applicant’s transfer to Azerbaijan constituted a violation of Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights. On 30 June 2026, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Michael O'Flaherty, addressed a letter requesting clarifications regarding the criminal proceedings against Afgan Sadigov, while reiterating his call for the immediate release of all human rights defenders, journalists, and civil society activists detained solely for their legitimate work or for expressing dissenting or critical views. Prior to these developments, Mr Sadigov had been held in expulsion detention for a period of nine months. Throughout this time, none of the instances of the Georgian judiciary suspended or halted the expulsion proceedings, notwithstanding substantiated concerns regarding a real risk of political persecution, as well as torture and other forms of ill-treatment in Azerbaijan. Furthermore, at all judicial levels, the Georgian courts rejected the requests for international protection submitted by Mr Sadigov and his legal representatives. During his detention, Mr Sadigov undertook a 161-day hunger strike, which resulted in a severely deteriorated and life-threatening health condition. Following his release, Mr Sadigov joined the ongoing continuous protests in Tbilisi, and it was in this context that he was subsequently subjected to administrative detention on two occasions and was fined 55 times under restrictive legislative provisions adopted in Georgia concerning freedom of assembly. The Observatory notes that Mr Sadigov’s expulsion from Georgia, carried out in violation of the interim measures imposed by the ECtHR, constitutes a demonstrative breach of the ECtHR’s decision and of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the principle of non-refoulement and the right to a fair trial. The Observatory further notes that cooperation between Azerbaijani and Georgian authorities to arbitrarily detain and extradite Mr Sadigov in reprisal for his legitimate human rights and journalistic activities constitutes an act of transnational repression. The Observatory strongly condemns the arbitrary detention of Mr Sadigov in Azerbaijan and his previous arbitrary arrest and expulsion by the Georgian authorities and calls on Azerbaijan and Georgia to uphold their human rights obligations, including its duty to protect exiled human rights defenders from transnational repression.]]> Tunisie : atteintes au droit à un procès équitable dans l’affaire visant Sihem Ben Sedrine https://observatoryfordefenders.org/alert/tunisie-atteintes-au-droit-a-un-proces-equitable-dans-laffaire-visant-sihem-ben-sedrine/ Fri, 17 Jul 2026 14:34:48 +0000 https://observatoryfordefenders.org/?post_type=alert&p=24980 Paris-Genève, 24 juin 2026 - La Fédération internationale pour les droits humains (FIDH), dans le cadre de l’Observatoire pour la protection des défenseur·es des droits humains, a mené le 18 juin 2026 une mission internationale d’observation judiciaire dans le procès de Sihem Ben Sedrine à Tunis. L’audience , qui concernait deux affaires engagées contre Sihem Ben Sedrine, a été reportée au 25 juin 2026. Ce procès intervient dans un contexte de restriction des libertés publiques, de multiplication des procédures contre les journalistes et les défenseur·es des droits humains et d’affaiblissement des dernières instances indépendantes. Ancienne journaliste, défenseure des droits humains et ancienne Présidente de l’Instance Vérité et Dignité (IVD), une instance heritée de la révolution de 2011, chargée d’établir la vérité sur les violations des droits humains commises par l’état tunisien de 1955 à 2013, Sihem Ben Sedrine est poursuivie depuis 2023 pour des faits allégués de « réception de pots-de-vin et de falsification du rapport final de l’IVD ». Des accusations évidemment infondées, qui soulèvent de sérieuses préoccupations au regard de la loi organique n°2013-53 du 24 décembre 2013, l’outil législatif fondateur de la justice transitionnelle en Tunisie. laquelle prévoit qu’aucun·e membre de l’Instance ne peut être tenu·e responsable du contenu des rapports produits. Ces poursuites s’inscrivent dans une remise en cause plus large des mécanismes de justice transitionnelle. En visant d’ancien·nes membres de l’IVD, les autorités tunisiennes cherchent à fragiliser les travaux de l’Instance, mise en place pour garantir les droits à la vérité, à la justice et à la réparation.

Un procès certainement pas équitable

La mission d’observation a relevé plusieurs éléments préoccupants quant au respect des garanties d’un procès équitable. La date de l’audience, fixée au 18 juin 2026, coïncidait avec une journée de grève générale des avocat·es, pourtant annoncée publiquement par le Barreau dès le 13 mai 2026. Dans ce contexte, la tenue de l’audience a porté atteinte à l’exercice effectif des droits de la défense garantis par le droit tunisien. La mission a également constaté la mise en place d’un contrôle abusif à l’entrée du tribunal, la police filtrant l’accès à une audience pourtant publique. Aucun·e journaliste n’était présent·e lors de l’audience. « La salle d’audience était clairsemée. On a compris pourquoi en voyant la police à l’extérieur qui filtre et demande les cartes d’identité », a déclaré Alexis Deswaef, président de la FIDH et observateur lors de l’audience. Il a finalement été décidé que l’audience, maintenue malgré l’annonce de cette journée de grève générale, serait reportée au 25 juin 2026. Ce report est intervenu en raison de l’absence du co-prévenu de Mme Ben Sedrine, Me Khaled Krichi, ancien président de la commission Arbitrage et Réconciliation de l’IVD, hospitalisé après un malaise en détention. « Ce renvoi à une semaine est très contrariant pour les observateurs internationaux : la nouvelle date est suffisamment éloignée pour nous empêcher de rester jusque-là, et elle est suffisamment proche pour nous empêcher de nous organiser pour revenir, » précise Alexis Deswaef. L’Observatoire appelle les autorités tunisiennes à garantir à Mme Sihem Ben Sedrine et à l’ensemble des personnes poursuivies dans cette affaire le respect de leurs droits à un procès équitable et à mettre fin à toute forme de harcèlement judiciaire visant à entraver le travail des défenseur·es des droits humains et le processus de justice transitionnelle.]]> Paris-Genève, 24 juin 2026 - La Fédération internationale pour les droits humains (FIDH), dans le cadre de l’Observatoire pour la protection des défenseur·es des droits humains, a mené le 18 juin 2026 une mission internationale d’observation judiciaire dans le procès de Sihem Ben Sedrine à Tunis. L’audience , qui concernait deux affaires engagées contre Sihem Ben Sedrine, a été reportée au 25 juin 2026. Ce procès intervient dans un contexte de restriction des libertés publiques, de multiplication des procédures contre les journalistes et les défenseur·es des droits humains et d’affaiblissement des dernières instances indépendantes. Ancienne journaliste, défenseure des droits humains et ancienne Présidente de l’Instance Vérité et Dignité (IVD), une instance heritée de la révolution de 2011, chargée d’établir la vérité sur les violations des droits humains commises par l’état tunisien de 1955 à 2013, Sihem Ben Sedrine est poursuivie depuis 2023 pour des faits allégués de « réception de pots-de-vin et de falsification du rapport final de l’IVD ». Des accusations évidemment infondées, qui soulèvent de sérieuses préoccupations au regard de la loi organique n°2013-53 du 24 décembre 2013, l’outil législatif fondateur de la justice transitionnelle en Tunisie. laquelle prévoit qu’aucun·e membre de l’Instance ne peut être tenu·e responsable du contenu des rapports produits. Ces poursuites s’inscrivent dans une remise en cause plus large des mécanismes de justice transitionnelle. En visant d’ancien·nes membres de l’IVD, les autorités tunisiennes cherchent à fragiliser les travaux de l’Instance, mise en place pour garantir les droits à la vérité, à la justice et à la réparation.

Un procès certainement pas équitable

La mission d’observation a relevé plusieurs éléments préoccupants quant au respect des garanties d’un procès équitable. La date de l’audience, fixée au 18 juin 2026, coïncidait avec une journée de grève générale des avocat·es, pourtant annoncée publiquement par le Barreau dès le 13 mai 2026. Dans ce contexte, la tenue de l’audience a porté atteinte à l’exercice effectif des droits de la défense garantis par le droit tunisien. La mission a également constaté la mise en place d’un contrôle abusif à l’entrée du tribunal, la police filtrant l’accès à une audience pourtant publique. Aucun·e journaliste n’était présent·e lors de l’audience. « La salle d’audience était clairsemée. On a compris pourquoi en voyant la police à l’extérieur qui filtre et demande les cartes d’identité », a déclaré Alexis Deswaef, président de la FIDH et observateur lors de l’audience. Il a finalement été décidé que l’audience, maintenue malgré l’annonce de cette journée de grève générale, serait reportée au 25 juin 2026. Ce report est intervenu en raison de l’absence du co-prévenu de Mme Ben Sedrine, Me Khaled Krichi, ancien président de la commission Arbitrage et Réconciliation de l’IVD, hospitalisé après un malaise en détention. « Ce renvoi à une semaine est très contrariant pour les observateurs internationaux : la nouvelle date est suffisamment éloignée pour nous empêcher de rester jusque-là, et elle est suffisamment proche pour nous empêcher de nous organiser pour revenir, » précise Alexis Deswaef. L’Observatoire appelle les autorités tunisiennes à garantir à Mme Sihem Ben Sedrine et à l’ensemble des personnes poursuivies dans cette affaire le respect de leurs droits à un procès équitable et à mettre fin à toute forme de harcèlement judiciaire visant à entraver le travail des défenseur·es des droits humains et le processus de justice transitionnelle.]]> Kenya: Escalating harassment of human rights defender Diana Gichengo https://observatoryfordefenders.org/alert/kenya-escalating-harassment-of-human-rights-defender-diana-gichengo/ Thu, 16 Jul 2026 14:24:27 +0000 https://observatoryfordefenders.org/?post_type=alert&p=24949 Diana Gichengo, a Kenyan lawyer and human rights defender and executive Director of the Institute for Social Accountability (TISA). Through her work with TISA, Ms Gichengo promotes transparency, accountability and civic participation in public finance management and has consistently advocated for the protection of civic space and democratic governance. Ms Gichengo also worked with the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) and Amnesty International Kenya, where she contributed to the promotion and protection of human rights. On 2 July 2026, at least 13 men suspected of being state security officers arrived at TISA’s offices in Nairobi in four Subaru vehicles and attempted to gain access to the premises. Operating outside any legal procedure, the men demanded that TISA staff surrender "the lawyer" working at the organisation. The men did not present a judicial warrant or identify the legal basis for their actions. Following the incident, senior management convened an urgent security meeting and resolved to take immediate measures to enhance both the physical and digital security of TISA and its staff. Additional steps were taken to evacuate a member of the Senior Management Team from the offices who was assessed to be at high risk, among other security measures. Since early June 2026, Ms Diana Gichengo has also been subjected to repeated surveillance and intimidation. She has been continuously followed by occupants of tinted Subaru and Toyota Prado vehicles while traveling on routes she regularly uses to and from work. The surveillance began shortly after Ms Gichengo became aware that individuals close to a senior government official had been making inquiries about her in connection with TISA’s work on public finance management and accountability. The Observatory notes that these incidents are not isolated and occur amid an increasing pattern of intimidation targeting human rights defenders and civil society organisations in Kenya. On 22 February 2026, Zimbabwean human rights defender and Africa Director of the Open Society Foundations (OSF) Mr Brian Kagoro was denied entry into Kenya, detained for several hours at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport, in Nairobi, and deported without being formally charged and without any explanation. Earlier, on 5 July 2025, Mr Martin Mavenjina, Senior Legal Advisor at the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC), was deported from Kenya and has since been prevented from returning to the country. More recently, following the demonstrations commemorating 25 June 2026, seven human rights defenders, Fredrick Ojiro, Collins Otieno, Muteti Mulinge, Elisha Alam, Michael Ngugi, Christine Lubanga and Davis Luchuma, were arbitrarily arrested, forcibly disappeared and later found in different parts of Nairobi bearing signs of torture. In addition, Abdulaziz Duba Molu, Michael Oloo Osura and Macmillan Kiarie Mugo remain forcibly disappeared after being unlawfully arrested prior to the 25 June commemoration. The Observatory recalls that, as a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), Kenya must respect and ensure the rights to privacy, freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association. The Observatory expresses its utmost concerns over the surveillance, intimidation and harassment of Ms Diana Gichengo, which appear to be linked to her legitimate work promoting transparency, accountability and democratic governance in Kenya. These documented incidents intend to intimidate Ms Gichengo and create a chilling effect on the work of TISA and other civil society organisations working on governance and accountability issues. The Observatory condemns the harassment, surveillance and intimidation of Ms Diana Gichengo, which appear to be solely aimed at hindering her legitimate human rights activities. The Observatory urges the Kenyan authorities to immediately put an end to all acts of intimidation against her and TISA and to ensure that human rights defenders in Kenya are able to carry out their legitimate activities without fear of harassment, intimidation or reprisals.]]> Diana Gichengo, a Kenyan lawyer and human rights defender and executive Director of the Institute for Social Accountability (TISA). Through her work with TISA, Ms Gichengo promotes transparency, accountability and civic participation in public finance management and has consistently advocated for the protection of civic space and democratic governance. Ms Gichengo also worked with the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) and Amnesty International Kenya, where she contributed to the promotion and protection of human rights. On 2 July 2026, at least 13 men suspected of being state security officers arrived at TISA’s offices in Nairobi in four Subaru vehicles and attempted to gain access to the premises. Operating outside any legal procedure, the men demanded that TISA staff surrender "the lawyer" working at the organisation. The men did not present a judicial warrant or identify the legal basis for their actions. Following the incident, senior management convened an urgent security meeting and resolved to take immediate measures to enhance both the physical and digital security of TISA and its staff. Additional steps were taken to evacuate a member of the Senior Management Team from the offices who was assessed to be at high risk, among other security measures. Since early June 2026, Ms Diana Gichengo has also been subjected to repeated surveillance and intimidation. She has been continuously followed by occupants of tinted Subaru and Toyota Prado vehicles while traveling on routes she regularly uses to and from work. The surveillance began shortly after Ms Gichengo became aware that individuals close to a senior government official had been making inquiries about her in connection with TISA’s work on public finance management and accountability. The Observatory notes that these incidents are not isolated and occur amid an increasing pattern of intimidation targeting human rights defenders and civil society organisations in Kenya. On 22 February 2026, Zimbabwean human rights defender and Africa Director of the Open Society Foundations (OSF) Mr Brian Kagoro was denied entry into Kenya, detained for several hours at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport, in Nairobi, and deported without being formally charged and without any explanation. Earlier, on 5 July 2025, Mr Martin Mavenjina, Senior Legal Advisor at the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC), was deported from Kenya and has since been prevented from returning to the country. More recently, following the demonstrations commemorating 25 June 2026, seven human rights defenders, Fredrick Ojiro, Collins Otieno, Muteti Mulinge, Elisha Alam, Michael Ngugi, Christine Lubanga and Davis Luchuma, were arbitrarily arrested, forcibly disappeared and later found in different parts of Nairobi bearing signs of torture. In addition, Abdulaziz Duba Molu, Michael Oloo Osura and Macmillan Kiarie Mugo remain forcibly disappeared after being unlawfully arrested prior to the 25 June commemoration. The Observatory recalls that, as a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), Kenya must respect and ensure the rights to privacy, freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association. The Observatory expresses its utmost concerns over the surveillance, intimidation and harassment of Ms Diana Gichengo, which appear to be linked to her legitimate work promoting transparency, accountability and democratic governance in Kenya. These documented incidents intend to intimidate Ms Gichengo and create a chilling effect on the work of TISA and other civil society organisations working on governance and accountability issues. The Observatory condemns the harassment, surveillance and intimidation of Ms Diana Gichengo, which appear to be solely aimed at hindering her legitimate human rights activities. The Observatory urges the Kenyan authorities to immediately put an end to all acts of intimidation against her and TISA and to ensure that human rights defenders in Kenya are able to carry out their legitimate activities without fear of harassment, intimidation or reprisals.]]> France : la justice confirme les condamnations à l’encontre de quatre défenseurs de l’environnement dans le cadre des manifestations de Sainte-Soline https://observatoryfordefenders.org/alert/france-la-justice-confirme-les-condamnations-a-lencontre-de-quatre-defenseurs-de-lenvironnement-dans-le-cadre-des-manifestations-de-sainte-soline/ Thu, 16 Jul 2026 14:23:14 +0000 https://observatoryfordefenders.org/?post_type=alert&p=24940 16 juillet 2026. Le 1er juillet 2026, la cour d’appel de Poitiers a confirmé les condamnations prononcées en première instance par le tribunal judiciaire de Niort, le 17 janvier 2024, à l’encontre de quatre défenseurs de l’eau et de l’environnement pour “organisation d’une manifestation interdite” (article 431-9 du Code pénal). Julien Le Guet, porte-parole de Bassines Non Merci, a été condamné à six mois d’emprisonnement avec sursis ; Nicolas Garrigues (alias Benoît Feuillu), porte parole des Soulèvements de la Terre à trois mois avec sursis ; Nicolas Girod et Benoît Jaunet, responsables syndicaux de la Confédération paysanne, à 800 euros d’amende chacun. Une interdiction de port d’arme d’une durée de cinq ans a en outre été prononcée à leur encontre. Les quatre défenseurs étaient poursuivis pour avoir présumément organisé un rassemblement interdit ayant réuni plusieurs dizaines de milliers de personnes le 25 mars 2023 à Sainte-Soline (Deux-Sèvres), afin de protester contre la construction d’une réserve d’irrigation, dite “mégabassine”. Cette retenue d’eau a depuis été jugée illégale par la cour d’appel administrative de Bordeaux, à défaut de l’obtention préalable d’une dérogation “espèces protégées”. Lors de cette manifestation, les forces de l’ordre ont tiré plus de 5 000 grenades lacrymogènes et explosives, faisant plus de 200 blessé·es dans les rangs des manifestant·es, dont 40 grièvement, parmi lesquels deux personnes plongées dans le coma. En novembre 2025, Libération et Mediapart ont publié des dizaines d’heures d’enregistrements issus des caméras-piétons de gendarmes présents à Sainte-Soline le 25 mars 2023. Ces images révèlent des pratiques illégales de tirs tendus de grenades - une technique expressément interdite -, ainsi que des propos d’une violence extrême tenus par des membres des forces de l’ordre à l’égard des manifestant·es. En décembre 2025, le parquet de Rennes a classé sans suite les plaintes déposées par quatre manifestants grièvement blessés, reconnaissant pourtant l’existence de « tirs non conformes aux règles ». Le 8 juillet 2026, la Défenseure des droits, Claire Hédon, a publié une décision attendue sur cette opération de maintien de l’ordre, qui conclue que « les autorités ont adopté une logique de confrontation ayant conduit à un lourd bilan humain » et que l’enquête administrative menée au préalable par l’Inspection générale de la gendarmerie nationale (IGGN) a manqué d’objectivité et d’effectivité. Cette décision intervient par ailleurs au lendemain de l’adoption par l’Assemblée nationale, le 7 juillet 2026, d’une proposition de loi instaurant une présomption de légitime défense pour les forces de l’ordre, qui prévoit que les policier·ères et gendarmes faisant usage de leur arme à feu sont présumé·es avoir agi dans le cadre légal. Alors que les violences commises à Sainte-Soline demeurent impunies, cette évolution législative soulève de vives inquiétudes quant à la capacité de la justice à établir les responsabilités des agent·es de l’État dans de futurs cas de violences. L’Observatoire et la LDH expriment leur profonde préoccupation face au contraste saisissant entre la célérité et la sévérité des poursuites engagées à l’encontre des organisateurs présumés de la manifestation, d’une part, et l’absence à ce jour de toute condamnation pénale des membres des forces de l’ordre d’autre part. Le déséquilibre dans le traitement des faits survenus le 25 mars 2023 est en effet de nature à produire un effet particulièrement dissuasif sur l’exercice des droits à la liberté d’expression et de réunion pacifique. Le rapporteur spécial des Nations unies sur les défenseurs et défenseuses de l’environnement, Michel Forst, avait ainsi rappelé lors de l’audience en cour d’appel le 27 mai 2026 que la désobéissance civile environnementale est protégée par le droit international et que les militant·es écologistes sont protégé·es par les Nations unies, au titre de la Convention d’Arhus sur le droit à l’information, à la participation du public au processus décisionnel et l’accès à la justice en matière d’environnement de 1998, ratifiée par 48 États dont la France. Il avait également alerté la cour sur l’effet dissuasif de peines disproportionnées, contraires au droit international. La France, en tant qu’État partie au Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques (PIDCP) et à la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme (CEDH), est tenue de garantir le droit à la liberté de réunion pacifique au titre des articles 21 du PIDCP et 11 de la CEDH. Toute restriction à ce droit doit être prévue par la loi, poursuivre un but légitime et être strictement nécessaire et proportionnée. L’Observatoire et la LDH rappellent à cet égard que la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme a constamment rappelé que le simple fait qu’une manifestation ait été déclarée illégale ne saurait, à lui seul, justifier des poursuites pénales. La Cour rappelle par ailleurs que le fait que des actes de violences aient pu être commis par des manifestant·es ne saurait priver l’ensemble des manifestant·es de leur liberté de réunion pacifique. La France est également tenue, au titre des articles 2 et 3 de la CEDH, de conduire des enquêtes effectives et indépendantes sur les allégations de violences commises par des agents de l’État. L’Observatoire et la LDH rappellent également les dispositions de la Déclaration des Nations Unies sur les défenseurs des droits de l’homme, dont l’article 5 reconnaît à chacun le droit de se réunir et de se rassembler pacifiquement, et l’article 12 fait obligation aux États de protéger les défenseur·es contre toutes représailles du fait de leur engagement légitime. L’Observatoire et la LDH appellent les autorités françaises à mettre fin à la criminalisation des défenseur·es de l’environnement, et à garantir que les enquêtes sur les violences commises par des membres des forces de l’ordre lors de la manifestation du 25 mars 2023 à Sainte-Soline soient menées de manière effective, indépendante et impartiale, conformément aux obligations internationales de la France.]]> 16 juillet 2026. Le 1er juillet 2026, la cour d’appel de Poitiers a confirmé les condamnations prononcées en première instance par le tribunal judiciaire de Niort, le 17 janvier 2024, à l’encontre de quatre défenseurs de l’eau et de l’environnement pour “organisation d’une manifestation interdite” (article 431-9 du Code pénal). Julien Le Guet, porte-parole de Bassines Non Merci, a été condamné à six mois d’emprisonnement avec sursis ; Nicolas Garrigues (alias Benoît Feuillu), porte parole des Soulèvements de la Terre à trois mois avec sursis ; Nicolas Girod et Benoît Jaunet, responsables syndicaux de la Confédération paysanne, à 800 euros d’amende chacun. Une interdiction de port d’arme d’une durée de cinq ans a en outre été prononcée à leur encontre. Les quatre défenseurs étaient poursuivis pour avoir présumément organisé un rassemblement interdit ayant réuni plusieurs dizaines de milliers de personnes le 25 mars 2023 à Sainte-Soline (Deux-Sèvres), afin de protester contre la construction d’une réserve d’irrigation, dite “mégabassine”. Cette retenue d’eau a depuis été jugée illégale par la cour d’appel administrative de Bordeaux, à défaut de l’obtention préalable d’une dérogation “espèces protégées”. Lors de cette manifestation, les forces de l’ordre ont tiré plus de 5 000 grenades lacrymogènes et explosives, faisant plus de 200 blessé·es dans les rangs des manifestant·es, dont 40 grièvement, parmi lesquels deux personnes plongées dans le coma. En novembre 2025, Libération et Mediapart ont publié des dizaines d’heures d’enregistrements issus des caméras-piétons de gendarmes présents à Sainte-Soline le 25 mars 2023. Ces images révèlent des pratiques illégales de tirs tendus de grenades - une technique expressément interdite -, ainsi que des propos d’une violence extrême tenus par des membres des forces de l’ordre à l’égard des manifestant·es. En décembre 2025, le parquet de Rennes a classé sans suite les plaintes déposées par quatre manifestants grièvement blessés, reconnaissant pourtant l’existence de « tirs non conformes aux règles ». Le 8 juillet 2026, la Défenseure des droits, Claire Hédon, a publié une décision attendue sur cette opération de maintien de l’ordre, qui conclue que « les autorités ont adopté une logique de confrontation ayant conduit à un lourd bilan humain » et que l’enquête administrative menée au préalable par l’Inspection générale de la gendarmerie nationale (IGGN) a manqué d’objectivité et d’effectivité. Cette décision intervient par ailleurs au lendemain de l’adoption par l’Assemblée nationale, le 7 juillet 2026, d’une proposition de loi instaurant une présomption de légitime défense pour les forces de l’ordre, qui prévoit que les policier·ères et gendarmes faisant usage de leur arme à feu sont présumé·es avoir agi dans le cadre légal. Alors que les violences commises à Sainte-Soline demeurent impunies, cette évolution législative soulève de vives inquiétudes quant à la capacité de la justice à établir les responsabilités des agent·es de l’État dans de futurs cas de violences. L’Observatoire et la LDH expriment leur profonde préoccupation face au contraste saisissant entre la célérité et la sévérité des poursuites engagées à l’encontre des organisateurs présumés de la manifestation, d’une part, et l’absence à ce jour de toute condamnation pénale des membres des forces de l’ordre d’autre part. Le déséquilibre dans le traitement des faits survenus le 25 mars 2023 est en effet de nature à produire un effet particulièrement dissuasif sur l’exercice des droits à la liberté d’expression et de réunion pacifique. Le rapporteur spécial des Nations unies sur les défenseurs et défenseuses de l’environnement, Michel Forst, avait ainsi rappelé lors de l’audience en cour d’appel le 27 mai 2026 que la désobéissance civile environnementale est protégée par le droit international et que les militant·es écologistes sont protégé·es par les Nations unies, au titre de la Convention d’Arhus sur le droit à l’information, à la participation du public au processus décisionnel et l’accès à la justice en matière d’environnement de 1998, ratifiée par 48 États dont la France. Il avait également alerté la cour sur l’effet dissuasif de peines disproportionnées, contraires au droit international. La France, en tant qu’État partie au Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques (PIDCP) et à la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme (CEDH), est tenue de garantir le droit à la liberté de réunion pacifique au titre des articles 21 du PIDCP et 11 de la CEDH. Toute restriction à ce droit doit être prévue par la loi, poursuivre un but légitime et être strictement nécessaire et proportionnée. L’Observatoire et la LDH rappellent à cet égard que la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme a constamment rappelé que le simple fait qu’une manifestation ait été déclarée illégale ne saurait, à lui seul, justifier des poursuites pénales. La Cour rappelle par ailleurs que le fait que des actes de violences aient pu être commis par des manifestant·es ne saurait priver l’ensemble des manifestant·es de leur liberté de réunion pacifique. La France est également tenue, au titre des articles 2 et 3 de la CEDH, de conduire des enquêtes effectives et indépendantes sur les allégations de violences commises par des agents de l’État. L’Observatoire et la LDH rappellent également les dispositions de la Déclaration des Nations Unies sur les défenseurs des droits de l’homme, dont l’article 5 reconnaît à chacun le droit de se réunir et de se rassembler pacifiquement, et l’article 12 fait obligation aux États de protéger les défenseur·es contre toutes représailles du fait de leur engagement légitime. L’Observatoire et la LDH appellent les autorités françaises à mettre fin à la criminalisation des défenseur·es de l’environnement, et à garantir que les enquêtes sur les violences commises par des membres des forces de l’ordre lors de la manifestation du 25 mars 2023 à Sainte-Soline soient menées de manière effective, indépendante et impartiale, conformément aux obligations internationales de la France.]]> Philippines: Human rights defenders under attack amid rampant impunity, new report finds https://observatoryfordefenders.org/alert/philippines-human-rights-defenders-under-attack-amid-rampant-impunity-new-report-finds/ Mon, 13 Jul 2026 16:01:33 +0000 https://observatoryfordefenders.org/?post_type=alert&p=24918 A new report by the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, a partnership between the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), underscores the challenges that human rights defenders and other members of civil society have faced under the administration of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Geneva, Paris, 18 June 2026. The 36-page report, titled “Same-same but different - Repression of human rights defenders in the Philippines under President Marcos Jr.,” shows that, under the Philippines’ current President, a climate of impunity for past and ongoing human rights violations has prevailed, and civil society has operated in an environment that remains highly restrictive and dangerous. “President Marcos Jr.’s failure to dismantle his predecessor’s apparatus of repression and to foster accountability for human rights violations means that human rights defenders are still not safe in the Philippines. President Marcos Jr. should promote without delay the necessary legislative and policy reforms to make the Philippines a safe place for human rights defenders and other members of civil society,” said FIDH Secretary-General Shahindha Ismail. This report’s key findings are the result of a rapid assessment made by the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, following a five-day fact-finding mission conducted from 2 to 6 March 2026 in Metro Manila. This was complemented by a prior online consultation with Filipino human rights defenders in exile. The report shows that repressive counter-terrorism laws and counter-insurgency policies have been used to attack and criminalise land and environmental rights defenders, human rights lawyers, journalists, trade unionists, and women human rights defenders, including those from Indigenous Peoples’ communities. Threats, harassment (especially surveillance and “red-tagging”), arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial killings have been the most common forms of attacks against defenders. “The findings of this report are deeply troubling. Human rights defenders in the Philippines face surveillance, harassment, and violence in a climate where accountability remains elusive. Ending impunity, protecting civic space, and holding perpetrators accountable must become urgent priorities for the authorities,” said OMCT Secretary-General Gerald Staberock. This challenging situation has been compounded by the absence of effective measures aimed at protecting human rights defenders and tackling impunity for abuses against them, and by the significant shrinking of financial resources for civil society organisations. Despite the numerous challenges, there have also been several positive developments, such as the emergence of a new wave of youth-led activism, and proceedings against former President Rodrigo Duterte at the International Criminal Court (ICC). The report makes numerous recommendations to national and international stakeholders to promote measures that, if implemented, could lead to a more conducive environment for human rights defenders and civil society organisations to operate.]]> A new report by the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, a partnership between the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), underscores the challenges that human rights defenders and other members of civil society have faced under the administration of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Geneva, Paris, 18 June 2026. The 36-page report, titled “Same-same but different - Repression of human rights defenders in the Philippines under President Marcos Jr.,” shows that, under the Philippines’ current President, a climate of impunity for past and ongoing human rights violations has prevailed, and civil society has operated in an environment that remains highly restrictive and dangerous. “President Marcos Jr.’s failure to dismantle his predecessor’s apparatus of repression and to foster accountability for human rights violations means that human rights defenders are still not safe in the Philippines. President Marcos Jr. should promote without delay the necessary legislative and policy reforms to make the Philippines a safe place for human rights defenders and other members of civil society,” said FIDH Secretary-General Shahindha Ismail. This report’s key findings are the result of a rapid assessment made by the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, following a five-day fact-finding mission conducted from 2 to 6 March 2026 in Metro Manila. This was complemented by a prior online consultation with Filipino human rights defenders in exile. The report shows that repressive counter-terrorism laws and counter-insurgency policies have been used to attack and criminalise land and environmental rights defenders, human rights lawyers, journalists, trade unionists, and women human rights defenders, including those from Indigenous Peoples’ communities. Threats, harassment (especially surveillance and “red-tagging”), arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial killings have been the most common forms of attacks against defenders. “The findings of this report are deeply troubling. Human rights defenders in the Philippines face surveillance, harassment, and violence in a climate where accountability remains elusive. Ending impunity, protecting civic space, and holding perpetrators accountable must become urgent priorities for the authorities,” said OMCT Secretary-General Gerald Staberock. This challenging situation has been compounded by the absence of effective measures aimed at protecting human rights defenders and tackling impunity for abuses against them, and by the significant shrinking of financial resources for civil society organisations. Despite the numerous challenges, there have also been several positive developments, such as the emergence of a new wave of youth-led activism, and proceedings against former President Rodrigo Duterte at the International Criminal Court (ICC). The report makes numerous recommendations to national and international stakeholders to promote measures that, if implemented, could lead to a more conducive environment for human rights defenders and civil society organisations to operate.]]> Uganda: Enforced disappearance and arbitrary detention of lawyer Erias Lukwago https://observatoryfordefenders.org/alert/__trashed-5/ Thu, 09 Jul 2026 08:54:14 +0000 https://observatoryfordefenders.org/?post_type=alert&p=24899 Description of the situation: The Observatory has been informed about the enforced disappearance and the arbitrary arrest and detention of Mr. Erias Lukwago, lawyer, human rights defender and President of the People’s Front for Freedom (PFF), well known for representing opposition figures and defending fundamental rights, including the rights to due process and a fair trial. On 15 June 2026, heavily armed security operatives arrested Mr. Erias Lukwago at his residence in Wakaliga, a neighbourhood of Kampala, and took him to an undisclosed location. For more than 48 hours, his whereabouts remained unknown. During this period, General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, Chief of Defence Forces and son of President Yoweri Museveni, repeatedly claimed responsibility for Mr. Lukwago’s detention through a series of posts on X, stating that he had "captured" him and taken him to his "basement". On 17 June 2026, Mr. Lukwago was transferred to Kira Division Police Station in Wakiso District before being brought before the Buganda Road Chief Magistrate’s Court in Kampala, where he was formally charged with « misprision of treason », a criminal offence consisting of the alleged failure to report knowledge of plans to commit treason and punishable by life imprisonment under Section 25 of the Ugandan Penal Code. Mr. Lukwago denied the charge and has been remanded to Luzira Prison. On 7 July 2026, Mr. Lukwago’s application for bail filed on health grounds was rejected, and he remains in detention pending further proceedings. Mr. Lukwago’s arrest occurred while he was acting as legal counsel for opposition leader Dr. Kizza Besigye, who is currently facing treason charges. At the time of his arrest, Mr. Lukwago was also preparing to serve court documents on General Muhoozi Kainerugaba in separate legal proceedings brought on behalf of Dr. Besigye concerning repeated public death threats issued by the General through social media. Mr. Lukwago was arrested shortly before carrying out this procedural step. The Observatory is further concerned that, on 22 June 2026, Kenyan lawyer and former Minister of Justice Ms. Martha Karua was denied entry into Uganda upon her arrival at Entebbe International Airport while she was travelling to Uganda to join the legal team representing Mr. Erias Lukwago in the proceedings against him. The Observatory notes with deep concern that, following Mr. Lukwago’s arrest, General Muhoozi Kainerugaba continued publishing threatening statements on X, including: "I’m proud of ALL the hurt and pain I will inflict on the CRIMINAL LUKWAGO!", "Lukwago will be in prison for a minimum of 10 years!", and "He has been fighting me with Besigye for many decades. We are going to finish it now." Such statements seriously undermine the presumption of innocence, appear to interfere with the administration of justice, and reinforce concerns that the arrest and prosecution are politicaly motivated. The Observatory recalls that Mr. Lukwago is a prominent lawyer who has long represented opposition leaders, journalists, human rights defenders and other individuals in politically sensitive cases involving the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. The Observatory expresses its utmost concern that his arbitrary arrest, detention and prosecution appear to be directly linked to his legitimate professional activities as a lawyer and his human rights work. The Observatory further recalls that another of Dr. Besigye’s lawyers, Mr. Eron Kiiza, was arbitrarily arrested in January 2025, convicted by a military court for alleged contempt of court and sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment before being released on bail in February 2025. These successive incidents raise serious concerns about an emerging pattern of intimidation and judicial harassment targeting lawyers representing opposition figures in Uganda. The Observatory condemns the enforced desappearance, arbitrary arrest and detention and the judicial harassment of Mr. Erias Lukwago, which appear to be solely aimed at punishing him for his legitimate activities as a lawyer. The Observatory further condemns the public threats and statements made by General Muhoozi Kainerugaba before and after Mr. Lukwago’s arrest, which raise serious concerns regarding the independence of the proceedings against him and the respect for the rule of law in Uganda. The Observatory urges the Ugandan authorities to immediately and unconditionally release Mr. Erias Lukwago, drop all charges against him, and guarantee in all circumstances that lawyers and human rights defenders in Uganda are able to carry out their legitimate activities without fear of reprisals, intimidation or judicial harassment.]]> Description of the situation: The Observatory has been informed about the enforced disappearance and the arbitrary arrest and detention of Mr. Erias Lukwago, lawyer, human rights defender and President of the People’s Front for Freedom (PFF), well known for representing opposition figures and defending fundamental rights, including the rights to due process and a fair trial. On 15 June 2026, heavily armed security operatives arrested Mr. Erias Lukwago at his residence in Wakaliga, a neighbourhood of Kampala, and took him to an undisclosed location. For more than 48 hours, his whereabouts remained unknown. During this period, General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, Chief of Defence Forces and son of President Yoweri Museveni, repeatedly claimed responsibility for Mr. Lukwago’s detention through a series of posts on X, stating that he had "captured" him and taken him to his "basement". On 17 June 2026, Mr. Lukwago was transferred to Kira Division Police Station in Wakiso District before being brought before the Buganda Road Chief Magistrate’s Court in Kampala, where he was formally charged with « misprision of treason », a criminal offence consisting of the alleged failure to report knowledge of plans to commit treason and punishable by life imprisonment under Section 25 of the Ugandan Penal Code. Mr. Lukwago denied the charge and has been remanded to Luzira Prison. On 7 July 2026, Mr. Lukwago’s application for bail filed on health grounds was rejected, and he remains in detention pending further proceedings. Mr. Lukwago’s arrest occurred while he was acting as legal counsel for opposition leader Dr. Kizza Besigye, who is currently facing treason charges. At the time of his arrest, Mr. Lukwago was also preparing to serve court documents on General Muhoozi Kainerugaba in separate legal proceedings brought on behalf of Dr. Besigye concerning repeated public death threats issued by the General through social media. Mr. Lukwago was arrested shortly before carrying out this procedural step. The Observatory is further concerned that, on 22 June 2026, Kenyan lawyer and former Minister of Justice Ms. Martha Karua was denied entry into Uganda upon her arrival at Entebbe International Airport while she was travelling to Uganda to join the legal team representing Mr. Erias Lukwago in the proceedings against him. The Observatory notes with deep concern that, following Mr. Lukwago’s arrest, General Muhoozi Kainerugaba continued publishing threatening statements on X, including: "I’m proud of ALL the hurt and pain I will inflict on the CRIMINAL LUKWAGO!", "Lukwago will be in prison for a minimum of 10 years!", and "He has been fighting me with Besigye for many decades. We are going to finish it now." Such statements seriously undermine the presumption of innocence, appear to interfere with the administration of justice, and reinforce concerns that the arrest and prosecution are politicaly motivated. The Observatory recalls that Mr. Lukwago is a prominent lawyer who has long represented opposition leaders, journalists, human rights defenders and other individuals in politically sensitive cases involving the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. The Observatory expresses its utmost concern that his arbitrary arrest, detention and prosecution appear to be directly linked to his legitimate professional activities as a lawyer and his human rights work. The Observatory further recalls that another of Dr. Besigye’s lawyers, Mr. Eron Kiiza, was arbitrarily arrested in January 2025, convicted by a military court for alleged contempt of court and sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment before being released on bail in February 2025. These successive incidents raise serious concerns about an emerging pattern of intimidation and judicial harassment targeting lawyers representing opposition figures in Uganda. The Observatory condemns the enforced desappearance, arbitrary arrest and detention and the judicial harassment of Mr. Erias Lukwago, which appear to be solely aimed at punishing him for his legitimate activities as a lawyer. The Observatory further condemns the public threats and statements made by General Muhoozi Kainerugaba before and after Mr. Lukwago’s arrest, which raise serious concerns regarding the independence of the proceedings against him and the respect for the rule of law in Uganda. The Observatory urges the Ugandan authorities to immediately and unconditionally release Mr. Erias Lukwago, drop all charges against him, and guarantee in all circumstances that lawyers and human rights defenders in Uganda are able to carry out their legitimate activities without fear of reprisals, intimidation or judicial harassment.]]> Tunisie : Sihem Ben Sedrine condamnée à 25 ans de prison pour avoir défendu les droits humains, le pays s’enfonce dans la dictature https://observatoryfordefenders.org/alert/tunisie-sihem-ben-sedrine-condamnee-a-25-ans-de-prison-pour-avoir-defendu-les-droits-humains-le-pays-senfonce-dans-la-dictature/ Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:05:57 +0000 https://observatoryfordefenders.org/?post_type=alert&p=24989 L’Observatoire pour la protection des défenseur·es des droits humains (un partenariat de la FIDH et de l’OMCT) a appris la condamnation de Sihem Ben Sedrine, militante des droits humains engagée dans la recherche de la vérité sur les crimes commis sous Ben Ali, à 25 ans de prison ferme, pour avoir défendu le droit à la mémoire. Le message envoyé par le régime de Kaïs Saïed est clair : il est interdit de chercher la vérité, la dictature Ben Ali est désormais intouchable. Paris, Genève, Tunis, le 26 juin 2026 - Consternation et sidération. Alors que la FIDH et l’OMCT apprennent la condamnation de Sihem Ben Sedrine, dans la nuit du 25 au 26 juin 2026, à une peine aussi lourde qu’injuste, sous des charges fantaisistes, ce sont les deux états d’esprit qui dominent. La chambre criminelle spécialisée dans les affaires de corruption financière près le Tribunal de première instance de Tunis a en effet condamné la défenseure des droits humains à une peine de 25 ans de prison. « Sihem Ben Sedrine est d’une dignité et d’une combativité qui nous inspirent tous et toutes. Nous ne la lâcherons jamais. Je veux lui adresser, à elle et à ses proches, la solidarité de l’ensemble du mouvement des droits humains » commente Alexis Deswaef, président de la FIDH, qui s’est rendu en tant qu’observateur à une première audience du procès la semaine dernière, avant que celui-ci ne soit ajourné. « Le cas de Sihem est dramatique, il est l’illustration de la bascule complète d’un régime qui s’enfonce dans la dictature, entraînant avec lui une justice sous influence, sous le regard passif de la communauté internationale. L’Union européenne doit agir maintenant. Il faut qu’elle soit acquittée en appel ! » Sihem Ben Sedrine est journaliste, défenseure des droits humains et ancienne présidente de l’Instance vérité et dignité (IVD), une instance héritée de la révolution de 2011 chargée d’établir la vérité sur les violations des droits humains commises par l’État tunisien de 1955 à 2013. Elle a été jugée dans le cadre de deux dossiers distincts examinés conjointement par la juridiction : un premier relatif aux activités de l’IVD, et un second lié au dossier de la Banque franco-tunisienne (BFT). Les poursuites portaient notamment sur des faits présumés de « dépassements et irrégularités » dans la gestion des travaux de l’IVD, d’abus de fonctions en qualité d’agent public, de préjudice à l’administration, d’obtention d’un avantage indu ainsi que de faux, usage de faux et détention de documents falsifiés. Des accusations évidemment fantaisistes. La juridiction a retenu des condamnations distinctes conduisant à une peine cumulée de 25 ans, comprenant une peine de 5 ans et une peine de 20 ans au titre des accusations de faux et usage de faux. Le combat de Sihem Ben Sedrine pour la justice et pour la vérité sur les crimes du passé -comme du présent- en Tunisie dérange le pouvoir en place, qui neutralise peu à peu toutes les institutions indépendantes chargées de faire la lumière sur la dictature de Ben Ali. L’objectif : protéger ceux et celles qui sont toujours en place aujourd’hui dans l’appareil de l'État. « La condamnation de Sihem Ben Sedrine constitue une violation atroce de la justice transitionnelle, de la liberté d’expression et des droits des défenseur·es des droits humains en Tunisie. Elle a agi dans le cadre du mandat confié par l’État tunisien pour établir la vérité sur les violations passées et servir les victimes. L’État tunisien devrait au contraire honorer celles et ceux qui ont assumé cette mission essentielle. Sihem Ben Sedrine bénéficie de la pleine solidarité de l’OMCT et du mouvement contre la torture », déclare Gerald Staberock, Secrétaire général de l'OMCT. Sa condamnation pour faux et usage de faux, soi-disant commis en tant que présidente de l’IVD, permet au régime de discréditer définitivement le rapport de l’IVD et de mettre fin au processus de justice transitionnelle, au prix de condamner une innocente à une très lourde peine de prison. Kaïs Saïed, arrivé au pouvoir en se présentant comme le successeur de la révolution démocratique de 2011, est non seulement son fossoyeur, mais aussi désormais le complice des crimes du passé.]]> L’Observatoire pour la protection des défenseur·es des droits humains (un partenariat de la FIDH et de l’OMCT) a appris la condamnation de Sihem Ben Sedrine, militante des droits humains engagée dans la recherche de la vérité sur les crimes commis sous Ben Ali, à 25 ans de prison ferme, pour avoir défendu le droit à la mémoire. Le message envoyé par le régime de Kaïs Saïed est clair : il est interdit de chercher la vérité, la dictature Ben Ali est désormais intouchable. Paris, Genève, Tunis, le 26 juin 2026 - Consternation et sidération. Alors que la FIDH et l’OMCT apprennent la condamnation de Sihem Ben Sedrine, dans la nuit du 25 au 26 juin 2026, à une peine aussi lourde qu’injuste, sous des charges fantaisistes, ce sont les deux états d’esprit qui dominent. La chambre criminelle spécialisée dans les affaires de corruption financière près le Tribunal de première instance de Tunis a en effet condamné la défenseure des droits humains à une peine de 25 ans de prison. « Sihem Ben Sedrine est d’une dignité et d’une combativité qui nous inspirent tous et toutes. Nous ne la lâcherons jamais. Je veux lui adresser, à elle et à ses proches, la solidarité de l’ensemble du mouvement des droits humains » commente Alexis Deswaef, président de la FIDH, qui s’est rendu en tant qu’observateur à une première audience du procès la semaine dernière, avant que celui-ci ne soit ajourné. « Le cas de Sihem est dramatique, il est l’illustration de la bascule complète d’un régime qui s’enfonce dans la dictature, entraînant avec lui une justice sous influence, sous le regard passif de la communauté internationale. L’Union européenne doit agir maintenant. Il faut qu’elle soit acquittée en appel ! » Sihem Ben Sedrine est journaliste, défenseure des droits humains et ancienne présidente de l’Instance vérité et dignité (IVD), une instance héritée de la révolution de 2011 chargée d’établir la vérité sur les violations des droits humains commises par l’État tunisien de 1955 à 2013. Elle a été jugée dans le cadre de deux dossiers distincts examinés conjointement par la juridiction : un premier relatif aux activités de l’IVD, et un second lié au dossier de la Banque franco-tunisienne (BFT). Les poursuites portaient notamment sur des faits présumés de « dépassements et irrégularités » dans la gestion des travaux de l’IVD, d’abus de fonctions en qualité d’agent public, de préjudice à l’administration, d’obtention d’un avantage indu ainsi que de faux, usage de faux et détention de documents falsifiés. Des accusations évidemment fantaisistes. La juridiction a retenu des condamnations distinctes conduisant à une peine cumulée de 25 ans, comprenant une peine de 5 ans et une peine de 20 ans au titre des accusations de faux et usage de faux. Le combat de Sihem Ben Sedrine pour la justice et pour la vérité sur les crimes du passé -comme du présent- en Tunisie dérange le pouvoir en place, qui neutralise peu à peu toutes les institutions indépendantes chargées de faire la lumière sur la dictature de Ben Ali. L’objectif : protéger ceux et celles qui sont toujours en place aujourd’hui dans l’appareil de l'État. « La condamnation de Sihem Ben Sedrine constitue une violation atroce de la justice transitionnelle, de la liberté d’expression et des droits des défenseur·es des droits humains en Tunisie. Elle a agi dans le cadre du mandat confié par l’État tunisien pour établir la vérité sur les violations passées et servir les victimes. L’État tunisien devrait au contraire honorer celles et ceux qui ont assumé cette mission essentielle. Sihem Ben Sedrine bénéficie de la pleine solidarité de l’OMCT et du mouvement contre la torture », déclare Gerald Staberock, Secrétaire général de l'OMCT. Sa condamnation pour faux et usage de faux, soi-disant commis en tant que présidente de l’IVD, permet au régime de discréditer définitivement le rapport de l’IVD et de mettre fin au processus de justice transitionnelle, au prix de condamner une innocente à une très lourde peine de prison. Kaïs Saïed, arrivé au pouvoir en se présentant comme le successeur de la révolution démocratique de 2011, est non seulement son fossoyeur, mais aussi désormais le complice des crimes du passé.]]> Belgique: les manifestations contre la réforme de l’enseignement alimentent les inquiétudes liées au rétrécissement de l’espace civique https://observatoryfordefenders.org/alert/belgique-les-manifestations-contre-la-reforme-de-lenseignement-alimentent-les-inquietudes-liees-au-retrecissement-de-lespace-civique/ Thu, 25 Jun 2026 14:52:55 +0000 https://observatoryfordefenders.org/?post_type=alert&p=24984 Paris-Genève, 25 juin 2026 – La répression violente des manifestations contre la réforme de l'enseignement organisées à Bruxelles les 4 et 5 juin 2026 soulève de sérieuses inquiétudes quant au respect de la liberté de réunion pacifique et au maintien d’un espace civique sûr et propice en Belgique. L'Observatoire pour la protection des défenseur·es des droits humains, un partenariat de la Fédération internationale pour les droits humains (FIDH) et de l'Organisation mondiale contre la torture (OMCT), et la Ligue des droits humains (LDH) condamnent la réaction disproportionnée des autorités face à l’expression légitime du mécontentement des étudiant·es et du corps enseignant concernant la réforme, et en particulier le recours excessif à la force contre des manifestant·es, y compris des mineur·es. Ils appellent les autorités belges à garantir que le maintien de l'ordre soit compatible avec le respect des principes constitutionnels et avec le droit international, et ne porte pas atteinte à l'exercice des libertés fondamentales ni ne contribue au rétrécissement de l'espace civique.  Les 4 et 5 juin 2026, plusieurs milliers d'étudiant·es, d'enseignant·es et de membres du personnel de l'enseignement se sont rassemblé·es à Bruxelles afin de protester contre la réforme de l'enseignement portée par le Gouvernement de la Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles. Les organisations étudiantes et les syndicats dénoncent notamment une réforme prévoyant une augmentation de la charge de travail des enseignant·es, des modifications de leur statut, ainsi qu'une hausse des droits d'inscription pour certaines catégories d'étudiant·es dans l'enseignement supérieur, estimant que ces mesures risquent de détériorer les conditions d'enseignement et de restreindre l'accès à une éducation de qualité. Alors que la manifestation se voulait pacifique, des affrontements ont éclaté après l'intervention des forces de l'ordre visant à disperser les manifestant·es. Selon de nombreux témoignages et les images largement diffusées dans les médias et sur les réseaux sociaux, les forces de l'ordre ont eu recours à des canons à eau, au gaz lacrymogène et à des coups de matraque pour disperser les manifestant·es. Le recours à la technique de la nasse a également été constaté et des violences à l'encontre de mineur·es ont été commises. Les violences ont également visé des observateurs pacifiques, dont une députée écologiste qui a été touchée par des gaz lacrymogènes alors qu’elle exercait son devoir de contrôle parlementaire, motivée par la crainte fondée que les forces de l’ordre ne recourent à la technique de la nasse pour encercler les manifestant·es, une tactique illégale en Belgique. L'Observatoire et la LDH rappellent que ces événements interviennent dans un contexte plus large de préoccupations croissantes concernant le rétrécissement de l'espace civique en Belgique. Au cours des dernières années, plusieurs évolutions ont suscité de vives inquiétudes, notamment l'élaboration de projets législatifs susceptibles de restreindre la liberté d'association, dont un avant-projet de loi qui prévoit l'interdiction et la dissolution administrative d'associations ou groupements de fait sans contrôle judiciaire préalable, des limitations de l'accès des organisations de la société civile aux financements publics, ainsi que des discours politiques de plus en plus hostiles, tendant à remettre en cause la légitimité des organisations de défense des droits humains. Ces évolutions mettent en péril le pluralisme démocratique, la participation citoyenne et l'exercice des libertés fondamentales en Belgique. Les manifestations des 4 et 5 juin 2026 illustrent que ces préoccupations ne se limitent plus aux seules libertés associatives mais concernent également l'exercice effectif de la liberté de réunion pacifique. Le recours excessif à la force, à des arrestations, souvent arbitraires, ou à des techniques de maintien de l'ordre parfois illégales – telles que la “nasse” – en manifestation constituent des violations des droits fondamentaux des personnes qui y participent et qui exercent ainsi leur liberté d’expression et de réunion pacifique. Ces pratiques sont susceptibles de décourager la mobilisation, et sont de nature à produire un effet dissuasif (chilling effect) sur l'exercice des libertés fondamentales et sur la participation citoyenne à l’élaboration des politiques publiques, elle-même garantie du bon fonctionnement de l’Etat de droit. Préserver l'espace civique implique dès lors de garantir un cadre juridique protecteur pour la société civile, mais également de veiller à ce que les autorités n'entravent pas l'exercice des libertés associatives et du droit de manifester. La Belgique, en tant qu'État partie au Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques (PIDCP) et à la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme (CEDH) et Etat membre de l’Union européenne (UE), est tenue de garantir les droits à la liberté d'expression, à la liberté de réunion pacifique et à la liberté d'association, protégés notamment par les articles 19, 21 et 22 du PIDCP, par les articles 10 et 11 de la CEDH et par les articles 11 et 12 de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’UE. En outre, les Principes de base des Nations unies sur le recours à la force et l'utilisation des armes à feu par les responsables de l'application des lois prévoient que le recours à la force ne peut intervenir qu'en cas de stricte nécessité et dans le respect du principe de proportionnalité. L'Observatoire et la LDH expriment leur vive inquiétude face aux restrictions susceptibles de porter atteinte à l'exercice de la liberté de réunion pacifique en Belgique. Les violences commises lors des manifestations des 4 et 5 juin 2026, en particulier à l'encontre de jeunes et de mineur·es mobilisé·es sur une question d'intérêt général, illustrent les risques que des pratiques de maintien de l'ordre inadaptées et disproportionnées peuvent faire peser sur l'exercice des libertés d'expression et de réunion pacifique. L'Observatoire et la LDH appellent les autorités belges à mener des enquêtes rapides, approfondies, indépendantes et impartiales sur les violences commises lors de ces manifestations afin que les responsabilités soient établies et que les victimes obtiennent réparation. L’Observatoire et la LDH exhortent également les autorités à garantir que les futures manifestations soient encadrées de manière à faciliter l'exercice des libertés de réunion pacifique et d'expression et le maintien d’un espace civique sain et propice, et que toute opération de maintien de l’ordre se déroule dans le respect des principes constitutionnels et du droit international et européen des droits humains.]]> Paris-Genève, 25 juin 2026 – La répression violente des manifestations contre la réforme de l'enseignement organisées à Bruxelles les 4 et 5 juin 2026 soulève de sérieuses inquiétudes quant au respect de la liberté de réunion pacifique et au maintien d’un espace civique sûr et propice en Belgique. L'Observatoire pour la protection des défenseur·es des droits humains, un partenariat de la Fédération internationale pour les droits humains (FIDH) et de l'Organisation mondiale contre la torture (OMCT), et la Ligue des droits humains (LDH) condamnent la réaction disproportionnée des autorités face à l’expression légitime du mécontentement des étudiant·es et du corps enseignant concernant la réforme, et en particulier le recours excessif à la force contre des manifestant·es, y compris des mineur·es. Ils appellent les autorités belges à garantir que le maintien de l'ordre soit compatible avec le respect des principes constitutionnels et avec le droit international, et ne porte pas atteinte à l'exercice des libertés fondamentales ni ne contribue au rétrécissement de l'espace civique.  Les 4 et 5 juin 2026, plusieurs milliers d'étudiant·es, d'enseignant·es et de membres du personnel de l'enseignement se sont rassemblé·es à Bruxelles afin de protester contre la réforme de l'enseignement portée par le Gouvernement de la Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles. Les organisations étudiantes et les syndicats dénoncent notamment une réforme prévoyant une augmentation de la charge de travail des enseignant·es, des modifications de leur statut, ainsi qu'une hausse des droits d'inscription pour certaines catégories d'étudiant·es dans l'enseignement supérieur, estimant que ces mesures risquent de détériorer les conditions d'enseignement et de restreindre l'accès à une éducation de qualité. Alors que la manifestation se voulait pacifique, des affrontements ont éclaté après l'intervention des forces de l'ordre visant à disperser les manifestant·es. Selon de nombreux témoignages et les images largement diffusées dans les médias et sur les réseaux sociaux, les forces de l'ordre ont eu recours à des canons à eau, au gaz lacrymogène et à des coups de matraque pour disperser les manifestant·es. Le recours à la technique de la nasse a également été constaté et des violences à l'encontre de mineur·es ont été commises. Les violences ont également visé des observateurs pacifiques, dont une députée écologiste qui a été touchée par des gaz lacrymogènes alors qu’elle exercait son devoir de contrôle parlementaire, motivée par la crainte fondée que les forces de l’ordre ne recourent à la technique de la nasse pour encercler les manifestant·es, une tactique illégale en Belgique. L'Observatoire et la LDH rappellent que ces événements interviennent dans un contexte plus large de préoccupations croissantes concernant le rétrécissement de l'espace civique en Belgique. Au cours des dernières années, plusieurs évolutions ont suscité de vives inquiétudes, notamment l'élaboration de projets législatifs susceptibles de restreindre la liberté d'association, dont un avant-projet de loi qui prévoit l'interdiction et la dissolution administrative d'associations ou groupements de fait sans contrôle judiciaire préalable, des limitations de l'accès des organisations de la société civile aux financements publics, ainsi que des discours politiques de plus en plus hostiles, tendant à remettre en cause la légitimité des organisations de défense des droits humains. Ces évolutions mettent en péril le pluralisme démocratique, la participation citoyenne et l'exercice des libertés fondamentales en Belgique. Les manifestations des 4 et 5 juin 2026 illustrent que ces préoccupations ne se limitent plus aux seules libertés associatives mais concernent également l'exercice effectif de la liberté de réunion pacifique. Le recours excessif à la force, à des arrestations, souvent arbitraires, ou à des techniques de maintien de l'ordre parfois illégales – telles que la “nasse” – en manifestation constituent des violations des droits fondamentaux des personnes qui y participent et qui exercent ainsi leur liberté d’expression et de réunion pacifique. Ces pratiques sont susceptibles de décourager la mobilisation, et sont de nature à produire un effet dissuasif (chilling effect) sur l'exercice des libertés fondamentales et sur la participation citoyenne à l’élaboration des politiques publiques, elle-même garantie du bon fonctionnement de l’Etat de droit. Préserver l'espace civique implique dès lors de garantir un cadre juridique protecteur pour la société civile, mais également de veiller à ce que les autorités n'entravent pas l'exercice des libertés associatives et du droit de manifester. La Belgique, en tant qu'État partie au Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques (PIDCP) et à la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme (CEDH) et Etat membre de l’Union européenne (UE), est tenue de garantir les droits à la liberté d'expression, à la liberté de réunion pacifique et à la liberté d'association, protégés notamment par les articles 19, 21 et 22 du PIDCP, par les articles 10 et 11 de la CEDH et par les articles 11 et 12 de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’UE. En outre, les Principes de base des Nations unies sur le recours à la force et l'utilisation des armes à feu par les responsables de l'application des lois prévoient que le recours à la force ne peut intervenir qu'en cas de stricte nécessité et dans le respect du principe de proportionnalité. L'Observatoire et la LDH expriment leur vive inquiétude face aux restrictions susceptibles de porter atteinte à l'exercice de la liberté de réunion pacifique en Belgique. Les violences commises lors des manifestations des 4 et 5 juin 2026, en particulier à l'encontre de jeunes et de mineur·es mobilisé·es sur une question d'intérêt général, illustrent les risques que des pratiques de maintien de l'ordre inadaptées et disproportionnées peuvent faire peser sur l'exercice des libertés d'expression et de réunion pacifique. L'Observatoire et la LDH appellent les autorités belges à mener des enquêtes rapides, approfondies, indépendantes et impartiales sur les violences commises lors de ces manifestations afin que les responsabilités soient établies et que les victimes obtiennent réparation. L’Observatoire et la LDH exhortent également les autorités à garantir que les futures manifestations soient encadrées de manière à faciliter l'exercice des libertés de réunion pacifique et d'expression et le maintien d’un espace civique sain et propice, et que toute opération de maintien de l’ordre se déroule dans le respect des principes constitutionnels et du droit international et européen des droits humains.]]>