repression
-
ECUADOR: ‘The new government must dialogue and seek political agreements that are public, not under the table’
CIVICUS discusses the results of the 15 October runoff vote in Ecuador’s presidential election with Ruth Hidalgo, executive director of Participación Ciudadana (Citizen Participation).Participación Ciudadana is a non-partisan and pluralist civil society organisation (CSO) that works to strengthen democracy in Ecuador.
How did organised crime violence affect the electoral process?
The electoral process that just ended has been marked by political violence: a presidential candidate, a mayor and a prefect were assassinated. There has also been a climate of violence on the streets due to the actions of drug gangs, who extort protection money known as ‘vaccines’ from the public and uses it to finance organised crime groups.
This made the issue of security one of the central topics in the debate between the second round candidates, and one that has generated the highest expectations.
The two candidates’ proposals, however, were broadly similar, although with some differences in tone and characteristics of their own. Both aimed to strengthen the presence of the armed forces as co-executors alongside the police of anti-crime policies.
How do you interpret the triumph of a centre-right alternative?
This was not necessarily an ideological vote. The weakness of political parties in Ecuador means that ideology is losing strength. For some time now, the country has been debating not between right and left but between Correism and anti-Correism: it is the controversial legacy of former president Rafael Correa, in power for a decade between 2007 and 2017, which continues to polarise Ecuadorian society.
The winning candidate, business leader Daniel Noboa, represents at least by his origins a centre-right option. But if he has won, it is because he has managed to capture the votes of a young electorate that is not on either side of the polarisation and has rather opted for a new vision, a young candidate with no political baggage who offers a form of politics that, unlike that of his predecessors, is not confrontational.
What factors worked against the candidacy of Luisa González?
Correa’s candidate, Luisa González, was hurt by the constant presence of Correa during most of the campaign, which ended up overshadowing her candidacy. Although in the end she tried to distance herself from that influence, she did not manage to position herself as a renewed Correist option, which is what she should have conveyed in order to have a chance of winning. She remained stuck to the worn-out and questioned political image of the former president.
I believe that the element of Correa’s legacy that leads to the greatest rejection is his confrontational and threatening way of dealing with those he views as political enemies. This seems to be eliciting more and more discontent and disapproval. While the amount of support González received was not small, this set a ceiling for her that she was unable to break through. This was precisely the reason her opponent was able to prevail.
How has the space for civil society evolved in recent years, and what can be expected under the new government?
Civil society, in my opinion, has recovered its presence and freedom of action after Correa’s time in power, during which it was restricted and in some cases persecuted. Let’s not forget that an important environmental CSO, which confronted the government because of its extractivist policies, was arbitrarily shut down and then legislation was passed to regulate the registration, operations and closure of CSOs at the government’s discretion, with the aim of removing those that bothered the government. Many civil society activists and journalists were criminalised for their work.
The expectation of civil society under the new government is the same as always: to have an enabling environment that allows it to carry out its activities freely. We expect a government that protects and promotes freedom of association.
What should be the priorities of the new president?
It’s worth remembering that these were early elections called to elect President Guillermo Lasso’s successor after he used the ‘cross-death’ mechanism, dissolving congress to prevent it impeaching him, but simultaneously cutting his mandate short. This means Noboa will only serve as president for the rest of Lasso’s term: a mere 18 months, too little time for the many challenges he will face.
The new president takes over a country plagued by insecurity and violence, with a high fiscal deficit, almost zero growth, very high unemployment rates and on top of that, one that is once again experiencing the El Niño climate phenomenon, with warming water currents that produce extreme weather events and record temperatures. These are all issues he will have to prioritise, with public policies aimed at mitigating the most important problems in the areas of the economy, climate change and public security. To do so, he will need to build a strong team and create spaces for dialogue and reconciliation. He will need to demonstrate openness to civil society and seek political agreements that are public, not under the table.
Every election presents an opportunity. As always in a country with so many needs, expectations are high. The main task ahead for the new government is to strengthen Ecuador’s democracy, which will demand an enormous amount of work.
Civic space in Ecuador is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with Participación Ciudadana through itswebsite orFacebook account, subscribe to itsYouTube channel and follow@participacionpc on Instagram and@ParticipacionPC and@RhidalgoPC on Twitter.
-
EGYPT: ‘Activists who work from abroad are being targeted through their families’
CIVICUS speaksabout the ongoing repression of dissent in EgyptwithAhmed Attalla, Executive Director of the Egyptian Front for Human Rights (EFHR).
Founded in 2017 and registered in the Czech Republic, EFHR is a civil society organisation (CSO) that promotes human rights in Egypt, with a specific focus on criminal justice, through advocacy, research and legal support.
What are the conditions for civil society in Egypt?
Civic space in Egypt has remained highly restricted for the past decade, with the authorities consistently targeting civil society activists, journalists, political dissidents and human rights advocates.
The 2019 NGO law restricts the rights of CSOs. It mandates their registration and enables the government and security forces to interfere in their operations and order the cessation of activities deemed sensitive by the government, such as monitoring human rights conditions and denouncing violations. Organisations registered under this law may also face funding restrictions.
Some CSOs had to shut down because the authorities targeted them with counter-terrorist measures or prosecuted their directors in Case no. 173 of 2011, commonly known as the ‘Foreign Funding Case’. In some instances, the directors of these organisations were prohibited from leaving the country and their assets were frozen. Some courageous organisations have persisted in their work even in the face of attacks against their directors and staff.
In September 2021, the government launched the National Human Rights Strategy, a propaganda tool aimed at concealing the human rights crisis ahead of hosting the COP27 climate summit in 2022. As part of this initiative, it took steps to release some political prisoners and engaged in a national dialogue that contained a broader spectrum of political actors, including civil society representatives.
How has Egyptian civil society organised in the face of repression?
Civil society has adapted to the ongoing repression in various ways. Many CSOs have decided to limit their public engagement and abstain from taking to the streets or limit their work to the provision of legal aid while refraining from undertaking research and international advocacy, especially with international human rights mechanisms. Other organisations have been forced to relocate their operations abroad to safeguard their staff and ensure the continuity and integrity of their work, which has had the opposite effect of facilitating their advocacy efforts with international mechanisms and among European Union (EU) member states.
In response to the continuous pressure, many organisations have started collaborating more closely. In 2019, EFHR coauthored a joint report with eight other CSOs for the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council and participated in the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) session in which Egypt’s human rights record was examined. In 2023, we jointly submitted another report for Egypt’s UPR. We have also engaged in joint campaigns and participated in the formation of coalitions aimed at addressing specific challenges. Egyptian CSOs are increasingly recognising the importance of working together to amplify their impact and advocate for change.
How does EFHR work in such a repressive context?
When it was founded in 2017, EFHR was officially registered in the Czech Republic with affiliates in Egypt, where our team of researchers and lawyers provides crucial legal support by attending daily court hearings and working directly with victims of prosecution. We have successfully coordinated work between our overseas office and our colleagues based in Egypt. Our work focuses on issues that are ignored by the Egyptian authorities, including issues concerning criminal justice, detention conditions and gender-based violence.
We take various security measures to protect the identities of our staff. For instance, our research publications don’t include author names or contact details, and we maintain the anonymity of our legal team. These precautions give us some space to work and leverage our findings and expertise with international mechanisms, by engaging with UN Special Rapporteurs and working groups and collaborating with EU diplomats.
However, we have also faced some challenges. Three of our lawyers have been implicated in state security cases, facing accusations of affiliating with terrorist groups and potentially engaging in the use of force. We have managed to relocate other at-risk colleagues to ensure their safety. The same is happening to other Egyptian human rights organisations, whose members either managed to flee the country or were arrested and remained in prison for least two years.
How do you support Egyptian activists under threat?
We provide legal assistance to those who have been arrested or targeted by the authorities and take measures to ensure activists’ digital security and protect their anonymity, enabling them to continue their work. We collaborate with partners and foreign embassies to put pressure on the Egyptian government, but sometimes this doesn’t work.
Within Egypt, there are a few tools available to protect our colleagues at risk. Even political parties cannot protect their members in Egypt, so they also face regular detentions. Parties often attempt to exert pressure on the authorities to release arrested politicians but after releasing them the government arrests other members of the same organisations.
Are Egyptian activists safe in exile?
Activists who work from abroad are being targeted through their families. For example, the Egyptian-American human rights advocate Mohamed Soltan, who filed a case against former prime minister Hazem el-Beblawi, saw his five family members harassed and arrested as a result of his activism. A German resident, Alaa Eladly, was arrested upon landing in Cairo just because his daughter, Egyptian activist Fagr Eladly, criticised President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi president over human rights abuses at a 2015 press conference between the president and then German chancellor Angela Merkel . The father of Belgium-based journalist and human rights advocate Ahmed Gamal Ziada has recently been detained and accused of misuse of communication, spreading false news and joining a banned group. This strategy aims to silence activists and impose an even higher personal cost for doing their work.
What can the international community do to support Egyptian civil society?
To gain a comprehensive understanding of the situation in Egypt it is important to listen to the perspectives of local human rights defenders. Our international allies and partners must exert pressure on the Egyptian government to open civic space, stop targeting journalists, civil society activists and political figures and filing trumped up charges against them, and release all political prisoners detained for defending the fundamental rights to freedoms of association, peaceful assembly and expression.
EU member states must revise their terms of cooperation with Egypt to prioritise human rights. For instance, they should include human rights considerations as a conditionality for providing financial aid. It is imperative to strike a balance between the interests of governments and the demands of Egyptian civil society. It is also essential to sustain financial support for Egyptian CSOs, especially now that the economic crisis has also hit civil society.
Civic space in Egypt is rated ‘closed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with EFHR through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@egyptian_front onTwitter.
-
EGYPT: ‘There's been severe deterioration in the rule of law & respect for human rights’
CIVICUS speaks about recent protests in Egypt and their repression with a woman activist and protester who, for security reasons, asked to remain anonymous. The space for civil society in Egypt is severely restricted: laws limit legitimate civil society activities and detention and intimidation are routinely used to silence human rights defenders and journalists. The protests that took place in September 2019 resulted in mass arrests and the criminalisation of protesters.
What were the main drivers of the September 2019 protests in Egypt?
The trigger for the September 2019 protests came in the form of a series of viral videos shared by the Egyptian actor and construction contractor Mohamed Ali, in which he accused the authorities and the armed forces of corruption and the squandering of public funds. While President Abdul Fattah El-Sisi ultimately addressed the videos in some form, more videos by Ali and others followed; a broader conversation on the role of the military in Egypt’s economy also ensued.
On 20 September, and partly in response to Ali’s call for demonstrations against Sisi, hundreds took to the streets in the capital, Cairo, and Alexandria, Suez and other cities. As part of this wave of demonstrations, more protests took place on 20, 21 and 27 September. They occurred within a broader context in which many Egyptian citizens were also bearing the brunt of austerity measures and subsidy cuts and were increasingly affected by an escalating crackdown targeting independent, peaceful expression.
What was the response of the government to the protests?
Immediately following the protests and for days afterwards, the Egyptian authorities carried out a widespread arrest campaign that not only targeted people who were present at the demonstrations, but also lawyers, political activists and advocates more broadly. Local civil society organisations (CSOs) estimate that at least 3,763 people were arrested. Many of these people were ordered into pretrial detention in cases involving alleged charges of belonging to a terrorist organisation and spreading false news; a number of them remain in detention.
In the wake of the protests, Netblocks reported restricted use around Facebook Messenger, BBC News and social media CDN (content delivery network) servers. In Cairo, the authorities blocked some roads and temporarily closed some metro stops, particularly those close to Tahrir Square.
What has been the state of democracy and human rights in Egypt under the current regime?
Increasingly since 2013, there has been a severe deterioration in the rule of law and respect for human rights in Egypt. Authorities are using the law to consolidate authoritarianism. This is reflected in new legislation that restricts rights and re-writes the relationship between civilians and the state; the prosecution of peaceful advocates using overly broad anti-terrorism legislation; and the introduction of amendments to the constitution allowing executive influence and interference in the functioning of what are meant to be independent state institutions, including the judiciary and the prosecution.
The use of extended pretrial detention periods as a punitive measure, the sentencing of individuals in mass trials, and a spike in death penalty sentences continue to take place. Detention conditions remain poor; instances of torture and deaths in detention as a result of inadequate access to medical care abound.
The situation of minorities leaves much to be desired. Though the authorities passed a Church Construction Law in 2016 and built the region’s largest church in the New Administrative Capital, Egypt’s Christian minority population continues to suffer from sectarianism, finds it difficult to access justice amid reconciliation sessions that favour the majority faith, and often faces obstacles in building and licensing churches in the areas in which they actually reside. While the state has made some initial attempt to compensate the ethnic Nubian minority, their constitutionally recognised right to return to their ancestral lands remains unfulfilled.
Although Egypt is performing better on a number of economic indicators, austerity policies and subsidy cuts have impacted on the economic and social rights of particularly marginalised civilians, affecting key issues such as housing, education, health and work.
How has the new NGO law impacted on the freedom of association?
In August 2019, Egypt’s new NGO Law went into effect. However, its implementing regulations have not yet been issued, which is making it difficult to understand the degree to which the law is in force – and if it is not, which law and implementing regulations are – and to assess the implementation of the law and its impact on civil society. According to the law, implementing regulations were required to be issued within six months, but this deadline passed in February 2019. Media reports suggest however that the regulations are now expected to be issued in mid-March 2020.
Egypt’s 2019 NGO Law does away with penalties involving jail time, as well as the National Agency to Regulate the Work of Foreign NGOs, a security and intelligence-heavy body created by the 2017 NGO Law to approve and monitor foreign funding. However, the law furthers significant restrictions on the activities of CSOs, places bureaucratic constraints on registration and creates expansive oversight and monitoring authority for government actors.
While it may be early to report on the precise impact of the new law, there is no doubt that its passing has already contributed to some self-censorship, as CSOs have reported being uncertain regarding what legal schemes govern their work and have also raised concern about the law’s broad restrictions. The law was passed in an environment characterised by travel bans, asset freezes and the prosecution and arrest of members of civil society. These trends are only expected to continue. It is important to note that the NGO Law is not the only piece of legislation governing civil society: the media law, the cybercrime law, the counter-terrorism law and the Penal Code are all examples of laws that contain provisions potentially implicating associational activity as well.
At this point, what can international civil society do to support civil society in Egypt?
In some cases in the past, the Egyptian authorities have targeted CSOs engaging with international civil society and subjected them to various forms of reprisal. At other times, international connectivity, collaboration and work with networks has been a form of protection for Egyptian civil society. Accordingly, some organisations are able, willing, or well-positioned to engage with international civil society, while others may not be; this often ends up being a very contextualised and determined on a case-by-case basis.
In cases in which international support can be of benefit to a particular Egyptian CSO, there are a number of clear needs: the creation of long-term and technical training opportunities and resources; systematic network building to expand access to decision-makers; and the provision of in-kind and financial support. Together, this programming has the potential to amplify the voices of, strengthen and provide protection for domestic CSOs that can often be under-resourced, cut off from the international community and subjected to government restriction.
Civic space in Egypt is rated as ‘closed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
-
EL SALVADOR: ‘Rather than a real security policy, what the government has is an electoral strategy’
CIVICUS speaks about the one-year state of emergency in El Salvador with César Artiga, founder and coordinator of the National Promoting Team of the Escazú Agreement and of the National Promoting Group for Resolution 2250 on the Youth, Peace and Security Agenda.These citizen groups have supported processes of social awareness-raising, legal empowerment and political advocacy since 2017. They promote and defend human rights, peace building, justice and sustainability by working with groups and communities living in conditions of exclusion and vulnerability, particularly in relation to their environmental rights.
-
El Salvador: International Organizations Condemn the Detention of Human Rights Defender Ruth López
Washington D.C., May 19, 2025
The undersigned international organizations condemn the detention of human rights defender Ruth López. The National Police arrested her on May 18, 2025 at 11 pm. Alarmingly, Ms. López’s whereabouts are unknown. Authorities have denied her access to legal counsel and family, raising serious concerns about her safety and due process.
Ruth López is a prominent lawyer who has exposed human rights violations and corruption under the Bukele government. She currently serves as the head of Anti-Corruption at Cristosal, one of the most respected human rights groups in El Salvador. In 2024, Ruth was recognized by the BBC on their list of 100 influential and inspiring women
El Salvador’s state of exception has not only been used to address gang-related violence but also as a tool to silence critical voices.
Authoritarianism has increased in recent years as President Nayib Bukele has undermined institutions and the rule of law, and persecuted civil society organizations and independent journalists. Our organizations have been closely monitoring the closing of civic space and attacks on independent press in El Salvador and are deeply concerned at the increasingly pervasive environment of fear that threatens freedoms in the country.
We call on Salvadoran authorities to immediately release Ruth López and urge the Salvadoran government to guarantee her physical safety and due process rights. We also urge U.S. policymakers and the diplomatic community at large to urge President Bukele to cease all attacks against human rights defenders.
Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA)
Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights
Latin America Working Group (LAWG)
Human Rights Watch (HRW)
Seattle International Foundation (SIF)
Center For Justice & International Law (CEJIL)
Amnesty International
Due Process of Law Foundation (DPLF)
CIVICUS Global Alliance
ARTICLE 19 México and Central America
ACTing Together Jotay Program
International Platform Against Impunity
Peace Action
American Jewish World Service (AJWS)
Human Rights First
Civic space in El Salvador is classified as ‘obstructed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.
-
Equatorial Guinea: Free activist Anacleto Micha Ndong Nlang and end brutality against rights defenders
CIVICUS calls on the authorities in Equatorial Guinea to immediately release Anacleto Micha Ndong Nlang. The lawyer, human rights activist, and member of the civic platform Guinea Ecuatorial También Es Nuestra (Equatorial Guinea is Also Ours) has been unjustly arrested since 26th January.
He is falsely charged with being linked to an explosion and ensuing fires that gutted many properties in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea. The government of Equatorial Guinea has been silencing independent and critical voices of dissent committed to defending human rights.
“The security forces brutally grabbed Anacleto Micha Ndong Nlang in the middle of the night. This is another dark moment for the country. The government needs to end its decades-long track record of attacking fundamental rights and freedoms, including freedom of association, expression, and assembly,” said Paul Mulindwa, Advocacy and Policy Officer for CIVICUS.
Anacleto had also been previously targeted with trumped-up charges. He was arrested in September 2022 during a siege by government security forces and the military and imprisoned for 271 days. He was accused of being a part of an opposition political party after he provided food to the party members. He was again arrested in December 2023.
The repression in Equatorial Guinea is fueled using violence against human rights defenders, militarisation of the state and politics, high levels of impunity enjoyed by perpetrators of human rights violations and use of restrictive legislation. An example is law No 1/1999 on the Regime of NGOs to restrict operations of civil society organisations.
“The detention of Anacleto yet again shows the ugliness of President Obiang's regime of reckless disregard for human rights and international law. It demonstrates the absolute impunity that characterizes one of the words most corrupt dictatorships.” Said Tutu Alicante, Director of EG Justice.
The CIVICUS Monitor, an online platform that tracks threats to civil society in countries across the globe, rates the space for civil society in Equatorial Guinea as closed.
CIVICUS calls on the government of Equatorial Guinea to:
- Immediately release Anacleto Micha Ndong Nlang, unconditionally drop all charges, and stop targeting him with further illegal harassment.
- Respect and protect fundamental freedoms and rights of citizens, particularly freedoms of expression, association and assembly.
- Create a free and open space for citizens and civil society by removing restrictions, threats and fear of reprisals.
-
Global civil society condemns violent repression of anti-government protests in Venezuela
- 40 people killed and more than 800 detained since public protests began on January 23
- Journalists covering demonstrations have been attacked
- The UN has called for an independent investigation into the state’s alleged used of force against protesters
- The government of President Nicolás Maduro has often used violence against protesters since coming to power in 2013.
- Global civil society groups have urged authorities to release all detainees and uphold citizens’ rights and the rule of law
-
Global Letter in solidarity with Belarusian civil society
‘You can cut all the flowers, but you cannot keep the Spring from coming’
Pablo Neruda161 human rights organisations demand an end to the repression against the Human Rights Center Viasna and all other human rights defenders in Belarus. We condemn the systematic arbitrary arrests, beatings and acts of torture they are subjected to. Despite all-out repression by the Belarusian authorities, human rights defenders in Belarus continue to strive to protect human rights. Inspired by their courage, we will not stop fighting until they are all released and able to continue their human rights work freely and unhindered.
Over the past few days, we have witnessed another wave of raids and detentions against Belarusian human rights defenders and activists. This repression is a blatant retaliation for their work denouncing and documenting human rights violations ongoing since the brutal crackdown against peaceful protesters in the wake of the August 2020 election. Since August 2020, more than 35,000 Belarusians were arrested for participating in peaceful protests, around 3,000 politically motivated criminal cases were initiated, at least 2,500 cases of torture of Belarusian citizens were documented. We believe these systematic and widespread human rights violations may amount to crimes against humanity. As of July 19, 561 persons in Belarus are considered political prisoners.
Between July 14 and 16, 2021, more than 60 searches were conducted at the homes and offices of Belarusian human rights organisations and their staff, including the Human Rights Centre ‘Viasna’, two member organisations of the International Committee for the Investigation of Torture in Belarus, Human Constanta and Legal Initiative, as well as the Belarusian Helsinki Committee, the Belarusian Association of Journalists, the Legal Transformation Center LawTrend, Ecodom and many others. Documents and IT equipment, including laptops, mobile phones and computers were seized during the searches.
During these latest raids, more than 30 people were interrogated. 13 of them were detained for a 72-hour period, reportedly in connection to an investigation into public order violations and tax evasion. Most of them were subsequently released, namely, Mikalai Sharakh, Siarhei Matskievich, and Viasna members Andrei Paluda, Alena Laptsionak, Yauheniya Babaeva, Siarhei Sys, Viktar Sazonau, Ales Kaputski and Andrei Medvedev. Several of them, however, remain under travel ban and face criminal charges. Notably, Ales Bialiatsky, Viasna Chairperson Valiantsin Stefanovic, Viasna Deputy Head and Vice-President of the FIDH, and Uladzimir Labkovich, a lawyer and Viasna member, remain detained. On July 17, all four were transferred to a pre-trial detention center “Valadarskaha”. Four other Viasna members Leanid Sudalenka, Tatsiana Lasitsa, Marfa Rabkova and Andrey Chapyuk, as well as Aleh Hrableuski of the Office for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, remain in pre-trial detention since late 2020 or early 2021.
Viasna, one of the country’s top human rights organisations, and a member of the OMCT and FIDH networks, has been targeted by the Belarusian government for over two decades. In August 2011, its chairperson Ales Bialiatsky was sentenced to four and a half years of imprisonment on trumped-up charges, and released in June 2014 after spending 1,052 days in arbitrary detention in appalling conditions. In retaliation for Viasna’s courageous work and unwavering stance for human rights, the Belarusian authorities are trying to destroy the organisation by putting seven of its members behind bars.
The raids started only one day after the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a resolution condemning the situation of human rights in Belarus, demanding the release of all persons arbitrarily detained and an investigation into allegations of torture and other human rights violations.
On July 8-9 and July 16, 2021, the authorities also raided the homes and premises of various independent media outlets and their staff, including ‘Nasha Niva’, one of country’s oldest independent newspaper, and detained three of its journalists. The offices of RFE/Radio Liberty and Belsat, the largest independent TV channel covering Belarus, were also searched, and several of their journalists were detained. As of now, over 30 media workers and dozens of bloggers remain in detention.
We, the undersigned civil society organisations, condemn the massive human rights violations perpetrated by the Belarusian authorities, which we fear may trigger more violence. This latest wave of repression, together with the brutal crackdown over the last months, demonstrates that the authorities aim at having every human rights defender either detained or exiled.
We stand in solidarity with our colleagues and friends who are detained, harassed, and persecuted for their brave work. We regard their struggle with great concern and sorrow, and we are inspired by their commitment and resilience.
We urge the Belarusian authorities to stop the harassment and intimidation of critical voices, and to free all unjustly detained human rights defenders, journalists and activists.
We call on the international community to take a strong stance in support of the Belarusian human rights community, and to speak out for the release of all those who are still behind bars, and whose only crime is to demand a society based on justice instead of fear.
Signatories
1. Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran - Iran
2. ACAT Belgique - Belgium
3. ACAT Burundi - Burundi
4. ACAT España-Catalunya (Acción de los Cristianos para la Abolición de la Tortura) - Spain
5. ACAT Germany (Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture) - Germany
6. ACAT Italia - Italy
7. ACAT République Centrafricaine - Central African Republic
8. ACAT République Démocratique du Congo - Democratic Republic of Congo
9. ACAT Suisse - Switzerland
10. ACAT Tchad - Tchad
11. ACAT Togo - Togo
12. Action Against Violence and Exploitation (ACTVE) - Philippines
13. Action des Chrétiens Activistes des Droits de l’Homme à Shabunda (ACADHOSHA) - Democratic Republic of Congo
14. Advocacy Forum – Nepal - Nepal
15. Agir ensemble pour les droits humains - France
16. Albanian Human Rights Group
17. ALTSEAN-Burma - Myanmar
18. Anti Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) - Malaysia/Asia-Pacific
19. Anti-Discrimination Centre Memorial - Belgium
20. ARTICLE 19
21. ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights - Indonesia
22. Asia Pacific Solidarity Coalition (APSOC) - Philippines
23. Asociación para una Ciudadanía Participativa (ACI PARTICIPA) - Honduras
24. Asociación pro derechos humanos (Aprodeh) - Peru
25. Association Mauritanienne des droits de l'homme (AMDH-Mauritanieuri) - Mauritania
26. Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP) - India
27. Association Tchadienne pour la promotion et la Défense des Droits de l'Homme (ATPDH) - Tchad
28. Association tunisienne des femmes démocrates - Tunisia
29. Avocats Sans Frontières France (ASF France) - France
30. Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM) - India
31. Belarusian-Swiss Association RAZAM.CH - Switzerland
32. Bulgarian Helsinki Committee - Bulgaria
33. Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR) - Cambodia
34. Capital Punishment Justice Project (CPJP) - Australia
35. Center for Civil Liberties - Ukraine
36. Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) - United States of America
37. Centre for Applied Human Rights (CAHR), University of York - United Kingdom
38. Centre for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights (CDDHR) - Russia
39. Centro de Derechos humanos Fray Bartolomé de las Casas A.c. (Frayba) - Mexico
40. Centro de Derechos Humanos Paso del Norte - Mexico
41. Centro de Investigación y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos (CIPRODEH) - Honduras
42. Centro de Prevención, Tratamiento y Rehabilitación de Victimas de la Tortura y sus familiares (CPTRT) - Honduras
43. Centro de Salud Mental y Derechos Humanos (CINTRAS) - Chile
44. Changement Social Bénin (CSB) - Benin
45. CIVICUS
46. Civil Rights Defenders (CRD) - Sweden
47. Comision Nacional de los Derechos Humanos (CNDH-RD) - Dominican Republic
48. Coalition Burkinabé des Défenseurs des Droits Humains (CBDDH) - Burkina Faso
49. Coalition Marocaine contre la Peine de Mort - Morocco
50. Coalition Tunisienne Contre la Peine de Mort - Tunisia
51. Collectif des Associations Contre l'Impunité au Togo (CACIT) - Togo
52. Comisión de derechos humanos – COMISEDH - Peru
53. Comité de Familiares de Detenidos Desaparecidos en Honduras (COFADEH) - Honduras
54. Comité de solidaridad con los presos políticos (FCSPP) - Colombia
55. Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) - Northern Ireland (UK)
56. Crude Accountability - United States of America
57. Czech League of Human Rights Czech Republic
58. Death Penalty Focus (DPF) - United States of America
59. Defenders of human rights centre - Iran
60. DEMAS - Association for Democracy Assistance and Human Rights - Czech Republic
61. DITSHWANELO - The Botswana Centre for Human Rights - Botswana
62. Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum (EaP CSF) - Belgium
63. Eleos Justice, Monash University - Australia
64. Enfants Solidaires d'Afrique et du Monde (ESAM) - Benin
65. Federal Association of Vietnam-Refugees in the Federal Republic of Germany - Germany
66. FIDU - Italian Federation for Human Rights - Italy
67. Finnish League for Human Rights - Finland
68. Free Press Unlimited - The Netherlands
69. Fundación Regional de Asesoría en Derechos Humanos (INREDH) - Ecuador
70. GABRIELA Alliance of Filipino Women - Philippines
71. German Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (GCADP) - Germany
72. Greek Helsinki Monitor Greece
73. Helsinki Citizens' Assembly – Vanadzor - Armenia
74. Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights - Poland
75. Citizens' Watch Russia
76. Human Rights Alert - India
77. Human Rights Association (İHD) - Turkey
78. Human Rights Center (HRC) - Georgia
79. Human Rights Center (HRC) "Memorial" - Russia
80. Human Rights House Foundation
81. Human Rights in China (HRIC) - USA
82. Human Rights Monitoring Institute (HRMI) - Lithuania
83. Human Rights Mouvement “Bir Duino-Kyrgyzstan” - Kyrgyzstan
84. Human Rights Organization of Nepal - Nepal
85. Humanist Union of Greece (HUG) - Greece
86. Hungarian Helsinki Committee - Hungary
87. IDP Women Association "Consent" - Georgia
88. Independent Medico-Legal Unit (IMLU) - Kenya
89. Instituto de Estudios Legales y Sociales del Uruguay (IELSUR) - Uruguay
90. International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) - Kenyan Section - Kenya
91. International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) - France
92. International Legal Initiative - Kazakhstan
93. International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR) - Belgium
94. International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) - Switzerland
95. Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society - India
96. JANANEETHI - India
97. Justice for Iran (JFI) - United Kingdom
98. Justícia i Pau - Spain
99. Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and the Rule of Law - Kazakhstan
100. Kharkiv Regional Foundation "Public Alternative" - Ukraine
101. La Strada International - The Netherlands
102. La Voix des Sans Voix pour les Droits de l'Homme (VSV) - Democratic Republic of Congo
103. Latvian Human Rights Committee (LHRC) - Latvia
104. Lawyer's Committee for Human Rights YUCOM - Serbia
105. League for the Defence of Human Rights in Iran (LDDHI) - Iran
106. Legal Policy Research Centre (LPRC) - Kazakhstan
107. Libereco Partnership of Human Rights - Germany/ Switzerland
108. LICADHO - Cambodia
109. Lifespark - Switzerland
110. Liga Portuguesa dos Direitos Humanos - Civitas (LPDHC) - Portugal
111. Liga voor de Rechten van de Mens (LvRM) (Dutch League for Human Rights) - The Netherlands
112. Ligue des droits de l'Homme (LDH) - France
113. Ligue Tchadienne des droits de l'Homme - Tchad
114. Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN) - Maldives
115. Martin Ennals Foundation - Switzerland
116. Minority Rights Group - Greece
117. Mouvance des Abolitionnistes du Congo Brazzaville - Congo Brazzaville
118. Mouvement Ivoirien des Droits Humains (MIDH) - Côte d'Ivoire
119. Mouvement Lao pour les Droits de l'Homme - Laos
120. Movimento Nacional de Direitos Humanos (MNDH) - Brazil
121. Netherlands Helsinki Committee - The Netherlands
122. Norwegian Helsinki Committee - Norway
123. Observatoire du système pénal et des droits humains (OSPDH) - Spain
124. Observatoire Marocain des prisons - Morocco
125. Odhikar - Bangladesh
126. OPEN ASIA|Armanshahr - France
127. Organisation contre la torture en Tunisie (OCTT) - Tunisie
128. Organisation Guineenne de Defense des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen (OGDH) - Guinea
129. Österreichische Liga für Menschenrechte ÖLFMR - Austria
130. Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) - Palestine
131. Pax Christi Uvira - Democratic Republic of Congo
132. People's Watch India
133. Programa Venezolano de Educación-Acción en Derechos Humanos (Provea) - Venezuela
134. Promo LEX Association - Republic of Moldova
135. Protection International (PI)
136. Public Association "Dignity" - Kazakhstan
137. Public Association Spravedlivost Human Rights Organization - Kyrgyzstan
138. Public Verdict Foundation - Russia
139. Rencontre Africaine pour la Défense des Droits de l'Homme RADDHO - Senegal
140. Repecap Academics - Spain
141. Réseau des Defenseurs des Droits Humains en Afrique Centrale (REDHAC) - Cameroon
142. Réseau National de Défense des Droits Humains (RNDDH) - Haïti
143. Rights Realization Centre - UK
144. Rural People's Sangam - India
145. Salam for Democracy and Human Rights - UK, Lebanon, Bahrain
146. Social-Strategic Researches and Analytical Investigations Public Union (SSRAIPU) - Azerbaijan
147. SOHRAM-CASRA - Centre Action Sociale Réhabilitation et Réadaptation pour les Victimes de la Torture, de la guerre et de la violence - Turquie
148. SOS-Torture/Burundi - Burundi
149. SUARAM - Malaysia
150. Syndicat national des agents de la formation et de l'education du Niger (SYNAFEN NIGER) - Niger
151. Task Force Detainees of the Philippines (TFDP) - Philippines
152. Thai Action Committee for Democaracy in Burma (TACDB) - Thailand
153. The Advocates for Human Rights - United States of America
154. The Barys Zvozskau Belarusian Human Rights House (BHRH) - Lithuania
155. The Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS) - Indonesia
156. The International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT)
157. Urgent Action Fund for Women's Human Rights United States of America
158. Vietnam Committee on Human Rights (VCHR) - France
159. World Coalition Against the Death Penalty (WCADP) - France
160. World Organization Against Torture (OMCT) - Switzerland
161. Xumek asociación para la promoción y protección de los derechos humanos - ArgentinaCivic space in Belarus is rated as Repressed by the CIVICUS Monitor
-
GUATEMALA: ‘Corrupt elites see defenders of justice as a threat to their interests and try to silence them’
CIVICUS discusses the state of civic space and justice in Guatemala with former anti-corruption prosecutor Virginia Laparra.Virginia recently went into exile after spending two years in prison for a case brought against her in retaliation for her work. She received a five-year sentence, which she condemned as arbitrary. As a prosecutor, she led important investigations into corruption cases. This put her in the crosshairs of a judicial system that had become a guarantor of impunity. While in prison, she suffered violations of her fundamental rights and medical negligence. Her case is part of a pattern of repression that has forced over 50 human rights defenders and members of the Guatemalan judiciary into exile.
What circumstances forced you to leave Guatemala?
For 16 years I worked in the Guatemalan Public Prosecutor’s Office as a prosecutor for crimes against life, property crimes, violence against women, crimes against minors, drug trafficking, financial and tax crimes and customs smuggling. This experience helped me to train in different areas and this is how my career as a prosecutor took shape.
As time went on, I took on more and more responsibility, becoming head of various units and offices, including the Permanent Attention Office, which deals with complaints and classifies information received by the Public Prosecutor’s Office. I was also in charge of the regional headquarters of the Office of the Special Prosecutor against Impunity, which worked hand in hand with the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala on cases of organised crime and corruption.
My work didn’t go unnoticed. Starting in 2017, I received threats and was subjected to smear campaigns in the government-controlled media. Persecution included arbitrary judicial proceedings and an attempt to put my case in the hands of judges known for their ties to corruption. Finally, I was arrested in an illegal and arbitrary procedure and sent to prison, where I suffered torture, human rights violations and prolonged solitary confinement.
I received the support of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which issued several resolutions in my favour, and I was declared a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International. But the Guatemalan state ignored these demands. I spent two years in prison, and when I was released in January, threats intensified. In the absence of guarantees for my safety, I took the difficult decision to leave my country to preserve my life and freedom.
Fortunately, in exile I have found new ways to contribute to the promotion of justice and human rights in Latin America by working with international and local organisations. Above all, I’m satisfied with the work I did in Guatemala and proud to have contributed to justice.
What are the challenges facing human rights defenders and the judicial officials in Guatemala?
Civic space in Guatemala is in crisis. There were hopes that the government of Bernardo Arévalo, which took office in January this year, would reform the judicial system and create a more favourable environment for the administration of justice. It’s true that little time has passed, but it seems unlikely this will be achieved. The powerful interests that perpetuate corruption and impunity remain intact, and the new administration has faced strong pressures that limit its ability to implement substantial change.
Human rights defenders, members of the judiciary and politicians who support the Arévalo government face intimidation, threats, attacks and arbitrary detention. Impunity only exacerbates the risks.
Corrupt elites who have stayed in power by plundering public resources see defenders of justice as a threat to their interests and try to silence them through smear campaigns, persecution and physical violence. The exile of Thelma Aldana, Juan Francisco Sandoval and many other former members of the judiciary, human rights defenders and journalists is a stark reminder of the hostility faced by those who work for justice, transparency and accountability.
How can the international community support the fight against impunity in Guatemala?
The international community can and must play a crucial role in this fight. International platforms should highlight and condemn human rights violations. Diplomatic voices must urge the Guatemalan government to guarantee respect for human rights. It is also essential that they provide financial and technical support to local civil society organisations.
The international community should support the fight against corruption and impunity in Guatemala and coordinate its efforts to ensure it has deep and lasting impact. They must help protect human rights defenders and ensure the justice system is not used as a weapon to stifle dissent.
Civic space in Guatemala is rated as ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
-
GUATEMALA: ‘Judicial harassment and criminal prosecution have wearing effects’
On World Press Freedom Day, CIVICUS speaks with Carlos Ernesto Choc, a Q’eqchi’ Mayan journalist with almost two decades of experience, about the criminalisation of journalism and the media in Guatemala.What are the conditions for journalists in Guatemala?
The conditions for the practice of journalism in Guatemala are quite difficult. We face criminal prosecution by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and threats from various sources, including public officials that journalists are questioning or investigating. Defamation campaigns against journalists are also very concerning.
The internet and social media are full of trolls who send threatening and defamatory messages. They discredit journalistic work and attacks naturally follow. These even come from the state, and particularly from public security agencies. The National Civil Police attack the media and journalists both in the context of demonstrations and at other times and places where they do not want coverage of events in order to preserve impunity for crimes or violations of rights perpetrated on the ground.
Since 2015, aggressions against the press have only escalated. Now as well as being criminally prosecuted, judicially harassed, threatened, intimidated and vilified, you can be thrown into prison. To be able to do this, they accuse you of charges that are normally used to fight organised crime, such as illicit association, as in my case, or money laundering, as in the case of my colleague Rubén Zamora. In other words, we are accused of being criminals and prosecuted under accusations of having links to organised crime, leading land invasions or instigating crime. These are clearly fabricated accusations, so we are baselessly, illegally detained. They ultimately have no way of proving their accusations, but in the meantime you remain subject to lengthy criminal proceedings.
While all journalists are vulnerable in this country right now, those of us who investigate environmental aggression, human rights violations and issues related to drug trafficking and corruption are particularly vulnerable. These are really complicated issues and some investigate them anonymously because many have been murdered, the most recent being Eduardo Mendizabal, just over a month ago.
The situation is getting more complicated by the day and some community journalists have chosen to emigrate and quit journalism. It is sad to see colleagues leave, and under the current government there have been more and more of them. I don’t see myself in exile, but I view this as an option of last resort.
What is your situation after the criminalisation you have experienced?
Mine has been a case of judicial persecution that has been used to attempt to silence me. It started in 2017 when I was investigating the pollution of Lake Izabal. I was documenting protests by fishers against mining and I captured the exact moment when a protester was killed by shots fired by the National Civil Police. The accusation against me came from the mining company, Solway Investment Group – a Russian-owned company based in Switzerland. In August 2017, a warrant for my arrest was issued. One hearing after another was postponed so only in January 2019 could I finally give testimony before the court, as a result of which I was handed an alternative measure to prison.
When you have an alternative measure to imprisonment you are free under certain conditions: you are forced to visit the Public Prosecutor’s Office every 30 days to sign in and forbidden to be in any place where alcoholic drinks are sold, among other things. The security forces, the police, the authorities are watching where you are and waiting for you to commit a breach to be able to prosecute you. I see these alternative measures as forms of punishment that imply restrictions and limitations on your right to inform and be informed.
In January 2022, I was criminally prosecuted again, under accusations by the National Civil Police of instigating violence during a protest by Indigenous communities in Izabal against the country’s largest active open-pit mine, owned by Solway’s subsidiary Compañía Guatemalteca de Níquel. Thirteen police officers accused me of having physically assaulted them, when all I was doing was documenting the moment when security forces repressed people with teargas. Since then I could not continue doing my job as a journalist, nor move around freely, until my lawyers managed to prove to the judge that I really am a journalist and not a criminal. In September the charges against me were dropped. It has been very exhausting: judicial harassment and criminal prosecution have wearing effects.
What strategies have journalists adopted to be able to continue working?
Strategies to break through censorship are renewed every day and are often focused on both physical and digital security, particularly concerning the security of documents and files. Local, national and international networking among journalists and alternative and independent media is also very important.
Such networks have made possible works such as Green Blood, published in 2019, and Mining Secrets, published in 2022. Both were led by Forbidden Stories, an organisation based in France that supports the publication of the work of journalists facing threats, criminalisation and violence in their countries. Green Blood was the result of research conducted in three countries on three continents: Guatemala, India and Tanzania, and looks into the mining industry’s tactics to hinder journalistic work and criminalise those who oppose its practices. Mining Secrets arose from the leak of a huge amount of Solway’s internal files concerning the operation of its Fénix mining project in Izabal. A consortium of 20 media outlets from 15 countries around the world carried out an investigation, with information corroborated by 65 journalists, including the Prensa Comunitaria team I was part of.
It is all about finding a way to continue doing the work you are doing. Like many others, I do journalism out of passion and conviction. I don’t expect a prize or international recognition. I know that what I am doing is going to help my community and society in general. I believe that shedding light on environmental damage and human rights violations is very important.
What kind of support do journalists and community media in Guatemala currently receive, and what additional support would they need?
We receive support mainly in the form of accompaniment: legal accompaniment, accompaniment from human rights organisations and accompaniment from communities and community authorities who support our work.
This is very important, but much more is needed. A difficulty that criminalised or at-risk journalists experience is that of surviving economically and supporting their families, which is why economic support is important. The same goes for health support, because there are times when, due to all you are going through, your body no longer responds. Finally, it is key to provide opportunities for exchange with other journalist colleagues. It helps a lot to learn about the experiences of others.
Civic space in Guatemala is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Follow@CarlosErnesto_C on Twitter.
-
GUATEMALA: ‘Our democracy is at risk in the hands of political-criminal networks’
CIVICUS speaks with Evelyn Recinos Contreras about Guatemala’s general elections – where a candidate promising reform has surprisingly made the second round of the presidential race – and the prospects for democratic change and opening up civic space.Evelyn is a former investigator for the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) and former advisor to the Attorney General of Guatemala. She is currently living in exile because of her human rights activism.
What is the state of civic space in Guatemala?
Civic space in Guatemala is under serious threat. To understand this better, one must understand that, as a consequence of armed conflict, the social fabric is broken. There is hardly any grassroots citizen engagement to speak of. The sectors that for decades served as an engine of social change, such as teachers, trade unionists and high school and public university students, have been irreparably affected by the violence.
Of these, probably the only grassroots sector that remains organised is Indigenous Mayan peoples, who fight for the defence of their territory and natural resources. In addition, in urban areas, civil society human rights and pro-democracy organisations have organised their work around strengthening democratic institutions, with much emphasis on the issue of justice.
It is precisely these sectors that are once again being hit by authoritarianism and state violence. In the interior of the country, thousands of community leaders are being criminalised and entire communities are subject to arrest warrants and threatened with criminal prosecution. A similar situation is experienced in urban areas, where the justice system has been captured by political-criminal networks that use state platforms to fund their criminal endeavours and intimidate justice operators, human rights defenders and activists who fight for human rights and the strengthening of civic space and democracy.
Networks of corruption and impunity affect the democratic space, as evidenced by the fact that people such as Thelma Cabrera of the People’s Liberation Movement were prevented from registering as candidates and participating in the elections.
What are the causes of Guatemala’s democratic erosion?
Democracy in Guatemala is being eroded by political-criminal networks that have taken over institutions and use them for their own benefit rather than the wellbeing of the public and the strengthening of democracy. But it has been a gradual and almost imperceptible process. Several key institutions have been weakened, such as the National Civil Police, which is in charge of two main tasks: crime prevention and the maintenance of citizen security, and collaboration in criminal investigations. For years, civil society worked with police commanders to build an institution at the service of democratic security, so that its work would serve to produce a civic space in which citizens could enjoy their fundamental rights and live a dignified life free of violence. But since 2017 we have seen the institution weakened, with commanders being dismissed and resources being misused.
Similar problems can be found in the judiciary. High courts have not followed their normal process of renewal: they have not held elections for new magistrates. In addition, the last two elections they held were denounced and investigated for acts of corruption. The Public Prosecutor’s Office has also been weakened by a policy of criminal prosecution and criminalisation of justice operators, which has also meant the sidelining of investigation of crimes against life, violence against women and property crimes, which hit citizens hard. Rates of violence and insecurity in Guatemala are almost as high as in countries undergoing internal armed conflicts.
Do you think that the anti-corruption struggle has failed in Guatemala?
It is very difficult to provide an absolute answer to the question of the success or failure of the fight against corruption in Guatemala. I think the cases that were brought to trial were supported by evidence and due process was respected. In that sense they were successful. But this was only part of the fight against corruption, because the law provides a limited platform. The damage to society had already been done and resources had already been lost.
The fight against corruption is only truly successful when there is a level of social involvement that leads to scrutiny of public officials and a sustained demand of accountability. Sadly, we are not there yet.
For those who have been involved in the fight against corruption, the negative consequences have been obvious. Prosecutors, judges, human rights defenders, activists and community leaders are being persecuted on unfounded charges and pushed towards exile. This sends a strong message of fear to Guatemalan society. But I am convinced that the struggle does not end here. We deserve a country where we can all live in freedom and dignity. The Mayan people have been resisting for more than 500 years, so I think they are our best example to follow.
Do you think a positive change could come out of this election?
I believe there is hope. People have shown they are tired of the same murky forces that for years have embodied voracious economic interests that exploit peoples and territories and are characterised by discrimination, double standards and structural violence.
The fact that one of the contenders in the runoff is the Semilla party, born out of the anti-corruption protests of 2015 and bringing together many people who have never participated in political parties before, is evidence of a desire for change. People rejected the usual political actors who represent archaic economic interests and embody authoritarian and corrupt forms of politics.
For change to really materialise, we need the international community to turn its eyes to Guatemala. The risk to our democracy at the hands of political-criminal networks must not go unnoticed. We need the international community to draw attention to and speak out about the situation in our country, because the violation of the human rights of Guatemalans affects our shared humanity.
Civic space in Guatemala is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
-
GUATEMALA: ‘These elections are key because they give us a chance to take a different path’
CIVICUS speaks with Jordán Rodas Andrade about Guatemala’s general elections – where a candidate promising reform has surprisingly made the second round of the presidential race – and the prospects for democratic change and opening up civic space.Jordán Rodas is a lawyer specialising in constitutional guarantees and fundamental rights, transparency and anti-corruption. In addition to being a university professor, in 2015 he was elected vice-president of the Guatemalan Bar Association and between 2017 and 2022 he was Guatemala’s Human Rights Ombudsman. In exercising this role he was repeatedly criminalised and threatened, as a result of which he had to go into exile.
How have civic space conditions changed in Guatemala in recent years?
In recent years there has been a very worrying deterioration of civic space in Guatemala, which has worsened under the current president, Alejandro Giammattei. His predecessor, Jimmy Morales, a comedian-turned-president, left very bad practices in place, but these reached extreme levels under Giammattei.
In recent years, many human rights defenders, land rights defenders, journalists and justice defenders have had to leave our country, forced by a hostile climate of persecution and criminalisation. This closure of spaces and the absence of an independent press have produced fertile ground for the advance of an authoritarian regime. These elections are key because they give us Guatemalans a chance to take a different path for the good of our country.
What drove you into exile?
In my five years as prosecutor, I was criminalised with 18 pretrial proceedings, all of which were rejected. It is exhausting to have to constantly defend yourself against such a succession of spurious accusations. Then I had eight requests for removal from office by members of congress, in addition to a crippling financial suffocation.
Above all, I have witnessed the weakening of justice. Many had to take the difficult decision to leave the country to save their lives, their freedom or their integrity. Among them are Juan Francisco Sandoval, former head of the Special Prosecutor’s Office against Impunity (FECI), Erika Aifán, an independent judge, Judge Miguel Ángel Gálvez and many others who in one way or another touched the heartstrings of political and economic power.
It is no coincidence that behind the persecution of justice operators and journalists is often the Foundation Against Terrorism, directed by business leader Ricardo Méndez Ruiz, who has been accused by the US government of acts of corruption and acts against democratic institutions. This organisation was a plaintiff in the criminal proceedings against Virginia Laparra, former FECI prosecutor in Quetzaltenango, who has been in prison for more than a year and who should never have been detained for denouncing cases of corruption of a judge. Whistleblowing is not a crime anywhere in the world.
The same organisation criminally prosecuted José Rubén Zamora, the founder of newspaper elPeriódico, one of the government’s main critics who for years has denounced corruption. Zamora was recently sentenced to six years in prison for several alleged crimes, including money laundering. This sent a very serious message against press freedom. The independent press has had to self-censor and yet it continues to fight this battle.
I was still in Guatemala when Zamora was captured, and so I decided to distance myself. I left in August but returned in December, by land, to participate in the assembly of the People’s Liberation Movement (MLP), which proclaimed Thelma Cabrera, an Indigenous Maya Mam woman, as its presidential candidate and myself as its vice-presidential candidate. Four years ago, the MLP came in fourth place, but in a context of social malaise in the face of corruption and thanks to its opening up to mestizo people – people of mixed European and Indigenous heritage – I thought it had a good chance of entering the second-round race.
But my successor in the prosecutor’s office filed a spurious complaint against me, as a result of which our presidential ticket was blocked. I was systematically refused information about the content of the complaint. In other words, this was used to take us out of the race. Since then, I have continued the struggle from exile. This may not be what you want, but it is what you have to do.
Under what conditions would you decide to return to Guatemala permanently?
I was just talking about this last week following a work meeting with the Guatemalan state mediated by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). I have been the beneficiary of a precautionary measure from the IACHR since 2017. These measures establish that the state has the obligation to ensure and guarantee a person’s life, integrity, security and liberty, and in my case the state of Guatemala has not complied with it. In order to return, I would need as the minimum that the state does not persecute or criminalise me.
There are currently two accusations against me, one filed by the Human Rights Ombudsman’s Office and another by the Comptroller General’s Office. I have no official knowledge of what the accusations are because I don’t have access to the documents; I have requested them through access to information requests. But it seems to me they are related to the fact that in my declaration of assets I said that I had handed over on 20 August, which is when my constitutionally established term ended, but I left the country on 18 August, leaving the deputy attorney general in charge, as the law dictates. In other words, there was no falsehood or crime. This case is under reserve, and I have asked the state, as a sign of goodwill, not to extend this reserve but to hand over a copy of the complaint so I can defend myself, and to guarantee my life and safety, and that of my family in Guatemala.
Has the fight against corruption in Guatemala failed?
The fight against corruption has not failed, but it has stalled as a result of a well-thought-out strategy of a corrupt alliance of political officials and private sector actors.
However, today more than ever I hope that we will learn the painful but positive lessons from the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG), which I believe has more lights than shadows. I hope that from that learning we can, sooner rather than later, take up the fight against corruption again.
International support will continue to be indispensable because our justice system is very porous, permeated by organised crime and lacking institutionality. Three of the nine magistrates of the Supreme Court of Justice and several other judges and judicial officials are on the US State Department’s Engel List of people who have committed acts of corruption or have participated in actions to undermine democracy in their countries. Members of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal have been accused of falsifying their doctoral degrees to get elected and the Human Rights Ombudsman was Giammattei’s human rights officer in the prison system at the time he launched ‘Operation Peacock’, a police operation that resulted in a massacre and eventually cost Giammattei 10 months in prison, but also launched its presidential bid. Hence the trust that exists between these two officials.
But it is clear that people are tired of all this and they showed it at the ballot box on 25 June, when they said no to a return to the past and yes to a proposal that sends a message of hope for the fight against corruption. This was clearly put by the candidate who represents this hope, Bernardo Arévalo, who made it to the second round against all odds.
Do you consider these elections to have been free and competitive?
The presidential election was not free and competitive, because a fair election requires not only that there be no fraud on voting day, but also that a series of elements are present throughout the process, from the moment the elections are called. The election was called on 20 January, and on 27 January the state closed the door on us and prevented our participation. Not only did this violate our right to stand for election, but it also restricted citizens’ right to have a full range of options.
In reaction to this exclusion, Thelma Cabrera called for a null vote, and numbers don’t lie. The null vote actually won, with 17 per cent, a higher share than that received by the candidate who came first, Sandra Torres, who got around 15 per cent. People are clearly fed up.
The unfairness of the competition also manifested itself in the official party’s handling of public resources and the government’s extremely close relationship with some Supreme Electoral Tribunal magistrates.
But the fact that Bernardo Arévalo managed to enter the second round is, alongside the mass of null votes, blank votes and abstentions, a sign of enormous rejection of the system. I have high expectations for the second round, in which I hope that the Guatemalan people will participate massively and take advantage of this opportunity to choose a better future.
What would Guatemala’s new government need to do to put the country back on the road to democracy?
Above all, the anti-corruption message must be accompanied by real action. Revenge against justice operators must stop, the rule of law must be restored and the freedom of the independent press must be guaranteed.
The new president should form a cabinet inclusive of progressive sectors. He should convene political parties, social forces and Indigenous peoples’ movements to jointly make a proposal that ensures public policies benefit those most in need.
The new government should totally dissociate itself from the malpractices of the past and be very careful about power’s temptations. Its responsibility to those who have placed their trust in it must prevail. There will be temptations along the way, so it is essential that it place its bets on people who are ethical, capable and consistent with the values projected in the electoral campaign, as people voted for them because they recognised them first and foremost as an honest party. Bernardo is surely the most interested in honouring the legacy of his father, former president Juan José Arévalo. His government could become a third government of the revolution, taking up and improving on the great achievements of that democratic springtime that took place between 1944 and 1955.
Civic space in Guatemala is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with Jordán Rodas through his Facebook or Instagram pages, and follow him on TikTok and Twitter.
-
HAÏTI : « La communauté internationale ne s’est jamais attaquée aux causes profondes de la crise »
CIVICUS s’entretient avec Nixon Boumba, militant des droits humains et membre du Kolektif Jistis Min nan Ayiti (Collectif pour la justice minière en Haïti), sur la situation politique en Haïti après l’assassinat du président Jovenel Moïse. Formé en 2012, le Collectif pour la justice minière en Haïti est un mouvement d’organisations, d’individus et de partenaires de la société civile haïtienne qui font pression pour la transparence et la justice sociale et environnementale face à l’intérêt international croissant pour le secteur minier haïtien. Il sensibilise les communautés touchées aux conséquences de l’exploitation minière dans cinq domaines : l’environnement, l’eau, le travail, l’agriculture et la terre. -
HAÏTI : « Les gangs contrôlent le pays en lieu et place des autorités »
CIVICUS échange sur l’augmentation de la violence des gangs et la situation politique en Haïti avec Nancy Roc, journaliste indépendante.Avec 38 ans d’expérience, Nancy est une journaliste originaire d’Haïti, reconnue pour son travail en faveur de la liberté de la presse. Elle est récipiendaire de nombreux prix, dont le prix Jean Dominique pour la liberté de la presse décerné par l’UNESCO, entre autres.
Quelle est la situation actuelle d’Haïti en matière de sécurité ?
La situation est intenable, pour reprendre le terme exact du Haut-Commissaire des Nations Unies (ONU) aux droits de l’homme, Volker Türk. Malgré l’état d’urgence et la succession de couvre-feu déclarés par le gouvernement depuis le 4 mars pour regagner le contrôle de la capitale, Port-au-Prince, il n’y a pas une semaine qui ne s’écoule sans que des kidnappings aient lieu. La violence est quotidienne.
La population est cloitrée chez elle, la plupart des écoles sont fermées et les activités économiques sont gravement affectées. Il en est de même sur les routes où depuis plus de trois mois les gangs imposent leur loi et de nombreux chauffeurs sont au chômage. Pratiquement toutes les infrastructures de la capitale ont été ou détruites ou gravement affectées par les attaques des gangs.
L’attaque du Pénitencier national, le 2 mars, a été un grand choc pour les Haïtiens, même s’ils sont habitués à vivre sous la menace constante de la violence. Plus de 4.500 détenus se seraient évadés, parmi lesquels des membres éminents de gangs et des personnes arrêtées dans le cadre de l’assassinat du Président Jovenel Moïse en juillet 2021. Les pillages et les attaques ont été nombreux, notamment contre la Bibliothèque nationale, qui a été prise d’assaut le 3 avril.
La veille, dans la soirée du 2 avril, des bandits lourdement armés ont pillé des dizaines de maisons et emporté plusieurs véhicules privés aux villages Tecina et Théodat, dans la municipalité de Tabarre, au nord-est de Port-au-Prince. La grande majorité de la population, qui vivait déjà dans une misère extrême, est aujourd’hui plongée dans un véritable enfer et laissée pour compte.
Quant à la police, malgré certains efforts, elle n’est pas outillée ni assez nombreuse pour faire face à une telle situation de guérilla urbaine face à des gangs surarmés. Actuellement, environ 23 gangs opèrent dans la zone métropolitaine de Port-au-Prince, divisés en deux grandes coalitions : le G-Pèp, dirigé par Gabriel Jean Pierre, dit Ti Gabriel, et le G9 Famille et Alliés, dirigé par Jimmy Chérizier, alias Barbecue. Mais les experts de l’ONU estiment qu’il y en a entre 150 et 200 dans l’ensemble du pays.
Selon l’ONU, depuis le début de l’année, 1.193 personnes ont été tuées et 692 blessées à cause de la violence des gangs. Le système de santé est au bord de l’effondrement et les hôpitaux n’ont souvent pas la capacité de traiter les personnes blessées. L’économie est asphyxiée car les gangs imposent des restrictions aux mouvements de la population. Le principal fournisseur d’eau potable a cessé ses livraisons. Cette situation a entraîné une crise alimentaire majeure : près de la moitié des 11 millions d’habitants d’Haïti ont besoin d’une forme d’assistance alimentaire.
Comment les gangs sont-ils devenus si puissants ?
Les gangs disposent de puissants financeurs au sein du gouvernement et du secteur privé. Sous l’ancien premier ministre de facto Ariel Henry, qui a démissionné en mars, le gouvernement finançait 30% des membres du G9. Il ne serait pas étonnant que certaines personnalités tant du secteur privé que d’anciens hauts dignitaires de l’État continuent à les financer, en particulier ceux qui ont été sanctionnés par la communauté internationale.
Un rapport d’experts de l’ONU publié en 2023 a également pointé du doigt l’ancien président Michel Martelly, au pouvoir entre 2011 et 2016, ainsi que plusieurs hommes d’affaires et législateurs de premier plan, comme fournissant des ressources aux gangs armés, que ce soit en nature ou en espèces.
La prolifération des gangs a commencé sous Martelly et s’est accentuée après l’assassinat de Moïse. Déjà en 2019, environ 162 groupes armés avaient été répertoriés sur le territoire national dont plus de la moitié opérait dans l’aire métropolitaine. Au total, ils auraient un potentiel supérieur à 3.000 soldats armés d’armes à feu, dont des adolescents et même des enfants.
Sous Moïse, de nombreux massacres ont eu lieu, tels que le massacre de La Saline en 2018, le massacre du Bel Air en 2019 et le massacre de Cité Soleil en 2020. Tous ont eu lieu dans des quartiers à fort poids électoral et où résidaient des membres de l’opposition, et ces crimes sont tous restés impunis.
En 2020, la situation s’est aggravée lorsque Chérizier, ancien policier, a fédéré les gangs avec la « famille G9 » alliée aux neuf bandes les plus puissantes de la région. Cela lui a permis de contrôler une bonne partie de la capitale – tout en étant financé en sous-main par de hauts fonctionnaires de l’appareil d’État.
La fédération des gangs a même été saluée par la Représentante spécial du Secrétaire Général de l’ONU en Haïti, qui a affirmé que fédérer les gangs avait fait baisser le nombre d’homicides de 12% en trois mois. Cela a provoqué un tel scandale qu’elle a dû revenir sur ses propos en les qualifiant de « mésinterprétation ».
Un an après l’assassinat du président Moïse, alors que la situation s’aggravait, le Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU a adopté, à l’unanimité, une résolution établissant un régime de sanctions qui ciblait les chefs de gangs et ceux qui les finançaient. Chérizier était le seul chef de gang dont le nom figurait dans une annexe de la résolution mais, à ce jour, aucune mesure n’a été prise à son encontre.
Le 29 février 2024, la situation dans la capitale a pris un tournant décisif et pour le pire lorsque Chérizier a annoncé, à travers une vidéo sur les réseaux sociaux, la reconstitution de la coalition des groupes armés dénommée « Viv Ansanm » (Vivre ensemble). Il y revendiquait la responsabilité des tensions qui ont secoué Port-au-Prince et a déclaré que l’objectif premier des gangs était de renverser le gouvernement. Il a précisé aussi qu’une chasse aux ministres, au directeur général de la Police Nationale, était désormais ouverte. Il voulait les arrêter et empêcher Ariel Henry, qui se trouvait à Porto Rico, de rentrer au pays. Des policiers ont été tués, des commissariats attaqués, plusieurs vols annulés suite à un assaut des gangs à l’aéroport international Toussaint Louverture qui, depuis, est fermé.
Chérizier prétend lancer une révolution afin de libérer le peuple haïtien des autorités et des oligarques pourtant, ces gangs ont ciblé toutes les couches de la société, autant que les quartiers pauvres de la capitale et de nombreuses structures étatiques qui servaient aux pauvres comme le principal hôpital public. La destruction est telle que l’ONU parle d’Haïti comme « un État au bord de l’effondrement ».
En décembre 2023 plus de 310.000 personnes étaient déplacées à l’intérieur du pays. Selon l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations, plus de 50.000 personnes ont quitté la capitale en trois semaines au mois de mars 2024. L’ampleur du désastre est stupéfiante et tous les pays qui avaient promis une aide policière ou militaire sont absents. Haïti est abandonnée à son triste sort et les gangs contrôlent le pays en lieu et place des autorités.
Pourquoi le gouvernement n’a-t-il pas réagi à la menace croissante des gangs ?
Il y a quatre ans, la Police Nationale d’Haïti disposait officiellement d’une force de 15.498 officiers de police (dont seulement 1.711 femmes), bien que le nombre d’officiers effectifs était estimé à beaucoup moins. En outre, le programme humanitaire mis en place par l’administration Biden-Harris pour faciliter le séjour des Haïtiens aux États-Unis a fait courir à la police le risque de perdre jusqu’à un tiers de ses effectifs en raison de l’émigration.
Dans un tel contexte, le chaos et la violence ont atteint un niveau sans précédent. Depuis l’assassinat du président Moïse, le gouvernement a été incapable d’instaurer l’ordre avec la police, et l’armée ne comptait qu’environ 2.000 soldats. De plus, aucune élection législative ou générale n’a été organisée depuis 2016. Il n’y a donc plus d’élus, le mandat des précédents étant expiré. Les critiques d’Henry, très impopulaire, considéraient son règne comme illégitime.
En octobre 2022, Henry a fait appel à la communauté internationale, sollicitant l’intervention d’une force étrangère. Vu son impopularité, cela a suscité la méfiance parmi la population qui redoutait que cette intervention vienne renforcer un gouvernement illégitime et accusé de connivence avec les gangs. De plus, la composition de cette mission a viré au casse-tête.
Près d’un an plus tard, le Conseil de Sécurité de l’ONU a adopté une résolution autorisant le recours à la force par une mission internationale d’assistance à la sécurité en Haïti. Ni le Canada ni les États-Unis n’ont voulu intervenir directement en Haïti, soulignant que la solution devait venir des Haïtiens. Mais ces derniers n’ont jamais pu s’entendre et, de plus, ils redoutent une intervention étrangère, compte tenu des interventions catastrophiques de l’ONU, depuis 2004. Le Canada, qui avait été sollicité par Washington pour prendre le leadership de l’intervention, s’est retiré en mars 2023, pour laisser la direction au Kenya.
Le déploiement de la force d’intervention multinationale devait commencer le 1er janvier 2024. En juillet dernier, le Kenya avait proposé de diriger la mission avec un millier de policiers. Antigua et Barbuda, les Bahamas et la Jamaïque s’étaient engagés à envoyer du personnel de sécurité, et plus récemment le Belize et la Guyane. Le Canada s’était également engagé à participer à la mission. Pour sa part, le gouvernement américain s’était engagé à financer la mission à hauteur d’au moins 100 millions de dollars.
Alors que les gangs étendaient leur emprise sur Port-au-Prince et formaient une alliance dans le but déclaré de renverser le Premier ministre, Henry prévoyait de se rendre au Kenya pour signer un accord de réciprocité. Pendant son absence, les bandes criminelles de Chérizier ont attaqué des commissariats de police, l’aéroport de la capitale et des prisons. Ils ont brandi la menace d’une guerre civile si Henry revenait en Haïti. Il a démissionné le 11 mars 2024. Le lendemain, le Kenya a suspendu l’envoi de ses policiers en Haïti.
Qui est aux commandes aujourd’hui, et quelles sont les chances que la démocratie soit rétablie ?
Dans la foulée de la démission d’Henry, le gouvernement a déclaré l’état d’urgence. Le même jour, la formation d’un Conseil Présidentiel de Transition (CPT) chargé de rétablir l’ordre a été annoncée. Le conseil est constitué de neuf membres, soit sept votants et deux observateurs. Il intègre des représentants des principaux partis politiques, ainsi que du secteur privé et de la société civile. Son mandat de 22 mois prendra fin le 7 février 2026 après avoir organisé des « élections démocratiques, libres et crédibles ».
De nombreux obstacles se dressent déjà pour atteindre cette finalité. En premier lieu, comment rétablir la sécurité alors que les gangs continuent de recevoir des armes des États-Unis ? Dernier coup de théâtre : lorsque Ariel Henry a sorti le décret annonçant la formation du CPT, aucun nom des membres n’y figurait. Depuis, les organisations des représentants désignés du CPT ont exprimé leur désaccord avec le décret du Gouvernement publié dans le journal officiel le 12 avril 2024. Finalement, l’arrêté officialisant la nomination des membres du CPT a été publié le 16 avril.
De plus, le Conseil souhaite prêter serment au Palais National devant la nation alors même que le Palais a été la cible des gangs à plusieurs reprises. Qui assurera sa sécurité ? Comment rétablir la paix en Haïti dans un contexte d’incertitude politique et de fragilité économique ? Est-ce que les membres du Conseil, dont certains sont des frères ennemis, pourront dépasser leurs propres intérêts au profit de la nation ? D’autre part, qui reconstruira le pays après le départ de tant de jeunes ? Le pays fera-t-il enfin appel à sa diaspora ?
Par ailleurs, la possibilité d’une famine se dessine à l’horizon et le Programme Alimentaire Mondial craint que ses stocks alimentaires ne s’épuisent d’ici la fin du mois d’avril.
Enfin, comment convaincre les gangs de déposer leurs armes alors qu’ils accumulent des millions à travers les kidnappings et la vente des armes ? Il s’agit d’une activité très lucrative, tant pour les gangs que pour de simples citoyens qui font face à une grande pauvreté.
Comment aussi rétablir la justice et punir les criminels qui ont commis tant de crimes contre l’humanité ? L’adage ne dit-il pas qu’il n’y a pas de paix sans justice ? Enfin, que dire des ambitions politiques des gangs ? Le 11 mars, Chérizier a déclaré qu’il serait « l’alliance Viv Ansanm, avec le peuple haïtien, qui élira celui qui dirigera le pays ». Le CPT devra-t-il négocier avec les gangs ?
Les défis qui se dressent devant le CPT ne sont donc pas des moindres et l’un des plus ardus sera de trouver le moyen d’articuler une demande d’aide externe sans perdre la souveraineté d’Haïti.
L’espace civique en Haïti est classé « réprimé » par leCIVICUS Monitor.
Contactez Nancy Roc sur sa pageFacebook et suivez@TheNancyRoc sur Twitter.
-
HAÏTI : « Si la mission a du succès, les autorités n’auront pas à se tourner à nouveau vers la communauté internationale pour maintenir la paix »
CIVICUS échange avec l’avocate haïtienne Rosy Auguste Ducéna sur la situation en Haïti et les perspectives d’une mission internationale nouvellement déployée.Rosy est responsable de programmes du Réseau National de Défense des Droits Humains (RNDDH), une organisation de la société civile qui œuvre pour l’instauration d’un État de droit en Haïti.
Suite à la démission du premier ministre de facto Ariel Henry en avril, un Conseil présidentiel de transition a été nommé pour tenter d’entamer le processus de rétablissement de la paix dans un pays assiégé par les gangs. En proie à des divisions internes, il a fallu attendre le mois de juin pour que le conseil nomme un nouveau premier ministre, l’universitaire et praticien du développement Garry Conille. Le même mois, le premier contingent de la Mission multinationale de soutien à la sécurité des Nations unies, dirigée par le Kenya et longtemps retardée, a commencé à arriver. Compte tenu de la longue histoire d’échecs des interventions internationales en Haïti, la société civile est sceptique et exige que la mission soit fortement axée sur les droits humains.
Qu’est-ce qui a changé depuis la démission du premier ministre de facto Ariel Henry ?
Après l’avoir soutenu tout au long de son gouvernement, la communauté internationale a finalement retiré son soutien à Henry, qui a démissionné dans la honte. Il était un prédateur des droits humains et nous étions donc heureux de le voir partir, même si ce n’était pas de la manière dont nous l’aurions souhaité.
Un Conseil présidentiel de transition a été mis sur pied avec la participation de la communauté internationale via la Communauté caribéenne (CARICOM), l’organisation régionale. Il compte en son sein des personnalités issues de secteurs qui n’inspirent pas confiance à la population haïtienne. La seule femme qui fait partie du Conseil a un rôle d’observateur et tous les candidats au poste de premier ministre auditionnés étaient des hommes.
Un mois après l’installation de ce conseil, avec le peuple haïtien dévasté par l’insécurité et les bandes armées, un premier ministre a enfin été élu : Garry Conille, lui aussi soutenu par la communauté internationale. La prochaine étape logique est la mise en place d’un gouvernement de transition.
Qu’attend la société civile du nouveau premier ministre ?
Nous attendons du nouveau Premier ministre qu’il tienne sa première promesse : celle d’établir un gouvernement dans lequel les femmes n’auront pas un rôle symbolique mais occuperont des postes de pouvoir. Et nous espérons que des femmes ayant un agenda de lutte pour les droits des femmes dans le contexte de la transition seront choisies. Il est important de respecter le quota minimal de 30% de femmes dans les organes de décision – sans pour autant s’y arrêter, puisque plus de la moitié de la population haïtienne sont des femmes –, mais il est également important que les femmes qui occupent ces postes s’impliquent dans la lutte contre les violences sexuelles et sexistes, les discriminations et les injustices sociales subies par les femmes.
Nous espérons aussi que les décisions qui seront prises par ce gouvernement à venir tiendront compte des priorités de la population : combattre l’insécurité, lutter contre l’impunité dont ont toujours bénéficié les bandits armés et mettre les victimes de l’insécurité au cœur des décisions, ainsi qu’organiser les élections.
Et, sachant que cette transition a une obligation de résultat, tout doit être mis en œuvre pour que la feuille de route du Conseil et du premier ministre soit réalisée.
Quelle est la situation en matière de sécurité et de droits humains ?
La situation des droits humains sur le terrain est très préoccupante : les vols, assassinats, viols, viols collectifs, massacres, attaques armées et enlèvements contre rançon, et les incendies des maisons et des véhicules de la population sont monnaie courante.
Deux grandes coalitions de gangs armés qui jadis se battaient entre elles, le « G-9 an Fanmi e Alye » dirigé par Jimmy Chérizier, alias Barbecue, et le « G-Pèp », dirigé par Gabriel Jean Pierre, alias Ti Gabriel ou Gabo, se sont regroupées autour d’une fédération et s’attaquent à la population civile pour asseoir leur pouvoir.
Les conséquences sur la vie et la sécurité de la population haïtienne sont énormes : les bandits armés contrôlent la circulation des biens et des services ainsi que les approvisionnements en carburant et en médicaments et sèment la terreur. Certaines zones se sont complètement vidées de leur population. Des victimes de l’insécurité vivent dans des camps d’accueil surpeuplés, dans la promiscuité et exposés à toutes sortes d’exactions et de maladies contagieuses.
Les écoles ne fonctionnent pas toutes. Des milliers d’enfants en âge d’être scolarisés et de jeunes qui devaient fréquenter l’université viennent de perdre une année académique. Des hôpitaux et centres de santé ont dû fermer leurs portes en raison de l’insécurité. Des alertes à la crise alimentaire aigüe ont été lancées : en Haïti, nous vivons une crise humanitaire sans précédent. Et, si aucune mesure n’est prise, elle s’aggravera.
Dans un pays appauvri, où le système éducatif n’était déjà pas inclusif et où les droits sociaux ont toujours été considérés comme des produits à se procurer, le fossé de l’accès à l’éducation et à des soins de santé de qualité se creuse. Les femmes, les enfants et les personnes vivant avec une déficience physique, sensorielle ou même cognitive, ont été les premiers touchés par les conséquences néfastes du chaos instauré par les bandits armés, avec la complicité de l’institution policière et des autorités au pouvoir dirigé par Henry.
Dans ce contexte de violation massive et continue des droits humains, le Conseil présidentiel de transition n’a pas encore prouvé qu’il comprend la nécessité d’agir vite.
Comment la nouvelle mission internationale a-t-elle été créée et en quoi diffère-t-elle de ses prédécesseurs ?
Le 6 octobre 2022, Henry avait sollicité l’envoi d’une « force robuste » en vue, selon ses dires, « de combattre l’insécurité, rétablir la paix et de réaliser les élections ». Près d’une année plus tard, le 2 octobre 2023, le Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies a adopté une résolution autorisant le déploiement d’une force baptisée Mission Multinationale d’Appui à la Sécurité, après que le Kenya eut accepté d’en assurer le leadership.
La mission a mis du temps à se mettre en place. Elle est en train de commencer, mais nous restons sceptiques.
Elle sera la onzième mission depuis 1993. Toutes ses prédécesseuses ont été impliquées dans la commission de violations des droits humains à l’encontre de la population haïtienne : exécutions sommaires, bastonnades et atteintes à l’intégrité physique et psychique, marchandage sexuel, viols sur mineurs.es et sur femmes. Et la seule sanction à laquelle s’exposaient les auteurs de ces violations était le rapatriement.
L’Organisations des Nations Unis a apporté le choléra, dont la propagation a causé la mort de plus de 10.000 personnes, et n’a accepté ses responsabilités que du bout des lèvres. Les promesses de dédommagement n’ont jamais été tenues.
Les résultats des différentes missions en Haïti, qui ont coûté des millions de dollars, sont maigres. Les institutions policières et judiciaires, ainsi que l’organe électoral qu’on leur a toujours demandé de renforcer, n’ont jamais été aussi dysfonctionnels. Le calcul coût-bénéfice et leur implication dans les violations des droits humains suggèrent qu’elles sont contre-productives.
Il faut toutefois reconnaitre que la population, fatiguée de l’insécurité qui lui vole sa vie et son humanité et ayant perdu confiance dans le système pénal haïtien, place ses espoirs dans cette force internationale. Actuellement, la police ne traque pas les bandits notoires, les tribunaux ne les jugent pas, même par contumace, alors que plusieurs centaines de victimes de massacres, accompagnées par le RNDDH, ont porté plainte contre leurs agresseurs. Les rares fois où ils sont emprisonnés, ils s’évadent ou passent des années en détention, sans que les faits qui leur sont reprochés ne soient jamais élucidés et sans que les victimes ne reçoivent justice.
Comment la mission internationale doit-elle agir pour contribuer à une paix durable ?
Avec six autres organisations de la société civile haïtienne, nous avons réfléchi à cette question et formulé des recommandations. Celles-ci portent notamment sur la définition des objectifs de la mission et la prise en compte des préoccupations des organisations de défense des droits humains dans l’élaboration du cadre réglementaire et du plan stratégique de sécurité de la mission.
La résolution étant restée muette ou ayant utilisé des termes sibyllins sur certaines questions importantes, nous insistons sur la nécessité d’aborder les obligations des agents.es relatives à la gestion des eaux, aux normes déontologiques et de transparence, ainsi qu’aux mécanismes de monitoring et de suivi des comportements des agents.
Nous recommandons également l’établissement de mécanismes de prévention des actes de violations des droits humains et la mise en place d’un mécanisme de plaintes pour les éventuelles victimes. Il est essentiel que les pays pourvoyeurs d’agents.es s’engagent à tout mettre en œuvre pour que les exactions soient punies et que les garanties judiciaires des victimes soient protégées et respectées.
Plus que toute autre chose, nous espérons que la mission mènera ses opérations sur le terrain avec la participation des policiers.ères haïtiens, qui y gagneront en formation et en tactiques de lutte contre les bandes armées, afin qu’au départ de cette mission, les autorités haïtiennes n’aient pas à se tourner à nouveau vers la communauté internationale pour maintenir la paix et la sécurité.
L’espace civique en Haïti est classé « réprimé » par leCIVICUS Monitor.
Contactez le RNDDH sur sonsite web ou sa pageFacebook, suivez@RnddhAyiti et@AugusteRosy sur Twitter, et contactez Rosy Auguste Ducéna sur son compte d’Instagram ou sa pageFacebook.
-
HAITI: ‘Gangs control the country instead of the authorities’
CIVICUS speaks with freelance journalist Nancy Roc about the increase in gang violence and the political situation in Haiti.
With 38 years of experience, Nancy is a Haitian-born journalist renowned for her work for press freedom. She is the recipient of numerous awards, including UNESCO’s Jean Dominique Prize for Press Freedom.
What’s the current security situation in Haiti?
The situation is untenable, to use the exact words of Volker Türk, the United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights. Despite a state of emergency and a succession of curfews the government has declared since 4 March to try to regain control of the capital, Port-au-Prince, not a week goes by without kidnappings. Violence is a daily occurrence.
People are holed up in their homes, most schools are closed and economic activity is severely affected. The same goes for roads, where gangs have been imposing their law for more than three months and many drivers are out of work. Virtually all the capital’s infrastructure has been destroyed or seriously affected by gang attacks.
An attack on the National Penitentiary on 2 March came as a great shock to Haitians, even though they are used to living under the constant threat of violence. More than 4,500 inmates are believed to have escaped, including prominent gang members and people arrested in connection with the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse in July 2021. There have been widespread looting and attacks, particularly against the National Library, which was stormed on 3 April.
On the evening of 2 April, heavily armed bandits looted dozens of homes and seized private vehicles in the villages of Tecina and Théodat, in Tabarre municipality, northeast of Port-au-Prince. The vast majority of the population, already living in extreme poverty, have now been plunged into hell and left to fend for themselves.
As for the police, despite some efforts, they are neither equipped nor numerous enough to deal with such a situation of urban guerrilla warfare against heavily armed gangs. There are currently around 23 gangs operating in the Port-au-Prince metropolitan area, divided into two major coalitions: G-Pèp, led by Gabriel Jean Pierre, known as Ti Gabriel, and G9 Family and Allies, led by Jimmy Chérizier, alias Barbecue. However, UN experts estimate there are between 150 and 200 gangs throughout Haiti.
According to the UN, since the start of the year, 1,193 people have been killed and 692 injured as a result of gang violence. The health system is on the verge of collapse, and hospitals often lack the capacity to treat the injured. The economy is suffocating as the gangs impose restrictions on people’s movements. The main supplier of drinking water has stopped deliveries. The situation has led to a major food crisis: almost half of Haiti’s 11 million inhabitants need some form of food assistance.
How did the gangs become so powerful?
The gangs have powerful backers in government and the private sector. Under former de facto Prime Minister Ariel Henry, who resigned in March, the government funded 30 per cent of the members of the G9. It wouldn’t be surprising if some people, both in the private sector and former senior government officials, have continued to fund them, particularly those who have been sanctioned by the international community.
A UN expert report published in 2023 also singled out former president Michel Martelly, in power between 2011 and 2016, as well as several prominent business leaders and legislators, as providing resources to armed gangs, whether in kind or in cash.
The proliferation of gangs began under Martelly and intensified after Moïse’s assassination. By 2019, some 162 armed groups had been identified, more than half of them operating in the metropolitan area. In total, they are said to potentially have over 3,000 soldiers armed with firearms, including adolescents and children.
Under Moïse, numerous massacres took place, such as the La Saline massacre in 2018, the Bel Air massacre in 2019 and the Cité Soleil massacre in 2020. All took place in neighbourhoods with significant electoral power where members of the opposition lived, and these crimes all went unpunished.
In 2020, the situation worsened when Chérizier, a former police officer, federated the gangs with the G9 Family, allied to the nine most powerful gangs in the region. This enabled him to control a large part of Port-au-Prince – all while being covertly financed by high-ranking government officials.
The federation of gangs was even hailed by the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative in Haiti, who claimed that federating the gangs had reduced the number of homicides by 12 per cent in three months. This caused such a scandal that she was forced to retract her statement, describing it as a ‘misinterpretation‘.
A year after the assassination of Moïse, as the situation worsened, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution establishing a sanctions regime that targeted gang leaders and those who financed them. Chérizier was the only gang leader named in an annex to the resolution, but to date no action has been taken against him.
On 29 February 2024, the situation in the capital took a decisive turn for the worse when Chérizier announced, in a video posted on social media, the reconstitution of the coalition of armed groups known as Viv Ansanm (Living Together). In the video, he claimed responsibility for the tensions that have shaken Port-au-Prince and declared that the gangs’ primary objective was to overthrow the government. He also stated that a hunt was now on for ministers and the Director General of the National Police. He wanted to arrest them and prevent Henry, who was in Puerto Rico, returning to the country. Police officers were killed, police stations were attacked and several flights were cancelled following an assault by gangs at Toussaint Louverture international airport, which has since been closed.
Chérizier claims to be launching a revolution to liberate the Haitian people from the authorities and the oligarchs. But the gangs have targeted every stratum of society, as well as the poor districts of Port-au-Prince and many state structures that serve the poor, such as the main public hospital. The destruction is such that the UN refers to Haiti as ‘a state on the brink of collapse’.
By December 2023, more than 310,000 people had been displaced within Haiti. According to the International Organization for Migration, more than 50,000 people left Port-au-Prince in three weeks in March 2024. The scale of the disaster is staggering, and all the countries that had promised police or military aid are absent. Haiti has been abandoned to its sad fate and gangs are controlling the country instead of the authorities.
Why hasn’t the government reacted to the growing gang threat?
Four years ago, the Haitian National Police officially had a force of 15,498 police officers, among them only 1,711 women, although the actual number of officers was estimated to be much lower. Moreover, the humanitarian programme put in place by the Biden-Harris administration to make it easier for Haitians to live in the USA has put the police at risk of losing up to a third of its workforce to emigration.
Against this backdrop, chaos and violence have reached unprecedented levels. Since Moïse’s assassination, the government has been unable to establish order with the police, and the army has only had around 2,000 soldiers. No legislative or general elections have been held since 2016. As a result, there are no longer any elected representatives, as the terms in office of the previously elected ones have expired. Critics of Henry, who was very unpopular, considered his government illegitimate.
In October 2022, Henry appealed to the international community, requesting the intervention of a foreign force. Given his unpopularity, this aroused public mistrust, as people feared this intervention would strengthen an illegitimate government accused of colluding with gangs. What’s more, the composition of this mission turned into a headache.
Almost a year later, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution authorising the use of force by an international security assistance mission in Haiti. Neither Canada nor the USA wanted to intervene directly, stressing that the solution had to come from Haitians themselves. But Haitians have been unable to reach agreement, and what’s more, they fear foreign intervention, given the catastrophic interventions led by the UN since 2004. Canada, which had been asked by the USA to take the lead in the intervention, withdrew in March 2023, passing the leadership on to Kenya.
Deployment of a multinational intervention force was due to begin on 1 January 2024. Last July, Kenya offered to lead the mission with a thousand police officers. Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas and Jamaica had pledged to send security personnel, and more recently Belize and Guyana did as well. Canada has also pledged to participate in the mission. For its part, the US government pledged to fund the mission to the tune of at least US$100 million.
As the gangs extended their hold over Port-au-Prince and formed an alliance with the declared aim of overthrowing Henry, he planned to travel to Kenya to sign a reciprocity agreement. While he was away, Chérizier’s criminal gangs launched their attacks on police stations, the airport and prisons. They threatened civil war if Henry returned to Haiti. He resigned on 11 March 2024. The next day, Kenya suspended the dispatch of police to Haiti.
Who is in charge today, and what are the chances of democracy being restored?
In the wake of Henry’s resignation, the government declared a state of emergency. On the same day, it was announced that a Presidential Transitional Council (PTC) had been formed to restore order. The Council is made up of nine members: seven voting members and two observers. It includes representatives of the main political parties, civil society and the private sector. Its 22-month mandate is due to end on 7 February 2026 after it has organised ‘democratic, free and credible elections’.
There are already a number of obstacles to achieving this goal. First, how can security be re-established when the gangs are still receiving weapons from the USA? The latest twist is that when Henry issued the decree announcing the formation of the PTC, it didn’t include any of the members’ names. Since then, the organisations of the PTC’s appointed representatives have expressed their disagreement with the government decree published in the official gazette on 12 April 2024. Finally, the decree formalising the appointment of PTC members was published on 16 April.
In addition, the Council wishes to be sworn in at the National Palace before the nation, even though the Palace has been targeted by gangs on several occasions. Who will provide security? How can peace be restored to Haiti in a context of such political uncertainty and economic fragility? Will the members of the Council, some of whom are frenemies, be able to look beyond their own interests for the benefit of the nation? And who will rebuild the country after so many young people have left? Will the diaspora finally be called upon?
Further, the possibility of famine looms on the horizon and the World Food Programme fears that its food stocks will run out by the end of April.
Finally, how can gangs be persuaded to lay down their arms when they are making millions from kidnappings and arms sales? Crime is a very lucrative business for gangs and for citizens facing great poverty.
How can we restore justice and punish those who have committed so many crimes against humanity? As the saying goes, no justice, no peace. Finally, what about the gangs’ political ambitions? On 11 March, Chérizier declared that it would be ‘the Viv Ansanm alliance, along with the Haitian people, who will elect the person who will lead the country’. Will the PTC have to negotiate with the gangs?
The challenges facing the PTC are therefore significant, and one of the most arduous will be to find a way of articulating a request for external aid without losing Haiti’s sovereignty.
Civic space in Haiti is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with Nancy Roc on herFacebook page and follow@TheNancyRoc on Twitter.
-
HAITI: ‘If the mission succeeds, the authorities won’t have to turn again to the international community to maintain peace’
CIVICUS speaks with Haitian lawyer Rosy Auguste Ducéna about the situation in Haiti and the prospects for a newly deployed international mission.
Rosy is Head of Programmes at the National Human Rights Defence Network (RNDDH), a civil society organisation working to support the establishment of the rule of law in Haiti.
Following the resignation of de facto prime minister Ariel Henry in April, a Transitional Presidential Council was appointed to try to start the process of restoring peace in gang-besieged Haiti. Riven by internal divisions, it took until June for the council to appoint a new prime minister, academic and development practitioner Garry Conille. In the same month, the first contingent of a long-delayed Kenya-led United Nations Multinational Security Support Mission began to arrive. Given the long history of failed international interventions in Haiti, civil society is sceptical, and demands that the mission has a strong human rights focus.
What has changed since the resignation of de facto prime minister Ariel Henry?
After supporting him throughout his government, the international community finally withdrew its support for Henry, who resigned in disgrace. He was a human rights predator, so we are glad to see him go, even if it wasn’t in the way we would have liked.
A Transitional Presidential Council was set up with the involvement of the international community through the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), the regional organisation. It’s made up of people who don’t inspire confidence among Haitian people. The only woman on the Council has an observer role, and all the candidates for prime minister it interviewed were men.
A month after the council was established, with Haitian people ravaged by insecurity and armed gangs, a prime minister was finally chosen: Garry Conille, backed by the international community. The next logical step is to set up a transitional government.
What does civil society expect from the new prime minister?
We expect the new prime minister to keep his first promise: to form a government where women don’t play a symbolic role but are in positions of power. And we hope women will be chosen with an agenda to fight for women’s rights in the context of the transition. It’s important to respect the minimum 30 per cent quota of women in decision-making bodies – without this being the ceiling, since over half of Haiti’s population is female – but it’s also important that the women who occupy these positions be involved in the fight against sexual and gender-based violence, discrimination and the social injustices suffered by women.
We hope the new government’s decisions will take people’s priorities into account’: fighting against insecurity and against the impunity that benefits armed bandits, putting the victims of insecurity at the centre of decision-making and organising elections.
And since this transition must produce results, everything must be done to ensure the roadmap drawn up by the Council and prime minister is implemented.
What’s the security and human rights situation like?
The human rights situation on the ground is very concerning: robberies, murders, rapes, gang rapes, massacres, armed attacks, kidnappings for ransom and the burning of people’s homes and vehicles are commonplace.
Two large coalitions of armed gangs, formerly at war with each other – G-9 an Fanmi e Alye, led by Jimmy Chérizier, alias Barbecue, and G-Pèp, led by Gabriel Jean Pierre, alias Ti Gabriel or Gabo – have joined forces and are attacking civilians as they seek to consolidate their power.
The consequences for the lives and security of Haitian people are enormous: armed bandits control the movement of goods and services, including fuel and medical supplies, and sow terror. Some areas have been completely emptied of their population. The victims of insecurity are living in overcrowded camps, in promiscuity, exposed to all kinds of abuse and contagious diseases.
Not all schools are functioning. Thousands of school-age children and young people who should be attending university have lost an academic year. Hospitals and health centres have been forced to close due to insecurity. Warnings of an acute food crisis have been issued. Haiti is facing an unprecedented humanitarian crisis. And if nothing is done about it, it will only get worse.
In an impoverished country where the education system was already not inclusive and social rights have always been seen as commodities to be bought, the gap in access to education and quality healthcare is widening. Women, children and people with physical, sensory or cognitive disabilities have been the first to suffer the harmful consequences of the chaos created by armed bandits, with the complicity of the police and Henry’s government.
Against this backdrop of massive and continuing human rights violations, the Transitional Presidential Council has yet to demonstrate that it understands the need to act quickly.
How was the new international mission set up and how does it differ from its predecessors?
On 6 October 2022, Henry called for a ‘robust force’ to be sent, in his words, ‘to combat insecurity, restore peace and conduct elections’. Almost a year later, on 2 October 2023, the United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution authorising the deployment of a force called the Multinational Security Support Mission, after Kenya agreed to take the lead.
Setting up the mission has taken a long time. It is now up and running, but we remain sceptical.
This will be the 11th mission since 1993. All its predecessors have been implicated in human rights violations against the Haitian people, including summary executions, beatings and attacks on physical and mental integrity, sexual trafficking and rape of minors and women. The only punishment for these violations has been repatriation.
The United Nations brought cholera, the spread of which caused the deaths of over 10,000 people, and paid only lip service to its responsibility. Promises of reparations have never been fulfilled.
The results of the various missions to Haiti, which have cost millions of dollars, have been meagre. The police and judicial institutions, and the electoral body they were supposed to strengthen, have never been more dysfunctional. The cost-benefit calculation of these missions and their involvement in human rights abuses suggest they are counterproductive.
However, it must be acknowledged that many people, tired of the insecurity that robs them of their lives and their humanity, and having lost confidence in the Haitian criminal justice system, are pinning their hopes on this international force. At present, the police don’t pursue notorious bandits and the courts don’t try them, even in absentia, despite the fact that several hundred victims of massacres, supported by RNDDH, have filed complaints against their attackers. On the rare occasions they are arrested, they escape or spend years in prison without charges against them ever being cleared up and without their victims receiving justice.
How can the international mission contribute to sustainable peace?
Alongside six other Haitian civil society organisations, we have reflected on this question and come up with several recommendations. These include defining the mission’s objectives and ensuring the concerns of human rights organisations are taken into account in the development of the mission’s legal framework and strategic security plan.
As the United Nations’ resolution is silent or says little on some important issues, we stress the need to address the obligations of security agents in relation to water management, ethical standards and transparency, as well as mechanisms for monitoring and following up on their conduct.
We also recommend the establishment of mechanisms to prevent human rights abuses and a means for victims to have complaints heard. It is essential that countries that provide those coming to Haiti commit themselves to doing everything possible to ensure abuses are punished and the legal guarantees of victims are protected and respected.
Above all, we hope the mission will carry out its operations on the ground with the participation of Haitian police officers, who will benefit from training in tactics to fight armed gangs, so when the mission leaves, Haitian authorities won’t have to turn again to the international community to maintain peace and security.
Civic space in Haiti is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with RNDDH through itswebsite orFacebook page, follow@RnddhAyiti and@AugusteRosy on Twitter, and contact Rosy Auguste Ducéna on herInstagram account orFacebook page.
-
HAITI: ‘The international community has never addressed the root causes of the crisis’
CIVICUS speaks with Nixon Boumba, a human rights activist and member of Kolektif Jistis Min nan Ayiti (Haiti Justice in Mining Collective), about the political situation in Haiti following the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse. Formed in 2012, Haiti Justice in Mining Collective is a movement of Haitian civil society organisations, individuals and partners pushing for transparency and social and environmental justice in the face of growing international interest in Haiti’s mining sector. It educates affected communities on the consequences of mining in five areas: the environment, water, work, agriculture and land.
-
HONG KONG: ‘Any activism that the government dislikes can be deemed a national security violation’
CIVICUS speaks about the persecution faced by Hong Kong activists in exile with Anouk Wear, research and policy adviser at Hong Kong Watch.Founded in 2017, Hong Kong Watch is a civil society organisation (CSO) based in the UK thatproduces research and monitors threats to Hong Kong’s autonomy, basic freedoms and the rule of law. Itworks at the intersection between politics, academia and the media to help shape the international debate about Hong Kong.
What challenges do Hong Kong activists in exile face?
Hong Kong activists in exile face the challenge of continuing our activism without being in the place where we want and need to be to make a direct impact. We put continuous effort into community-building, preserving our culture and staying relevant to the people and situation in Hong Kong today.
When we do this, we face threats from the Chinese government that have drastically escalated since the National Security Law (NSL) was imposed in 2020.
This draconian law was enacted in response to the mass protests triggered by the proposed Extradition Bill between Hong Kong and mainland China in 2019.
The NSL broadly defines and criminalises secession, subversion, terrorist activities and collusion with a foreign country or with external elements. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment. In 2022, the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Committee concluded that the NSL is ‘vague and ambiguous’.
In practical terms, any activism the Hong Kong government dislikes, including meeting a foreign politician, organising an event and publishing an article, can be deemed a violation of the NSL, according to the government’s interpretation. This means we don’t know what is legal and what is not, and many people end up self-censoring to protect themselves.
On 3 July 2023, the government issued new arrest warrants for eight activists in exile, including three in the UK – Nathan Law, Finn Lau and Mung Siu-tat – and offered bounties of around £100,000 (approx. US$130,000) each for anyone providing information leading to their arrest. All of them are accused of breaching the NSL. Despite having no legal basis for applying the NSL in the UK, the Hong Kong government continues to threaten and intimidate activists abroad.
To what extent are civil society and independent media in exile able to continue doing their work?
Since the imposition of the NSL, over 60 CSOs, including political parties, trade unions and media groups, have disbanded. Many have relocated abroad, including over 50 CSOs that signed a joint statement urging government action following the Hong Kong National Security arrest warrants and bounties this month.
There is a strong network of Hong Kong activists in exile, and activists in exile are still able to do their work. However, we have great difficulty collaborating with activists still in Hong Kong because of the risks they face. For example, last week, five people in Hong Kong were arrested for alleged links to activists in exile who are on the wanted list. Collaborations must now be even more careful and discreet than they already were.
What kind of support do Hong Kong activists and journalists in exile receive, and what further international support do you need?
In November 2022, Hong Kong journalists who relocated to the UK collaborated with the National Union of Journalists of the UK and Ireland to launch the Association of Overseas Hong Kong Media Professionals. They pledged to focus on freedom of the press in Hong Kong and provide mutual assistance for professionals who have relocated overseas.
There is also extensive support among Hong Kong activists and CSOs in exile, from civil society of host countries and from the international community, as can be seen in the joint response to the arrest warrants and bounties issued on 3 July.
However, more coordinated action is needed to respond to Beijing’s threats, particularly from the governments of host countries. There needs to be more assurance and action to reiterate that Beijing and Hong Kong do not have jurisdiction abroad and there will be serious consequences to their threats.
Hong Kong activists in exile are now making submissions to the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review process, which will review China’s human rights record since 2018.
We urge UN member states, CSOs and journalists to use this opportunity to highlight the drastic changes that have taken place in Hong Kong and to continue supporting our fight for democracy, rights and freedom.
Civic space in Hong Kong is rated ‘closed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with Hong Kong Watch through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@hk_watch and@anoukwear onTwitter.
-
HONG KONG: ‘This is a leader-full movement, ran by countless small networks of talented people’
CIVICUS speaks about the protests that have rocked Hong Kong since June 2019 with Johnson Ching-Yin Yeung, democracy movement organiser and chairperson of the Hong Kong Civil Hub. The Hong Kong Civil Hub works to connect Hong Kong civil society with like-minded international stakeholders willing to help promote the rule of law, democracy and human rights in Hong Kong. What triggered the mass protests that have taken place for several months?
The protests had both short and long-term causes. When Hong Kong was decolonised in 1997, China signed an international treaty promising that people in Hong Kong would enjoy a high degree of autonomy. In other words, Hong Kong would have its own government, legislation, courts and jurisdiction. But, long story short, China is not fulfilling that promise and Hong Kong is slowly becoming more like China due to Chinese intervention in our government and judiciary. Following the2014 Umbrella Movement, there have been increasing restrictions on the freedom of association, and for the first time in decades the government made use of colonial-era laws and outlawed organisations that advocated for Hong Kong’s independence. We expect restrictions on association, funding and exchanges with international organisations and civil society to increase over the next few years.
Political participation has also been under attack. In 2017, for the first time since 1997, a few lawmakers were disqualified and expelled from the legislature. In the past three elections there have been disqualifications of candidates. This is becoming a major tactic used by China, based on claims that certain candidates are not respecting the law or they will not be loyal to Beijing. This explains why at some point people decided to take their grievances to the streets, given that most institutional channels for political demands are shut down.
People took to the streets in 2014, under the Umbrella Movement. But protest is being severely punished. In April 2019, several pro-democracy leaders weresentenced to eight to 16 months in prison. Local leaders who advocate for political independence have also been punished with up to seven years of imprisonment.
The current protests began in June 2019. On 9 June,more than a million people mobilised against the Extradition Bill, aimed at establishing a mechanism for transfers of fugitives to mainland China, currently excluded in the existing law. Three days later, the legislature decided to continue the legislation process regardless of the opposition seen on the streets, so people besieged the parliamentary building, to which the Hong Kong police reacted with extreme brutality, firing teargas and rubber bullets, shooting into people’s heads and eyes.
Amnesty International made a comprehensive report on the incidents of 12 June and concluded that the police had used excessive force, even though the protest had been authorised by the Hong Kong government.
What changed after the repression of 12 June?
There was a huge outcry because we had never experienced this kind of repression before, and two million people – almost one quarter of the population of Hong Kong – took part in the protests that took place four days after.
From then on, protesters had a few additional demands on top of the initial demand that the extradition agreement be withdrawn, something that happened three months after the first protest. Protesters demanded the release of the arrested demonstrators and the withdrawal of the characterisation of the protests as riots, which is cause enough to hold someone and convict them: all it takes is for a defendant to have been present at the protest scene to face up to 10 years in prison for rioting. Protesters also demanded an independent inquiry into police activity. Over the past six months we’ve documented a lot of torture during detentions. Excessive force is used all the time against peaceful protests, so people really want the police to be held accountable. A recent survey showed that 80 per cent of the population support this demand. But the government is relying solely on the police to maintain order, so they cannot risk such investigation. Last but not least, there is the demand of universal suffrage and democratic rights, without which it is difficult to foresee anything else changing for real.
What did not change was the government reaction and the police repression.Over the next few months, around 7,000 people were arrested – 40 per cent of them students, and 10 per cent minors – and around 120 people were charged. The fact that only 120 out of the 7,000 people arrested were charged shows that there have been lots of arbitrary arrests. The police would arrest people on grounds of illegal assembly. I was arrested in July when I was just standing in front of the corner line. I complied with police instructions, but I still got arrested.
Thousands of people were injured during the protests. The official number is around 2,600 but this is a very conservative estimate because more than half of the injured people were not brought to public hospitals and did not seek medical assistance because they were afraid they would be arrested. Some doctors and nurses organised underground settlements to treat serious injuries like infections or rubber bullet injuries. But they had to remain anonymous and there simply were not enough of them and they didn’t have enough medical supply. There have been at least 12 suicides related to the protest movement. Lots of people have gone missing. Students and activists who are arrested are often deprived of their right to a lawyer and a phone call, and no one knows where they are detained. In many cases, it’s hard to verify whether people are in fact missing or have fled the country.
Analysts have claimed that the strength of the current protests lies in their ‘leaderless’ character, something that prevents the government stopping the movement by jailing leaders. Do you agree with this characterisation?
Many observers have seen the way we have used technology to coordinate the protests and they have concluded that our movement has no leaders. It is true that our movement is characterised by the decentralisation of communications and mobilisation. But this does not mean it is aleaderless movement. On the contrary, the Hong Kong protest movement is a leader-full movement: it is full of leaders and is run by countless small networks of talented people capable of organising and coordinating action on their own.
While the demography of the protests is quite diverse in terms of age, background and social class, more than the 50 per cent of protesters are female, and the major force of the protests are people aged 20 to 49. There is also a strong presence of highly educated people: more than 85 per cent of protesters have tertiary education or above.
But a notable characteristic of this disparate protest movement has been its unity, which may have resulted from the longstanding repression of civil society. When the leaders of the 2014 protests – most of them young students – were sentenced to prison, older people showed up at the protests because they felt that they had not been doing enough. People also united against police brutality, because there was no previous history of such a serious crackdown on protesters and people felt morally responsible to show up in support.
Can you tell us more about how the protest movement has used technology for organising and coordinating action?
During the first few months at least, people would rely on their cellphones and the Telegram app. People would have strategic discussions and channel these discussions into a Telegram channel. These are not the safest communication tools but they can hold more than 3,000 subscribers, which means that you can speak to 3,000 people at the same time, you can share action timetables, the site of protests or the location of the police with a huge number of people. We use a live map to inform protesters where the police are and where the protests are taking place, so they can avoid being arrested. Another app shows which businesses and stores are supportive of the movement. Pro-democracy businesses appear in yellow, while pro-government ones appear in blue.
We also use Telegram bots for international advocacy. A group of people is dedicated to disseminating information on Twitter and Interact.
We also use social media as a recruitment tool because after an action is held, people use social media to reflect about the strategies used and assess the outcomes. But after a few months, people started using online apps less and less. They would instead form their own groups and organise their own actions. There are frontier leaders, first leaders, people working on documentation, people who organise street protests – each is doing their own thing while at the same time warning others about clashes and organising timetables. This is how we use civic tech.
How has the movement managed to grow and thrive in adverse conditions?
Several elements explain why people keep showing up and why the movement is so resilient against government repression. First, people deploy their actions in their own neighbourhoods. We disperse action rather than concentrate it, because when we use concentration tactics, such as holding a protest in front of a government building, we become an easy target for the police. In the face of dispersed actions, the police would try to disperse protesters but would often end up attacking passers-by or people going about their business in their own neighbourhoods. For many people not involved directly in the protests, this was also a wake-up call and functioned as a recruitment mechanism: police brutality ceased to be a far-away problem; instead, it hit home and became personal, triggering a protective reaction.
A tactic commonly used by protesters is the Lennon Wall, in which people post messages in public spaces, which creates a sense of community and helps organise public support. Lennon Walls appear in various places and people use them to send and receive information about the protests. People also put posters in bus stops so when people are waiting for the bus they can get information about the protests. People sing in protest in shopping malls. This way, people use their lunchtime to sing a song and protest while going about their business, and they reach people who don’t read the news and don’t pay much attention to politics. That is one of the key lessons here.
Another key lesson concerns the importance of the unity between the moderate side and the radical front of the protests. Given that even authorised protests would be dispersed with teargas for no reason, some people began resorting to more militant actions to combat the police and protect their space. Some social movement analysts claim that radical incidents diminish popular support for the movement, but this does not seem to be happening in Hong Kong. In a recent survey, more than 60 per cent of respondents said they understood the use of violence by the people. I suppose that one reason why people do not reject militant actions is that they view the government and the police as responsible for most of the violence, and view violence by protesters as a fairly understandable response. Another reason is that radical protesters have been careful not to target ordinary people but only the police and pro-government businesses.
What else have you learned in the process?
A big lesson that we’ve learned concerns the effectiveness of creativity and humour to offset government repression. Protesters used laser tags to disable cameras used for the surveillance of protesters, so people started to get arrested for buying laser tags. After a student was arrested for possessing a laser tag, hundreds of thousands of people gathered in a public space and used laser tags to point at a public building. Another example of an effective response took place in early October 2019. There is a law that states that people can be jailed for a year if they wear a mask or anything covering their faces, so people responded in defiance, forming a human chain in which everyone was wearing some kind of mask.
We’ve also come to understand the importance of global solidarity and leveraging geopolitics. The Hong Kong diaspora has organised a lot of lobbying and advocacy in various cities around the world. We have also lobbied foreign governments and supported the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, a bill that was introduced in the US Congress following the Umbrella Movement in 2014, but that was only passed in November 2019. This law requires the US government to impose sanctions against Chinese and Hong Kong officials responsible for human rights abuses in Hong Kong, and requires the US Department of State and other agencies to conduct an annual review to determine whether changes in Hong Kong's political status – namely its relationship with mainland China – justify changing the unique and favourable trade relations between the USA and Hong Kong. This is huge, and we are trying to replicate this in other countries, including Australia, Canada, Italy and New Zealand.
We have also done advocacy at the United Nations (UN), where some resolutions about police brutality have been passed. But the UN is quite weak at the moment, and aside from the documentation of human rights violations there is not much they can do. Any resolution regarding the protests will be blocked by China at the UN Security Council. That said, a thorough UN investigation on police brutality would send a strong message anyway. We have been communicating with human rights civil society organisations to do more advocacy at the UN.
We are also looking for alternative tactics such as working with unions in France, because water cannons are manufactured in France and we hope something can be done about it.
What have the protests achieved so far?
The democratic camp has made a lot of progress. In November 2019 we had elections for the District Council. True, the District Council doesn’t have any real political power because it carries out neighbourhood duties, like garbage collection and traffic management. Still, in the latest election 388 out of 452 seats went to the pro-democracy camps, whereas back in 2015 they were only 125 pro-democracy representatives, compared with 299 who were pro-Beijing.
That said, I don’t think the pro-democracy movement should put too much of its energy into institutional politics because the District Council is not a place where the political crisis can be solved. However, the elections served as a solid foundation for organisers to organise people at the local level.
According to the polls, almost 90 per cent of the people supported independent investigation of human rights violations, more than 70 per cent demanded the resignation of the Hong Kong Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, and 75 per cent supported universal suffrage. That kind of popular support has remained stable for several months, which is pretty amazing.
What are the challenges ahead?
While there is no sign of protests calming down, there is also no sign of the government making concessions anytime soon. Violence is escalating on both sides, and the protest movement might lose public support if some demonstrators decide to go underground. The Chinese government will not let itself be challenged by protesters, so it is infiltrating organisations and tightening the grip on civil society. Organised civil society is relatively weak, and Beijing can easily interfere with academic institutions, schools and the media by appointing more allies and dismissing those who are critical of the government. The next five years will likely be tough ones for civil society and democracy in Hong Kong, and we will have to work to strengthen civil society’s resilience.
Another important issue is that a lot of young protesters are traumatised by the violence they have witnessed and experienced. We have support groups with social workers and psychologists, but they cannot provide support in their official capacity or they would find themselves under pressure by their employers who take money from the government. Social workers are also at risk and the police constantly harass them. To strengthen self-care and gain resilience for the battle ahead, we need to train more people and create support groups to help people cope, control their stress and share their stories.
Another potential challenge is the limited sustainability of global solidarity. Right now Hong Kong is in the spotlight, but this will not last long. Our struggle is for the long haul, but the world will not be paying attention for much longer. So we will need to build more substantial and permanent alliances and partnerships with civil society groups around the world. We need to empower local groups and give people new skills regarding international law, advocacy and campaigning. The protest movement is not going anywhere. It’s going to be a long struggle so we will have to train more organisers. We will disseminate the knowledge gained by the protesters, so when they are sent to jail others will take over.
Civic space in China is rated as ‘closed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with the Hong Kong Civil Hub through itswebsite and follow@hkjohnsonyeung on Twitter.