civic space

India: Alarming assault on civic freedoms in Prime Minister Modi’s second term
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s second term in power was sustained by a pattern of repression to undermine democracy and civic space, the global civil society alliance CIVICUS said today. A new CIVICUS Monitor report, published ahead of the 2024 elections, shows that the Indian government used an array of restrictive laws and policies to silence dissent by targeting critics including civil society groups, human rights defenders and independent media.

The report highlights how civil society organisations have faced an increased crackdown through the cancellation of their registrations, raids and investigations by law enforcement agencies. The authorities also blocked access to foreign funding for civil society groups, critical of the government, through the restrictive Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), which the UN has deemed in contravention of international law and standards.

Human rights defenders critical of the government were also implicated and jailed in politically motivated cases under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), a draconian anti-terror law. Under the UAPA’s draconian provisions, activists remain in detention for long periods and are often denied bail even on health grounds as exemplified in the Bhima Koregaon case. India also witnessed an increase in attacks and restrictions against independent media and journalists in recent years such as the targeting of NewsClick with raids, searches and seizures by various government agencies.

“The increasing use of restrictive laws during Prime Minister Modi’s second term to crackdown on civil society, human rights defenders and independent media, highlights a government that has become intolerable of any form of dissent. These laws have become tools for judicial harassment and are incompatible with India’s international human rights obligations as well as India’s Constitution”, said Marianna Belalba Barreto, Research Lead for the CIVICUS Monitor

CIVICUS also highlights in the report that since the 2019 elections, major protests in India have been met with arbitrary arrests and excessive use of force by the police, including protests against the discriminatory Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) 2019 and the farmers protests. Authorities used Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a colonial-era provision, to arbitrarily restrict or deny assemblies. Internet shutdowns were also used to prevent people gathering in protests and fabricated charges were brought against protesters, with some still remaining in detention.

Human rights work in Kashmir has almost come to a complete standstill due to arrests of activists and continuous harassment of civil society organisations and activists through raids and interrogations. Among them include Khurram Parvez from the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society who has been detained under the UAPA for more than two years. Journalists who report on critical issues in Kashmir have also been targeted.

“The systematic crackdown on peaceful protests and the jailing of protesters for exercising their right to peaceful assembly shows the erosion of democratic space during Modi’s second term. In Kashmir, the heavy-handed repression by the Indian government against critical voices and the failure to ensure accountability has left the region in a climate of fear”, said Belalba.

CIVICUS calls on the government to drop all charges against human rights defenders, activists and protesters, and immediately and unconditionally release all those detained; review and amend India’s criminal laws to conform to international law and standards and take steps to ensure that all human rights defenders in India are able to carry out their legitimate activities without any hindrance or fear of reprisals.

Download the India research brief here.

Civic space in India is rated as Repressed by the CIVICUS Monitor

About the CIVICUS Monitor

Over twenty organisations collaborate on the CIVICUS Monitor to provide an evidence base for action to improve civic space on all continents. Civic freedoms in 198 countries and territories are categorised as either ‘closed,’ ‘repressed ,’ ‘obstructed ,’ ‘narrowed ’ or ‘open ,’ based on a methodology that combines several data sources on the freedoms of association, peaceful assembly and expression
India: Amnesty International Forced to Halt Work
Government Increasingly Targeting Rights Groups

Today, CIVICUS joined fourteen other human rights organizations in condemning the Indian government’s actions against Amnesty India and pledged to continue support for local human rights defenders and organizations against the recent crackdown.

Amnesty International India announced that it is halting its work in the country after the Indian government froze its bank accounts in an act of reprisal for the organization’s human rights work. Fifteen international human rights organizations condemned the Indian government’s actions against Amnesty India and pledged to continue support for local human rights defenders and organizations against the recent crackdown.

The Indian government’s actions against Amnesty India are part of increasingly repressive tactics to shut down critical voices and groups working to promote, protect, and uphold fundamental rights, said the Association for Progressive Communications, Global Indian Progressive Alliance, International Commission of Jurists, CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, Front Line Defenders, FORUM-ASIA, Foundation the London Story, Hindus for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, International Service for Human Rights, Minority Rights Group, Odhikar, South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR), International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) in the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders.

The Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government has accused Amnesty India of violating laws on foreign funding, a charge the group says is politically motivated and constitutes evidence “that the overbroad legal framework is maliciously activated when human rights defenders and groups challenge the government’s grave inactions and excesses.”

The BJP government has increasingly cracked down on civil society, harassing and bringing politically motivated cases against human rights defenders, academics, student activists, journalists, and others critical of the government under sedition, terrorism, and other repressive laws.

These actions increasingly mimic that of authoritarian regimes, which do not tolerate any criticism and shamelessly target those who dare to speak out. With growing criticism of the government’s discriminatory policies and attacks on the rule of law, the authorities seem more interested in shooting the messenger than addressing the grievances. Women’s rights activists and indigenous and minority human rights defenders have been especially vulnerable. The recent action against Amnesty India highlights the stepped-up pressure and violence felt by local defenders on the ground, regardless of their profile.

The authorities have repeatedly used foreign funding regulations under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), a law broadly condemned for violating international human rights law and standards, to target outspoken groups. United Nations experts on human rights defenders, on freedom of expression, and on freedom of association have urged the government to repeal the law, saying it is “being used more and more to silence organisations involved in advocating civil, political, economic, social, environmental or cultural priorities, which may differ from those backed by the Government.”

Yet, the Indian parliament amended the FCRA this month, adding further onerous governmental oversight, additional regulations and certification processes, and operational requirements that would adversely affect civil society groups and effectively restrict access to foreign funding for small nongovernmental organizations.

A robust, independent, and vocal civil society is indispensable in any democracy to ensure a check on government and to hold it accountable, pushing it to do better. Instead of treating human rights groups as its enemies, the government should work with them to protect the rights of all people and ensure accountability at all levels of government.

Civic space in India is currently rated as Repressed by the CIVICUS Monitor

New report: Punished for speaking up: The ongoing use of restrictive laws to silence dissent in India

For more information please contact:

Head of Advocacy & Campaigns, David Kode
India: Democracy threatened by growing attacks on civil society
According to the policy brief, published by CIVICUS in November 2017, although civil society in India has been playing essential roles ever since the country's struggle for independence, the space for civil society - civic space - is increasingly being contested.
India: Report highlights ongoing misuse of restrictive laws during pandemic to keep activists behind bars
- Report highlights judicial harassment of activists, targeting of journalists and crackdown on protesters
- Modi government has continued to use state resources to sustain its persecution of activists and critics during COVID-19 pandemic
- CIVICUS calls for the immediate release of arbitrarily detained human rights defenders
The Indian government is using a variety of restrictive laws - including national security and counter-terrorism legislation - to arrest and imprison human rights defenders, peaceful protesters and critics.

More than a year into Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s second term in office, the CIVICUS report, “Punished for speaking up: The ongoing use of restrictive laws to silence dissent in India,” shows an increasingly repressive environment for civic freedoms, such as the freedoms of expression, association and assembly. The report highlights the arrest, detention and prosecution of activists, the targeting of journalists, and the unprecedented and brutal crackdown on protests against the discriminatory Citizenship (Amendment) Act. CIVICUS is also concerned about increasing violations in Indian-administered Jammu Kashmir.

Further, India’s slide towards authoritarianism has led to the conflation of dissent with anti-nationalism, often with disastrous results for human rights defenders and activists who have been subjected to damaging smear campaigns.

The activists profiled in the report represent a small fraction of the arbitrary arrests, prosecutions and imprisonments taking place across India, providing a snapshot of the challenges facing the country’s human rights defenders.

The report also highlights a series of vaguely worded and overly broad laws being used by the Indian authorities to deprive activists of bail and keep them in ongoing detention. These include the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, (UAPA), which is India’s primary counter-terrorism law; section 124A on ‘sedition’ of the Indian Penal Code, a colonial-era relic; and administrative detention laws such as the National Security Act (NSA) and the Public Safety Act (PSA), which applies only in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir

“The Indian government must stop using restrictive national security and counter-terrorism laws against human rights defenders and critics. The authorities must also drop the baseless and politically-motivated criminal charges against activists and release them immediately and unconditionally,” said Josef Benedict, CIVICUS Asia-Pacific Civic Space Researcher.

“The laws are incompatible with India’s international human rights obligations as well as India’s Constitution. Not only are the laws themselves inherently flawed, but their implementation makes it clear that they have become tools for judicial harassment, rather than for preventing or addressing criminality.”

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Modi government has continued to use state resources to sustain its persecution of human rights defenders and critics, many of whom have underlying medical conditions or are at risk of contracting COVID-19 in overcrowded and unsanitary prisons. CIVICUS is also concerned about the judicial harassment of individuals and journalists who criticise the authorities’ handling of the pandemic.

“It is appalling that human rights defenders are locked up in overcrowded prisons and continuously denied bail despite calls by the UN to decongest prisons and release political prisoners during the pandemic. Holding them at this time puts them at serious risk of contracting COVID-19 and adds another layer of punishment for these activists, who have been detained just for speaking up for human rights,” said Benedict.

Despite the hostile environment, human rights defenders and civil society organisations in India are pushing back against oppression. The benefits of a vibrant civil society, and of human rights defenders who are free to do their work, are tangible. This has been evident in civil society’s crucial response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, in providing vital help to communities in need, defending rights, and holding governments accountable.

“As India’s political and economic influence increases, developments in the country are being closely followed by the global community. India’s quest to play a critical role on the international stage would be better served by committing to upholding democratic values and recognising the validity of people’s struggles,” said Benedict.

In the report, CIVICUS makes a number of recommendations to the Indian authorities, including:
- Drop all charges against human rights defenders, activists and protesters, and immediately and unconditionally release all those detained;
- Review and amend India’s criminal laws to conform to international standards for the protection of fundamental freedoms;
- Take steps to ensure that all human rights defenders in India are able to carry out their legitimate activities without any hindrance or fear of reprisals.
More information

The space for civil society in India was downgraded in December 2019 from ‘obstructed’ to ‘repressed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor, an online platform that tracks civic space in every country. A repressed rating for civic space means that democratic freedoms – such as the freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly and association – are significantly constrained in India.

Interviews

To arrange interviews, please contact Josef Benedict, CIVICUS Asia-Pacific Civic Space Researcher and
India: Report highlights ongoing misuse of restrictive laws during pandemic to keep activists behind bars
- Report highlights judicial harassment of activists, targeting of journalists and crackdown on protesters
- Modi government has continued to use state resources to sustain its persecution of activists and critics during COVID-19 pandemic
- CIVICUS calls for the immediate release of arbitrarily detained human rights defenders
The Indian government is using a variety of restrictive laws - including national security and counter-terrorism legislation - to arrest and imprison human rights defenders, peaceful protesters and critics, the global civil society alliance CIVICUS said today in a new report.

More than a year into Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s second term in office, the CIVICUS report, “Punished for speaking up: The ongoing use of restrictive laws to silence dissent in India,” shows an increasingly repressive environment for civic freedoms, such as the freedoms of expression, association and assembly. The report highlights the arrest, detention and prosecution of activists, the targeting of journalists, and the unprecedented and brutal crackdown on protests against the discriminatory Citizenship (Amendment) Act. CIVICUS is also concerned about increasing violations in Indian-administered Jammu Kashmir.

Further, India’s slide towards authoritarianism has led to the conflation of dissent with anti-nationalism, often with disastrous results for human rights defenders and activists who have been subjected to damaging smear campaigns.

The activists profiled in the report represent a small fraction of the arbitrary arrests, prosecutions and imprisonments taking place across India, providing a snapshot of the challenges facing the country’s human rights defenders.

The report also highlights a series of vaguely worded and overly broad laws being used by the Indian authorities to deprive activists of bail and keep them in ongoing detention. These include the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, (UAPA), which is India’s primary counter-terrorism law; section 124A on ‘sedition’ of the Indian Penal Code, a colonial-era relic; and administrative detention laws such as the National Security Act (NSA) and the Public Safety Act (PSA), which applies only in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir

“The Indian government must stop using restrictive national security and counter-terrorism laws against human rights defenders and critics. The authorities must also drop the baseless and politically-motivated criminal charges against activists and release them immediately and unconditionally,” said Josef Benedict, CIVICUS Asia-Pacific Civic Space Researcher.

“The laws are incompatible with India’s international human rights obligations as well as India’s Constitution. Not only are the laws themselves inherently flawed, but their implementation makes it clear that they have become tools for judicial harassment, rather than for preventing or addressing criminality.”

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Modi government has continued to use state resources to sustain its persecution of human rights defenders and critics, many of whom have underlying medical conditions or are at risk of contracting COVID-19 in overcrowded and unsanitary prisons. CIVICUS is also concerned about the judicial harassment of individuals and journalists who criticise the authorities’ handling of the pandemic.

“It is appalling that human rights defenders are locked up in overcrowded prisons and continuously denied bail despite calls by the UN to decongest prisons and release political prisoners during the pandemic. Holding them at this time puts them at serious risk of contracting COVID-19 and adds another layer of punishment for these activists, who have been detained just for speaking up for human rights,” said Benedict.

Despite the hostile environment, human rights defenders and civil society organisations in India are pushing back against oppression. The benefits of a vibrant civil society, and of human rights defenders who are free to do their work, are tangible. This has been evident in civil society’s crucial response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, in providing vital help to communities in need, defending rights, and holding governments accountable.

“As India’s political and economic influence increases, developments in the country are being closely followed by the global community. India’s quest to play a critical role on the international stage would be better served by committing to upholding democratic values and recognising the validity of people’s struggles,” said Benedict.

In the report, CIVICUS makes a number of recommendations to the Indian authorities, including:
- Drop all charges against human rights defenders, activists and protesters, and immediately and unconditionally release all those detained;
- Review and amend India’s criminal laws to conform to international standards for the protection of fundamental freedoms;
- Take steps to ensure that all human rights defenders in India are able to carry out their legitimate activities without any hindrance or fear of reprisals.
More information

The space for civil society in India was downgraded in December 2019 from ‘obstructed’ to ‘repressed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor, an online platform that tracks civic space in every country. A repressed rating for civic space means that democratic freedoms – such as the freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly and association – are significantly constrained in India.

Interviews

To arrange interviews, please contact Josef Benedict, CIVICUS Asia-Pacific Civic Space Researcher and
INDONESIA: ‘The new Criminal Code spells danger for civil society’
CIVICUS speaks about the new criminal code passed in Indonesia withFatia Maulidiyanti, Executive Coordinator of KontraS/The Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence.

KontraS is an Indonesian civil society organisation (CSO) established in 1998 to investigate enforced disappearances, acts of violence and other human rights violations.

What are the main changes introduced in the new Criminal Code?

It is KontraS’s opinion that this Criminal Code Bill will have effects well beyond hampering people’s right to privacy. Many of its articles seek to legitimise the ongoing restrictions that are shrinking civic space, bringing back the spirit of the authoritarian Suharto era.

For example, articles 218 and 219 introduce the crimes of defamation and insult against the president and vice president. This will allow the criminalisation of government critics. Similarly, article 240 bans defaming and insulting the government, and article 351 makes it a crime to defame or insult any authorities or state institutions. These articles are meant to criminalise the publication of any kind of research, data or criticism of the government and the state institutions.

This amounts to the reintroduction of a once repealed lèse-majesté clause dating back to Dutch colonial times, which of course has long been repealed in the Netherlands. And it spells danger for civil society. It is worth noting that the policing and judicial systems in Indonesia are very problematic. Police standards are low and there is a lot of corruption. Arbitrary arrest and detention are commonly used, as are unfair trials. This already hinders the ability of civil society movements to exist and sustain their work.

There are also several problematic articles related to the need to request and obtain permits to conduct demonstrations, rallies and other public gatherings.

What are the forces behind the changes?

There have been too many obscure political bargains between the government and parliament to accommodate the interests of all political parties at the expense of civil rights and fundamental freedoms.

While there seems to have been a group of academics supporting the drafting process, there has been no consultation with or participation of civil society or business interests. At the centre of the new criminal code is an attempt to secure power, guarantee public order and gain control in preparation for the 2024 presidential election.

What do you make of the changes regarding ‘morality’ issues such as sex outside marriage?

Regression on morality issues may be counterproductive at a time when the government is trying to prevent mass protests against their policies, particularly in view of the upcoming election.

But the criminalisation of private relationships, acts and behaviours can also be seen as a bargaining chip as the current government is trying to bring Islamic fundamentalist groups into the fold. They are trying to ensure their loyalty by showing they are willing to safeguard conservative religious values. LGBTQI+ rights have been at the forefront of the battles waged by fundamentalist political and religious groups, so they have been the first to go.

How has civil society tried to stop these changes from happening?

We often discussed with our allies whether and how to provide inputs and recommendations to the Ministry of Law and Human Rights and to the House of Representatives during the process. We did have meetings and took part in various consultations, but as it turned out, these just went through the motions of public engagement, keeping the formalities but disabling any meaningful opportunity to influence the outcomes.

Numerous CSOs across Indonesia have been protesting about this since at least 2019. There was a big campaign, #ReformasiDikorupsi (‘corrupt reform’) followed by a series of demonstrations against the enactment of the criminal code. However, the government and parliament chose to continue ignoring our objections and instead accelerated the process.

What kind of support does Indonesian civil society need from the international community?

We need all sectors of the international community, including international CSOs, foreign governments and their diplomatic missions and United Nations bodies, to send a clear warning to the Indonesian government against continuing to shut down civic space.

We really hope the movement to warn the government of Indonesia comes not only from domestic civil society, but also from our international counterparts.

Investors should also use their leverage, as the government is trying to attract foreign investments while the human rights situation continues to deteriorate on the ground.

The Indonesian state should be held accountable and be persuaded to step back and change course.

Civic space in Indonesia is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with KontraS through itswebsite and follow@kontras_update on Instagram and@KontraS on Twitter.
INDONESIA: ‘We must become an example of successful societal resistance against the threat of autocratic rule’
CIVICUS speaks about the upcoming general election in Indonesia with Muhammad Isnur, chairperson of the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI) and Secretary of the Board of theHuman Rights Working Group.

Founded in 1970, YLBHI is a human rights civil society organisation (CSO) that provides legal aid to excluded communities throughout Indonesia and engages in research, advocacy and empowerment initiatives. Every year the organisation receives at least 3,500 legal complaints and requests for assistance.

What is at stake in the upcoming general election?

The upcoming election will define Indonesia’s trajectory amidst a trend of growing authoritarianism. The incumbent government led by President Joko Widodo, known as Jokowi, is responsible for numerous human rights violations. It has targeted poor people through evictions and arrests, weakened anti-corruption efforts and criminalised civil society.

Jokowi has expressed support for the presidential candidacy of Prabowo Subianto, who faces allegations of crimes against humanity, including abductions and enforced disappearances of activists during mass protests in 1998 that led to the downfall of the Suharto dictatorship. He was dismissed from the military but hasn’t faced accountability and his victims haven’t received reparations, and some remain missing. His victory would be the worst possible scenario for civil society.

Jokowi has also undermined the rule of law to pave the way for his 36-year-old son, Gibran Rakabuming, to become a vice-presidential candidate. The controversial Constitutional Court ruling issued in October 2023 to grant him an exception to the legal minimum age of 40 to run for president or vice-president was delivered by Chief Justice Anwar Usman, who happens to be Jokowi’s brother-in-law. Gibran represents the interests of the Jokowi government and corrupt and authoritarian economic elites.

If the ruling elite succeeds in arbitrarily extending its power, there is risk of a resurgence of the kind of authoritarian and oligarchical rule we saw during dictatorship from 1966 to 1998.

Who are the other contenders, and what are their human rights records?

The other candidates are Ganjar Pranowo and Mahfud MD of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle, which has a long history of wielding power and currently holds the highest number of ministers in the government. Mahfud has defended the Jokowi government for many years and denied the gross human rights violations committed by Indonesian security forces against Indigenous Papuans.

We’ve also documented numerous human rights violations in Central Java during Ganjar’s tenure as governor. In Kendeng, despite a court decision favourable to the local community opposed to the construction of a cement factory, Ganjar reissued an environmental permit for the construction to proceed. In Wadas, he facilitated the implementation of a mining project aligned with Jokowi’s agenda, disregarding opposition from the local community, which also faced extraordinary repression, including arrests and beatings by the police and disruptions of internet and electricity services.

The third pair of candidates, Anies Baswedan and Muhaimin Iskandar, in contrast, position themselves as advocates for change. Anies has a social agenda focused on protecting poor people. But they receive support from parties that are integral to the existing power structure and have also backed laws that weakened labour rights and undermined the Corruption Eradication Commission.

What are the prospects of the election being free and fair?

The public is concerned about Jokowi’s numerous efforts to make the election unfree and unfair. First, although he later denied it, under the pretext of COVID-19 he planned to amend the constitution to stay for a third term. He then focused on building a political dynasty. He supported his son-in-law and his son to be elected as mayors in Medan and Surakarta. Civil society reports suggest the police and army played an influential role in their victories. Concern persists as Jokowi has signalled support for the Prabowo-Gibran pair and ordered his officials to back his son’s campaign, even though they are required to remain neutral.

There are also significant concerns about potential fraud, which have prompted civil society to intensify efforts to establish an election monitoring system and set up monitoring mechanisms at polling stations. Civil society remains vigilant, scrutinising any statements, policies or threats that could undermine the integrity of the election.

Civil society is joining forces to prevent the election of Prabowo. Online activists have created the Four Fingers Movement to urge voters to choose a different pair than Prabowo-Gibran.

Surveys currently indicate that Prabowo could receive about 40 per cent of the vote. To force a runoff, it’s essential to prevent fraud and secure turnout. If nobody takes over half of the vote on 14 February, civil society and the public may unite around an alternative candidate to counter Prabowo in the runoff. But there are concerns about a potentially low turnout. The number of people choosing not to vote was already high in the previous election.

What should be done to counter democratic decline in Indonesia?

Democracy in Indonesia is being eroded by a government that disregards constitutional principles and the rule of law and instead uses laws as tools of power to suit its interests. Jokowi has reinstated the army and police in various public roles and issued presidential decrees and enacted policies to undermine other political parties and eliminate the opposition.

A key symptom of democratic decline is repression of government critics, including journalists, activists, academics and others advocating for human rights. A revealing example is the case against activists Haris Azhar and Fatia Maulidiyanti, who faced criminal defamation charges for exposing state corruption and human rights violations in the Papua region. Human rights are being violated across Indonesia as communities are evicted under the pretext of investment or national development projects, and people who denounce this are systematically criminalised.

But there are other issues that should be tackled to foster democracy in Indonesia. Indonesian political parties lack a clear ideological orientation and don’t represent public interests. Their position depends on their leadership and decisions are often made by a few. There is no internal democracy in political parties. The high costs of campaigning lead parties to rely on support from wealthy investors and businesspeople, undermining transparency and enabling corruption.

To foster change, we should work toward democratising parties, making them more transparent and accountable. Efforts should be made to involve the public in the legislative process. Laws are sometimes passed within a week without any consultation with civil society. Referendums and other mechanisms should be explored to enhance public participation.

The upcoming election has additional significance in the face of a global surge in authoritarianism. We must avoid following the path of the Philippines, where the son and daughter of two authoritarian dynasties succeeded in getting elected. We must unite in the face of authoritarianism and become an example of successful societal resistance against the threat of autocratic rule.

Civic space inIndonesiais rated ‘obstructed’by theCIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with YLBHI through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@YLBHI on Twitter.
INDONESIA: “Peaceful pro-independence activists may be labeled as terrorists”
CIVICUS speaks to Samuel Awom, Coordinator of the human rights group KontraS Papua, which monitors human rights violations, advocates for victims and works for peace in Papua. KontraS Papua is based in Jayapura, Papua’s capital, and monitors human rights issues throughout the Papuan region.

In Papua, located at the east end of the Indonesian archipelago, there have been gross human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings, torture and arbitrary arrest of activists by the Indonesian security forces under the pretext of suppressing separatism. Although Indonesia President Joko Widodo continues to promise to address the grievances of the Papuan people, they face ongoing discrimination, exploitation, and repression.

What is the human rights situation in Papua?

As shown by the monitoring undertaken by KontraS Papua and other civil society groups, the military and police perpetrate serious human rights violations in the Papuan region. Abductions, killings and other violations of the rights of activists and other civilians by the security forces have taken place since 1963, when Indonesia took over Papua from the Netherlands. This situation has persisted until today. No legal processes have been undertaken to investigate and resolve these incidents. This is a very serious problem in Papua.

Recent events include the displacement of thousands of people from the Intan Jaya, Nduga, and Puncak areas, where there has been continued conflict between the military and pro-independence armed groups since December 2018.

In 2019, the situation became extremely tense following incidents of racist speech against Papuan students by the authorities in Java island, which were challenged by mass protests and mobilisation across Papua. In response, there were mass arrests of protesters and activists, which in turn led to violent incidents, including riots and arson. Until today, the instigators and perpetrators of the violence remain unknown and there has been a failure to investigate this. No one has been brought to justice for the killing of students and young people at that time. Many Papuans are still traumatised by this.

Following this, in December 2019 the armed conflict expanded in the Intan Jaya district, causing thousands of civilians to flee, and some were killed.

Most recently, on 25 April 2021, President Joko Widodo ordered the military commander and the chief of police to arrest all members of the West Papua National Liberation Army (TPN/OPM), an armed pro-independence group, after the head of the Regional State Intelligence Agency was shot dead. On 29 April, the Indonesian government officially categorised the TPN/OPM as a ‘terrorist' organisation. This was followed by the entry of large numbers of security forces into the Puncak district.

What do you think will be the impact of the government labeling the TPN/OPM as a terrorist group?

This comes at a time when all the civil society organisations (CSOs) and peace networks are talking about reconciliation and peace. The end of conflict requires dialogue and negotiation between the central government and Papua. The labelling of the TPN/OPM armed group as terrorists is a regressive move by the Jokowi administration that will close the space for democracy and the protection of human rights.

This has made the situation in Papua worse. We now see the deployment of thousands of troops to the region and public access to the internet being blocked. This will create a situation for increased human rights violations in Papua, as the anti-terrorism law will allow for arbitrary arrests and undermine the rule of law. The Anti-Terrorism Law grants police powers to hold suspects for up to 221 days without being brought to court – a blatant violation of the right of anyone arrested on a criminal charge to be brought promptly before a judge and be tried within a reasonable time or be released. The law also expands the use of military personnel in counterterrorism operations, which further increases the likelihood of the excessive use of force and other human rights violations.

In my opinion, this decision was made because the Jokowi administration has been only listening to the view of top military officials and has failed to find a concrete solution to the Papua problem. Meanwhile, all the civil society groups and movements in Papua, as well as the regional parliaments in the provinces and the governor, are calling for dialogue.

This decision now prevents CSOs from investigating when civilians are attacked in conflict areas because the military operations have brought along restrictions of movement.

Why is the government carrying out this military operation, and what is its impact on civil society?

The government's rationale for the operations is that it has accused the TPN/OPM of attacking civilians, including teachers, and burning schools and a plane. Further, the shooting of the head of the Papua Regional State Intelligence Agency in the Puncak district has worsened the situation. However, the shooting has yet to be fully investigated to determine what was behind the shooting, and the investigation needs to be undertaken by an independent team. There has been no further explanation about this so far.

As a result of this shooting, the head of the Police Security Intelligence Agency, Commissioner General Paulus Waterpauw, stated that human rights activists and CSOs are undermining political stability and damaging democracy in Papua. This creates a risk for human rights defenders, and particularly for Papuan activists working on ending the conflict and who are involved in political discussions around independence, who will be categorised as allied with terrorists, stigmatised, and arbitrarily arrested.

Why was Viktor Yeimo arrested and what are the charges against him?

Viktor Yeimo, the international spokesperson for the West Papua National Committee and the Papuan People's Petition Against Special Autonomy, was detained by the authorities on 11 May on the grounds that he was behind the 2019 anti-racism protests. However, his interrogation by the police seems to be leaning towards linking him with the TPN/OPM armed group.

He was arrested in Jayapura, taken to the Papua Police station, and then transferred to the Police Mobile Brigade headquarters in Abepura. He is being investigated for treason, incitement, and broadcasting false information as well as other charges. A coalition of lawyers is supporting him. Communication with his family has been denied and has been made difficult by the authorities.

Several more activists of the Papuan student alliance movement were also detained in cities inside and outside Papua and have been questioned. The democratic space in Papua is being squeezed.

This has been reinforced by an internet disruption that began about one month ago after the Papuan head of intelligence was shot. It has made it very difficult for us to communicate with contacts and activists throughout Papua. It has made it challenging to get updates on the situation in the field and to send material to places in Intan Jaya, Nduga, and Puncak Jaya.

What do Papuan activists need from the international community and civil society?

We need support from international CSOs working with local civil society to promote and develop the concept of peace and reconciliation. We also need support on how to open negotiations between the central government in Jakarta and Papua. Further, we need to open up the space for access to international CSOs, journalists, and humanitarian monitors in Papua, which is currently closed.

International actors and governments must also monitor and speak up against the anti-terrorism policies of the Indonesian government that have the potential to increase human rights violations. Civilians in Papua are often viewed as supporting armed groups and this makes them vulnerable. Those who have been displaced because of the conflict must also be assisted by the international community.

Our hope is that CSOs in Papua, Indonesia, and internationally can work together to protect human rights and seek solutions to severe violations in Papua. There is also a need for international solidarity to seek lasting peace to the conflict in Papua.

Civic space inIndonesiais rated as ‘obstructed’by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with KontraS through itswebsite and follow@KontraS on Twitter.
Indonesia: Halt using the G20 Summit to harass and block civil society activities
CIVICUS, a global civil society alliance, and the Fight Inequality Alliance are appalled by the decision of the Indonesian authorities to disband the activities of civil society groups and harass their organisers in Bali, Indonesia, ahead of the G20 Summit. We call on the government of Indonesia to halt such actions, investigate these human rights violations thoroughly and adhere to the human rights standards enshrined in international law and its own Constitution.
IRAN: ‘The regime is executing protesters to create fear and suppress any attempt at new mobilisation’
CIVICUS speaks aboutthe ongoing wave of executions in Iranwith Asal Abasian, an Iranian journalist and queer feminist activist. After receiving serious threats, Asal fled Iran for Turkey in 2021. They’re currently based in Paris, France.

How has repression escalated since the 2022 protests?

Repression by the regime of the Islamic Republic has escalated with executions of protesters, aimed at creating fear to suppress any attempt at new mobilisations such as the Woman, Life, Freedom nationwide protests triggered by Mahsa Amini’s death.

Recently, four young Kurds from the western provinces of Iran were hanged on unproven charges of cooperation with the Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan. Their families demanded a pardon until the last moment, but their requests went unheard.

The Islamic Republic has always been at odds with ethnic minorities. Forty-five years since the Islamic Revolution, this conflict is as alive as on the first day. If anything, it has become worse.

Of course, the death threat that comes with ramping up executions is not directed only at ethnic minorities. Every excluded group in Iran is under threat. The regime founded after the 1979 Islamic revolution was grounded on the aim of protecting the interests of Shia Muslim men. This means that everyone except Shia Muslim men is oppressed by design. This includes all women and LGBTQI+ people and sexual minorities, children and religious and ethnic minorities.

Throughout 45 years there have been several spikes in executions of people from minority groups as well as political activists opposing the Islamic Republic. This trend has been ongoing from the onset, and it was even worse at the beginning. In the first decade of the Islamic Republic thousands of young dissidents were secretly executed or shot.

On top of this, ethnic and religious minorities such as Bahais, Balochs, Kurds and Sunni Arabs experience daily discrimination and marginalisation, which sometimes cost people their lives.

Additionally, the regime of the Islamic Republic supports Hamas and other terrorist Islamic groups and has no qualms about it. It laments the killing of children in Gaza while it has killed so many during the protests that erupted in Iran in September 2022. But ideologies shouldn’t matter: the massacre of children by any regime or group is a despicable act.

Is there any space for civil society to operate in Iran?

Young people in Iran continue resisting, despite the severe economic pressure and the suppression of activism. Even if this involves making sacrifices in their careers, education or social lives, young women continue defying the mandatory hijab. Nationwide protests may have decreased, but young people continue resisting the arbitrary and inhumane laws of the Islamic Republic.

The struggle continues under the surface. Although the Islamic Republic and its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps severely suppress any attempt at a protest, people have not stopped fighting. The fact that they continue embracing civil resistance despite the potentially serious costs is very encouraging.

Many of our fighters, whom I would like to mention, are in Tehran’s Evin prison with long sentences. Sarvenaz Ahmadi, Anisha Asadollahi, Keyvan Mohtadi, Sepideh Rashnu, Nasim Soltanbeygi and many others are in the frontlines of this struggle, spending the years of their youth in prison. And what cost would be higher than paying with years of your life?

I try to support their struggle by raising awareness on international platforms and amplifying their voices. But the main struggle is being carried on by young Iranians in Iran. From afar, we can only admire their struggles and broadcast them to the world.

How has the international community reacted to the escalation of repression in Iran?

Unfortunately, the international community has maintained a shameful silence and indifference. As people were being executed, the 2023 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Narges Mohammadi, and several other civil activists wrote to the United Nations (UN) on the human rights crisis that Iranians face. And still, UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights Nada Al-Nashif recently travelled to Iran despite activists warning that this could be used as propaganda by the government.

The Iranian people will not forget the indifference and self-interest of the international community. This is as much of a historical disgrace as the silence in the face of the crimes that are being committed in Gaza.

Many members of the international community are perhaps more involved in domestic and regional interests, and it seems that, contrary to their proclaimed slogans, they are not really concerned about genocide, the killing of children and people’s oppression. This is very unfortunate.

We neither forgive nor forget.

Civic space in Iran is rated ‘closed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

Follow Asal onInstagram orTwitter.
IRAN: ‘The regime uses executions to maintain its grip on power through fear and intimidation’

CIVICUS speaks with Jasmin Ramsey, Deputy Director of the Center for Human Rights in Iran (CHRI), about the ongoing wave of executions as part of the Iranian regime’s effort to suppress dissent and discourage further protests.

Founded in 2008, CHRI is an independent civil society organisation that works to protect and promote human rights in Iran. Headquartered in New York, it researches and documents human rights violations throughout Iran, and provides governments, the United Nations, think tanks, global media and research centres around the world with detailed information, analysis and policy recommendations. CHRI’s approach is strictly nonpartisan, operating within the framework of international human rights law.

What has led to the current wave of executions in Iran?

Executions in Iran are not just a pillar of the founding of the Islamic Republic, but a ruthless tool wielded by the regime to maintain its grip on power through fear and intimidation. Although the vast majority of the more than 834 people who were hanged in Iran in 2023 were accused of drug offences or other non-political activities, the increase in executions after the protests, and the growing number of political prisoners among those executed in recent years, underscore the regime’s desperation to crush dissent. It is determined to prevent the emergence of another grassroots movement such as the Woman, Life, Freedom protests triggered by the September 2022 killing of Mahsa Amini at the hands of the morality police.

This wave of state-sanctioned killings has galvanised civil society to unite in condemnation. Women prisoners of conscience, in particular, have shown remarkable resilience, leading calls against the death penalty among Iranian civil society through joint statements and hunger strikes.

Iranian civil society is uniting to demand not just a cessation of executions, but the abolition of the death penalty. No matter how much the regime uses force and violence, it has failed to quell the desire for fundamental and systemic change in Iran. At every turn, society is pushing back against state policies that are repressive and discordant with the desires and beliefs of much of the population.

Alongside increasing executions, how else has the regime reacted to the protests?

Repression in various forms has escalated significantly since the emergence of the Woman, Life, Freedom movement in 2022, manifesting in various forms such as increased arrests and detentions of peaceful activists and family members seeking justice for victims of state violence.

The government is also pushing for a law to impose harsher penalties on women appearing in public without the mandated hijab. This proposed law burdens citizens, encourages vigilante violence and increases women’s vulnerability to abuse through increased surveillance and state security forces deployed on the streets.

Is there any space for civil society in Iran?

While technically there might some room for civil society to operate in Iran, as established in legislation, the reality is starkly different. Article 27 of Iran’s constitution allows for public gatherings and marches under some conditions, but protests critical of the state are swiftly suppressed, often with violence. Fundamental rights such as freedoms of speech, expression and the press are severely curtailed, and peaceful activism is often treated as a threat to national security.

Despite these challenges, activists and citizens persist in reclaiming their rights, using a variety of methods such as social media posts, prison letters and acts of civil disobedience, like women defying the state’s forced hijab law by walking the streets unveiled. Despite facing repression and economic hardships exacerbated by governmental corruption and sanctions, their determination remains strong.

I am grateful to be doing this work in a place of safety, where, at least for now, I am shielded from the dangers faced by activists in Iran. I consider myself fortunate to learn from the courageous Iranians, especially women, who persist and resist despite immense risks. CHRI’s mission is to amplify their voices and advocate for civil society’s demands internationally, a task that comes with its own set of challenges. However, these challenges pale in comparison to the dangers faced by those on the frontlines in Iran.

What should international allies do to support the struggle for freedoms in Iran?

During the initial surge of the Woman, Life, Freedom movement, there was a heightened international focus on the events unfolding in Iran. This sparked hope for more substantial action from governments with influence over the Islamic Republic. At that time, we outlined steps for the international community to pressure Iran to cease its violent crackdown on protests.

Among our recommendations, we emphasised the need for governments that have diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic to recall their ambassadors in protest against the killing of protesters and hanging of prisoners. We asked them to summon Iran’s diplomats to communicate directly their outrage and warn that further costs and isolation would ensue unless the Iranian authorities halted executions, annulled death sentences, ceased torture under custody, released prisoners and respected due process for those accused.

We urged the international community to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation and impose or expand human rights sanctions against Iranian officials and entities associated with rights violations and freeze the assets of officials who violated human rights, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and many more.

We also asked parliamentarians around the world to sponsor individual political prisoners, particularly those facing execution, to publicise their cases and the unjust nature of their prosecution or sentences and publicly demand their safety and release, both on the international stage and directly with Iranian ambassadors and other Islamic Republic officials.

Additionally, we urged states to suspend negotiations over Iran’s nuclear deal, which could provide increased revenue to the Iranian state and therefore increase its repressive capacity. We demanded it be expelled for multilateral bodies and various international platforms and associations, particularly those whose principles it blatantly violates. We also asked governments to support the United Nations (UN) Fact-Finding Mission on Iran and assist those fleeing Islamic Republic persecution, and asked tech companies to support safe digital communications for the Iranian people.

This roadmap remains relevant today. It is crucial for international allies to rally behind the UN’s independent international Fact-Finding Mission, tasked with investigating atrocities committed by the regime since the onset of the violent repression of the protests in September 2022. As the Fact-Finding Mission presents its first report to the UN Human Rights Council in mid-March, a united, multilateral approach to supporting its mandate is essential for holding the Iranian government accountable and advancing the struggle for justice and human rights in Iran.

Civic space in Iran is rated ‘closed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with CHRI through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@ICHRI onTwitter and@centerforhumanrights onInstagram.
Iran: free Baquer Namazi on second anniversary of his arbitrary detention
Two years ago, this week, human rights champion Baquer Namazi was arbitrarily arrested and detained by the authorities as he arrived in Iran to visit his detained son. During his incarceration at the notorious Evian prison in Tehran, the 81-year-old Iranian-American’s health has deteriorated significantly in terrible conditions.
IRAQ: ‘We've submitted many bills, but parliament refuses to adopt a law against GBV’
CIVICUS speaks about International Women’s Day and civil society’s role in combatting gender inequalities and the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on Iraqi women and girls with Alyaa Al Ansari, executive director of Bent Al-Rafedain Organisation (BROB).

Founded in Iraq’s southern Babylon province in 2005, BROB is a feminist civil society organisation (CSO) that works to ensure the protection of women and children and promotes women’s integration in all spheres of society. Since its foundation, BROB has extended its activities to eight provinces across Iraq.

How has the COVID-19 pandemic impacted on women and girls in Iraq?

The pandemic has affected many different groups of Iraqi society, but women and girls have been the most affected of all. Since before the pandemic, Iraqi women were socially compelled to have the biggest share of care responsibilities within their families: they are the main caregivers for children and older people. When a full lockdown was imposed in Iraq for four months, these responsibilities grew even more.

Additionally, many women were financially affected as the pandemic swept away countless businesses, including hotels, restaurants and shops, because they lost their jobs in the private sector. Without a stable income, their families suffered, particularly when they were the family’s main breadwinner.

The situation was even worse for female healthcare professionals. Some of them made the tough decision to remain separate from their families for a prolonged period to avoid spreading the virus to their family members. Further, the government did not issue any additional regulations on the working conditions of pregnant medical staff during the pandemic. They too were forced to continue working and risk their lives and those of their unborn children; several of them miscarried.

Another dramatic effect of the full lockdown was the spike in domestic violence. For four long months, abused women had no way out. They had to continue to live under the same roof with their abusers. There were more femicides and more attempted suicides were reported as some women could not bear the pressure and the violence they were subjected to.

How has civil society, and BROB in particular, responded to the devastating impacts of the pandemic on women?

During the pandemic, civil society efforts focused on providing humanitarian aid to affected women and their families. For instance, charity organisations covered essential needs of poor families and helped women who lost their jobs due to the pandemic.

As for feminist CSOs, some set up online programmes to provide psychological support. Other organisations shifted their face-to-face activities online and took to social media platforms such as Facebook to reach women who had to stay at home for unusually long periods. BROB’s phone number was posted across social media platforms, so women and families who needed urgent help were able to reach us.

Fortunately, BROB staff were able to continue to work at full capacity during the pandemic. We had freedom of movement once the Iraqi authorities issued permits allowing us to circulate during curfew in the eight provinces where we work. They gave us permission because we were providing essential services to families under lockdown. For instance, our team was distributing food supplies twice a month.

We maintained our social and psychological support programme for women but we moved it fully online via mobile and communications apps such as WhatsApp. Remote work is one of the new tactics we adopted during the pandemic. Our staff was creative and developed several new tactics we had never thought of before the pandemic, which allowed us to meet the urgent needs of women and their families.

Financially, BROB sustained its activities through donations from members as well as from the local community. Moreover, as public health institutions were struggling and the Ministry of Health was overwhelmed, we crowdfunded and sought donations to acquire additional medical equipment for the public health sector. This was a successful campaign that could have the positive side effect of strengthening the relationship between civil society and government institutions in the public health sector.

What are the main women’s rights issues in Iraq and how is civil society working to make change happen?

There are many relevant issues, but the one that if adequately tackled would make the most meaningful change in the lives of Iraqi women is that of gender-based violence (GBV). There is an urgent need for a law criminalising domestic violence in Iraq. CSOs have advocated for this for more than a decade. They have submitted several bills, but parliament has so far refused to discuss and adopt a law to protect women, girls and families from violence.

Given the importance of such legislation in promoting and protecting women’s rights at the national level, we will continue to put pressure on decision-makers through advocacy and campaigns combined with media support.

It is also key to change current laws that are unequal and unfair to provide women much-needed legal protection. Personal status laws in particular contain articles that discriminate against women in terms of the rights they recognise or don’t recognise, and the obligations and penalties they impose.

At the very least, Iraq should have laws to guarantee equal access to education, healthcare and public services overall. Such laws will contribute to gender equality as they become an integral part of the Iraqi legislative system. A law criminalising incitement of violence against women in the media and by religious leaders is also very much needed.

To make change happen, CSOs will continue raising awareness on gender equality, advocating with decision-makers, orchestrating public opinion campaigns, fighting legal battles and fostering leadership capabilities among women and girls. It is mostly up to us, because when it comes to official response, decision-makers do nothing besides issuing positive press releases to capitalise on CSO campaigns.

The International Women’s Day (IWD) theme for 2022 is #BreakTheBias. How did you organise around it?

Most of our projects have always focused on breaking the bias to combat gender inequalities. Every year we plan events on IWD to shed light on an issue that is critical to local communities. In 2019, for instance, we celebrated disabled sportswomen in Babylon province and supported their training programmes.

As usual, there are plenty of urgent issues this year, but we decided to focus on discrimination in the workplace, in both the private and the public sector. Women deserve safe and fair working conditions everywhere.

Civic space in Iraq is rated ‘closed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with Bent Al-Rafedain Organisation through its website orFacebook page.
ISRAEL: ‘We dream of hundreds of thousands demonstrating for democracy, equality and human rights’
CIVICUS speaks about currentprotests against judicial changes in Israel with Debbie Gild-Hayo, Director of Public Advocacy of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI).

Founded in 1972, ACRI is an oldest and largest human rights civil society organisation (CSO) in Israel. It advocates for the human rights and civil liberties of everyone living in Israel and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

What are the judicial changes being proposed, and what is wrong with them?

The government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is promoting several pieces of legislation concerning the judicial system. The one that has advanced most and is the most controversial at the moment concerns the makeup of the Judicial Selection Committee. This committee chooses judges for the High Court, which also plays the role of a Constitutional Court, and also all other courts.

The government wants the ruling coalition to have a majority in the Judicial Selection Committee so it can control the appointment of judges. It currently has to make compromises and reach agreements between all members of the committee, political and professional, to nominate judges. If the change is adopted, the nomination process will be totally political and will prioritise judges’ allegiance to the government over their professionalism.

The reform would also diminish the authority of the High Court to conduct judicial review of Basic Laws – which have the status of a constitution in Israel – drafted by the Knesset, Israel’s parliament. For example, the coalition wants to pass a new Basic Law that will release ultra-Orthodox people from obligatory military duty, making their religious studies equivalent to army service. The High Court has already stated that this kind of arrangement would violate the principle of equality. But if the reform passes, then these kinds of unconstitutional amendments to Basic Laws will be possible and the High Court will not be able to intervene.

Another bill concerns regular laws passed by the Knesset that contradict Basic Laws. The bill determines that in order to annul an unconstitutional statute the High Court will need 80 per cent of its members to agree, which is practically impossible to achieve. On top of that, the bill includes an override clause, which determines that even if the High Court recognises legislation as unconstitutional, the Knesset will have the power to override its decision with a simple majority of 61 of its 120 members.

It’s important in this context to remember that Israel has a 20 per cent Arab population, so even if a majority of 80 out of 120 Knesset votes were needed for the override clause, like some suggestions that are on the table and quite widely accepted, it would still keep Arabs completely out of the law-making process in the most harming and controversial moments. The government wants to be able to pass laws deemed unconstitutional with a simple majority of 61 members, which could potentially harm an enormous part of the population.

The government also seeks to change the status of legal advisors in ministries, turning them from independent advisors into politically nominated counsel whose rulings would have non-binding status.

All of these bills would harm the independence of the judicial system and its ability to defend human rights, and specifically the rights of minorities.

How would you describe the protests against the changes?

I would describe them as amazing. As a human rights organisation, it is our dream to have hundreds of thousands of people demonstrating for democracy, equality and human rights. We wouldn’t have thought it possible only a short while ago. People are now attending parliamentary discussions – which, believe me, is incredible. I have been doing this job for a long time, and I used to always be there alone or with a few colleagues at most.

I think many people felt threatened personally by the reform initiative. This is what usually brings people out to the street. A lot of people who have never been involved in politics before are now mobilising.

In the last few months, I have talked to members of the Knesset as well as to protesters and advocated for other issues besides the judicial changes that are also harming democracy and human rights in Israel to be included on the agenda. Everything that is related to the occupation is excluded from the mainstream agenda. There is a perception that those demonstrating with Palestinian flags harm the protest.

But a few things are slowly widening the protesters’ agenda. For instance, people have been speaking up against the creation of a militia of armed citizens to support the police. It is a good sign that criticism is starting to go beyond the judicial changes.

Protesters include people of all ages and various professional groups, including doctors, social workers and teachers, as well as youth and student groups. But it is undeniable that most are middle or upper-middle class. A deep split has existed in Israeli society for many years, but now it has come to its peak. On the one hand you have the more liberal population and on the other the right-wing nationalist segment, including five per cent of the population who are settlers and 10 per cent who are ultra-Orthodox believers.

How has the government reacted to the protests?

From my point of view, there hasn’t been much repression. There are frequent clashes between police and protesters and there have been cases of police brutality, but the level of violence has not been that high. I have seen the police in action in other places, such as East Jerusalem, and they are much more violent. In this case, they have given quite a lot of room to protesters.

The main thing the government has attempted to do is to delegitimise the protests, referring to protesters as ‘anarchists’, ‘leftists’, ‘a minority against the country’ and so forth, disregarding the fact that hundreds of thousands are protesting every week and many of the people opposing the reforms and deeming them non-democratic are public officials, including members of security forces, or have positions in the financial system. The government also claims protesters are violent, but I personally have never seen such non-violent protesters in my life. If you just look at the protests against the pensions system changes taking place in Paris right now, there is no comparison.

What role are CSOs playing?

CSOs have been fully involved in many ways. CSOs are doing advocacy and campaigns, explaining to the public what this judicial reform is about, talking to the press and writing reports. They are also going to the courts when any rights violation occurs, especially regarding freedoms of speech and assembly, and to the police to defend arrested people. And they also take part in the parliamentary legislation procedures, including by attending committee sessions.

Do you think the protests will force the government to backtrack?

Protests have put a lot of pressure on the government, influencing Israel’s financial situation and bringing international support, which is also threatening to the government. But we have not stopped the process, but rather slowed it down. The government started pushing all these bills at once and ended up at the end of the Knesset session with only one passed, which protects Netanyahu’s position by limiting the ways a sitting prime minister can be declared unfit for office.

The judicial reform has been put off for a month, during which time its terms are supposed to be negotiated. The next session will take place in May, and it’s likely that there won’t be an agreement so the ruling coalition will accuse the opposition of obstruction and go on to push the bills forward. Even if there is an agreement between the coalition and the opposition, or part of it, about the details of the reform, it is not certain that the public will accept it.

If the bills pass, then there will be petitions against them and the High Court might deem them unconstitutional, which will farther intensify the controversy between the sides, and deepen the constitutional clash.

I don’t think protesters will give up. The worst worst-case scenario is that the ongoing constitutional clash will be accompanied by clashes on the streets. I don’t know what form they will take, whether it will be strikes, people refusing to join the army and the reserves, violent clashes on the street, or general chaos. The far right is more violent than its opponents, and we have already witnessed far-right violence in protests and attacks against Arabs on the streets. The ongoing clash could turn into a catastrophe, maybe also escalating to another major outbreak of violence in the Israel-Palestine conflict, as we saw two years ago in May.

What forms of international support does Israeli civil society currently need?

International pressure seems to be one of the only things really influencing this government because Israel is dependent on international support, and financial support in particular. Since the government has a legislative majority, it can theoretically pass all these laws, and the only thing stopping it, or slowing it down at least, seems to be financial pressure within Israel – for example, some high-tech companies have already said that they will relocate or have started to open new companies in other countries – and outside financial or other international pressure.

Another worry is that although many people are on the streets now and protests seem to be very wide, they do not, and probably will not in the future, deal with the less mainstream issues, such as the rights of the Arab population in Israel and occupation issues. In fact, the Knesset has just passed an amendment to the Disengagement Law that would allow the reestablishment of former West Bank settlements that were evacuated in 2005. This was barely an issue in Israeli public debate. This is just one example. CSOs are currently, and will probably continue to be, the only ones dealing with these issues on the national level, and will also probably be attacked because of this.

Civic space in Israel is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with ACRI through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@acri_online onTwitter.
It is #TimesUp for sexual harassment, including within civil society
This is a significant time to be calling for greater progress in the fight against gender inequality and sexual abuse.
It's time for G20 leaders to embrace civil society
By Cathal Gilbert

There is a growing list of critical problems in the G20's inbox, namely a faltering global economy, terrorist threats in a majority of G20 member states, and a patched-up climate change agreement. Solving these problems will take more than 20 heads of state and their economic ministers. The role of the private sector is widely acknowledged, but the power of civil society is often dismissed. Addressing these expensive and expansive issues requires the will and contribution of the people.

Read on: Al Jazeera
ITALY: ‘Accusing activists of vandalism is much easier than implementing renewable energy policies’
CIVICUS speaks with Gabriella Abbate of Last Generation about climate activism and its criminalisation in Italy, a country that has recently experienced both drought and devastating floods.

Last Generation is an international network of climate activists using civil disobedience to compel governments to address the climate emergency by enabling citizen participation and financially supporting the global south as a primary victim of climate change that it hasn’t caused.

Why are climate protests on the rise in Italy?

Italy is heavily affected by climate and ecological crises: it experienced 310 climate disasters in 2022 alone, one of the main reasons behind them being the use of fossil fuels. The Italian government’s funding of fossil fuels has been steadily increasing, reaching €2.8 billion (approx. US$3 billion) between 2019 and 2021 and comprising 90 per cent of Italy’s total investment in fossil energy. Italy is the world’s sixth largest fossil energy lender, ahead even of Russia and Saudi Arabia.

In reaction to these energy policies, transnational activist networks including Last Generation, Extinction Rebellion and Scientists Rebellion are organising climate protests throughout Italy. They all use nonviolent civil disobedience tactics such as roadblocks, soiling with washable and vegetable-based paint and gluing. Last Generation is currently protesting to demand that the Italian government immediately cease public funding for fossil fuels and respect the agreements made by European Union member states in the 2030 climate and energy framework to increase the share of renewable energies, improve energy efficiency and cut greenhouse gas emissions.

What challenges are climate protesters facing in Italy?

A major challenge has been the criticism of our ways of protesting and the way we have been portrayed by the media. I think it is much easier to present someone as a vandal than to try to understand the root causes of the anger driving their action. The media and the state strongly exploit people’s lack of awareness regarding the innocuous materials used in the actions, such as vegetable charcoal, which leads to plenty of misinformation. However, more and more people are still joining our movement, perhaps driven by personal fear of the climate catastrophe, but also due to the realisation that the label of ‘eco vandalism’ is only a facade to mask the problem and that the negative consequences of our actions are minor and superficial.

On the other hand, the consequences of our activism being portrayed as violent and as acts of vandalism have been profound. There are currently three Last Generation activists facing trial for spraying the Senate building in Rome. They’re accused of ‘criminal damage’ and risk up to three years in prison. Never mind that the paint they used in the protest was washable.

In April, the Italian government introduced a new law specifically to punish climate actions seen as damaging monuments or cultural sites with fines ranging from €20,000 to €40,000 (approx. US$21,500 to US$43,000) and possible imprisonment for those caught in the act. In this regard, it should be noted that an essential part of Last Generation’s activism is to draw attention to one’s responsibility for one’s choices, which ends up accentuating the consequences of the actions we take. We take responsibility by not running away after an action, and this puts us in an even riskier position. Another tool used by the Italian state is indictment for ‘criminal conspiracy’, a charge historically used against the mafia.

The Italian government criminalises climate activists because by doing so it can continue avoiding its responsibilities regarding the wellbeing of its citizens. Accusing activists of vandalism is much easier than implementing renewable energy policies.

How does Last Generation support activists so they can continue mobilising for climate action?

Last Generation supports prosecuted activists by using funds from donations to pay their legal fees and hire experts to help them navigate court proceedings. We also share information about their cases on social media to gather international solidarity and support.

How do you connect with the global climate movement?

Last Generation is part of the A22 coalition, an international network of nonviolent civil disobedience campaigners, all of which demand their governments adopt measures to address ecoclimate collapse. The coalition was established in 2022 and it already includes at least 10 different campaigns advocating with governments in Europe, the Pacific and the USA.

Within the coalition we share not only strategies and best practices but also victories, such as that obtained in the Netherlands last month. In April, following months of continuous campaigning by our Dutch allies, Schiphol Airport decided to ban private jets and night flights from 2025. It is setting new rules that establish clear limits on noise and emissions and has dropped plans to build an additional runway.

This network is a great source of support. We help each other increase the visibility of our campaigns. It has certainly helped us attract more people to Non Paghiamo il Fossile (We Don’t Pay for Fossil) and other environmental campaigns in Italy and beyond.

Civic space in Italy is rated ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with Last Generation through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@ultimagenerazi1 onTwitter.
ITALY: ‘The constitution now contemplates the interests of future generations’
CIVICUS speaks with Edoardo Zanchini, National Vice President of Legambiente Onlus, about the recent legislative vote that introduced environmental protections in the Italian Constitution, and civil society’s role in making it happen.

Established in 1980, Legambiente Onlus is an Italian civil society organisation (CSO) that works towards a clean and liveable environment by monitoring environmental issues, diagnosing problems and offering solutions, denouncing environmental crimes and seeking to hold those responsible to account, running sensitisation campaigns and educational projects, and advocating with policy makers.

What is the significance of the recent constitutional amendment that mandates the state to safeguard ecosystems and biodiversity?

It’s very important because it elevates the protection of the environment, biodiversity and ecosystems to the constitutional level. Before this amendment, the Italian Constitution did not explicitly recognise environmental protection as a fundamental value. The new text of Article 9 establishes the principle of environmental protection ‘in the interest of future generations’, a reference to the concept of sustainable development, according to which natural resources cannot be exploited in an unlimited way – that is, without taking into account that they are finite and how this will affect those who will come after us.

A change to Article 41 also establishes that economic initiatives cannot be carried out in a way that could create damage to health or the environment. Before, the only constitutionally recognised restrictions were those related to security, freedom and human dignity.

Wording was also introduced regarding the ‘protection of animals’, and this was the only point around which there were strong disagreements: pressure from hunters’ associations was strong and led to a compromise.

Do you view the amendments as a civil society victory?

Yes, it was a victory for the CSOs that have long been committed to the defence of ecosystems, the landscape and biodiversity. These amendments would not have been introduced if it hadn’t been for the growing awareness of the importance of these values and the increasing interest in their defence. And that awareness is the result of sustained civil society work.

It has been a long road to reach today’s great consensus on environmental issues. And consultations with environmental CSOs in the amendment process were a key factor in that they helped put pressure on political parties to make the right decision.

The fact that nobody openly campaigned against the amendment proposal is very telling: it shows there is a broad consensus, stronger than any political divide, around values that are recognised as being in the general interest, even as part of the identity of local communities and Italy as a whole. Aside from the strong conflict around the protection of animals, it got to the point that those who have an interest in pollution continuing to be allowed or overlooked were very careful not to take part in any controversy.

Do you see the constitutional change in Italy as part of a European trend?

In recent years several European countries have amended their constitutions to explicitly include and strengthen environmental protection. In all countries there is a strong consensus around this perspective, with an increasing public demand for information on environmental issues and increasingly active citizens who take it upon themselves to get informed, visit protected areas and valuable landscapes, and organise to demand their preservation for future generations. Environmental associations from all over Europe have been working together for many years on issues such as natural resource protection, the push towards a circular economy and the battle against climate change.

We also frame our initiatives and campaigns in the context of our membership of regional and global networks such as the Climate Action Network, which includes over 1,500 CSOs in more than 130 countries in every global region, the European Environmental Bureau, which is the largest network of environmental CSOs in Europe, with over 170 members in more than 35 countries, and Transport & Environment, Europe’s leading clean transport campaign group.

What needs to happen next, both in terms of implementation and further policy development?

Now it will be necessary to update the regulatory framework to include protection measures that had so far not been considered. The new constitutional reference to environmental protection will also allow environmentalists to appeal against laws that are in contradiction with it. Of course, Italy will have to review all its regulations related to environmental impact assessments, which were established without taking into account the protection objectives that are now part of our constitution.

Civic space in Italy is rated ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with Legambiente Onlus through itswebsite or itsFacebook andInstagram pages, and follow@Legambiente on Twitter.
JAPAN: ‘Each victory brings backlash, but LGBTQI+ people will keep fighting for equality and dignity'
CIVICUS speaks about the struggle for LGBTQI+ rights in Japan withAkira Nishiyama, Deputy Secretary General of the Japan Alliance for Legislation to Remove Social Barriers based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (Japan Alliance for LGBT Legislation, J-ALL).

Founded in 2015, J-ALL seeks to remove social barriers based on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI). It does so by convening consultations, producing research, developing policy proposals, raising awareness among the public and lobbying government officials and legislators.

What are the implications of recent court rulings on same-sex marriage in Japan?

In 2019, five lawsuits were filed at Japanese district courts addressing same-sex marriage. Four out of five court rulings were positive. Nagoya and Sapporo district courts declared that not allowing same-sex marriage was against the Constitution, while Fukuoka and Tokyo district courts ruled that it was ‘in a state of unconstitutionality’.

The Osaka court was the only one to rule negatively on the three constitutional clauses in question. Clause 1 of article 24 says that marriage shall be based on the mutual consent of both sexes, and the court argued that this clause pertains to heterosexual couples only and doesn’t guarantee same-sex marriage. The court affirmed that legal protection for same-sex relationships hasn’t been fully discussed yet and therefore the Civil Code and Family Register Act, which doesn’t recognise same-sex marriage, is not against clause 2 of article 24, which upholds individual dignity and the essential equality of sexes in matters of marriage and family. Finally, the court argued that there are now minimal differences in the treatment of heterosexual and same-sex couples, and so the lack of recognition of same-sex marriage doesn’t violate article 14, which guarantees equality under the law.

Have you seen any positive change in public attitudes to LGBTQI+ people?

Since the lawsuits were filed, there have been significant societal changes. Various surveys indicate public support for same-sex marriage, and over 300 municipalities have introduced a partnership system for same-sex couples.

According to the 2019 research led by Professor Kazuya Kawaguchi from Hiroshima Shudo University, almost 65 per cent of the population supports same-sex marriage, with the percentage reaching 80 per cent among people in their 20s and 30s. Also, almost 88 per cent support legislation prohibiting bullying and discrimination against sexual minorities. Similar results have been observed in other studies.

How positive is the recently adopted law against discrimination?

The law passed in June 2023 is not an anti-discrimination law based on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI), because it lacks the tools to address actual cases of discrimination. It should be understood as a ‘SOGI Understanding Law’: it primarily aims to promote public awareness of sexual and gender diversity. It mandates the government to create a basic implementation plan and operational guidelines, publish an annual white paper to monitor progress, conduct academic research and establish a liaison council to coordinate policy implementation. It also encourages ‘efforts’ by national and local governments, employers and schools to promote understanding through awareness-raising, setting up consultation services, educational activities and other necessary measures.

LGBTQI+ groups are concerned that article 12, which states that in implementing the measures each actor shall pay attention to ensure that all citizens can live with ‘peace of mind’ regardless of SOGI, may be interpreted by right-wing groups intentionally to mean that if one person raises concerns, local government cannot implement those measures. However, during the legislative session it was clarified that article 12 was added to emphasise a guiding principle stipulated in article 3, which declares that all citizens, irrespective of their SOGI, are respected as irreplaceable individuals who share basic human rights equally, and unjust discrimination based on SOGI is inexcusable.

Japanese civil society is still uncertain whether this law will have a positive impact, given that the implementation plan and guidelines are yet to be formulated. We hope that the law will be interpretated and applied in accordance with the guiding principles based on a thorough understanding of the legislator’s intention.

Have these legal changes been met with an anti-rights backlash?

This year, anti-LGBTQI+ remarks made by a former secretary of the prime minister in February and Japan’s hosting of the G7 Summit in May accelerated a social movement urging anti-discrimination legislation. As a result, there has been heightened criticism from some conservative members of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and religious groups.

Anti-transgender discourse has surged by exploiting women’s anxieties. It has gone along the lines of ‘if the law is passed, men claiming to be women will be able to come into women’s public toilets and baths (‘Sento’ in Japanese)’. A new caucus was formed within the LDP, allegedly to protect the peace of mind and safety of women and the fairness of women’s sports. Members of this caucus submitted a request to the Ministry of Justice to keep the ‘compulsory sterilisation’ requirement for legal gender recognition. The LGBTQI+ community must continue discussions on how to counter this backlash.

What are the next steps in your struggle?

Three crucial steps should be taken. First, a proper anti-discrimination law banning discrimination on the basis of SOGI must be enacted. Second, marriage equality must be recognised.

And third, inhumane requirements for legal gender recognition must be removed through the revision of the Act on Special Cases in Handling Gender Status of Persons with Gender Identity Disorder or the approval of new legislation. The compulsory sterilisation requirement has been criticised both domestically and internationally. Recommendations to eliminate it were formulated by various states at Japan’s Universal Periodic Review by the United Nations Human Rights Council in January 2023. However, the Japanese government did not accept these recommendations. A Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of this requirement is expected by the end of this year, and we hope it’ll mark the beginning of a movement to amend Japan’s gender recognition law.

While many other things must be done to protect the human rights of LGBTQI+ people in Japan, we believe it’s crucial to first amend and enact laws on these three issues.

What international support do you receive, and what is needed?

At the international level, LGBTQI+ organisations from G7 member states, including us, have formed a new civic engagement group named ‘Pride7’ (P7) to highlight human rights violations related to SOGI globally and propose policy recommendations at G7 summits. In March, we organised the P7 summit with activists from G7 and global south countries and, as a result, handed the P7 communiqué to the governments of Japan, the UK and the USA. Additionally, 15 embassies in Japan released a joint video message ahead of the G7 Summit in Hiroshima, urging protection for the rights of LGBTQI+ people and expressing intolerance towards discrimination. With substantial support from the international community, we aim to pass on the P7 presidency to Italy, the host of the 2024 G7 summit.

We would appreciate your support to inform wider audiences about the current situation in Japan. Please follow our activities on our website or social media, and contribute through either a one-time or a monthly donation. If you represent a private company, we invite you to cooperate by adhering to the Declaration of Business Support for LGBT Equality in Japan, which we promote as a part of our global campaign called ‘#EqualityActJapan‘.

Civic space in Japan is rated ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with J-ALL through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@lgbtourengokai on Twitter.
Joint letter to UN Member States: Ensure meaningful virtual participation in 2020 review of the SDGs
Joint letter to United Nations Member States: Ensure meaningful civil society participation in the 2020 virtual High Level Political Forum

Civil society participation in the United Nations cannot be lost as the world fights COVID-19. This July, 48 Member States are reviewing national progress towards the 17 Sustainable Development Goals.

🇺🇳 Civil society participation at the #UN cannot be lost as we #FightCOVID19

460 organisations from 115 countries are writing to their governments urging meaningful virtual opportunities to engage in July’s review of #SDGs at #HLPF2020

📝Joint letter: https://t.co/mYBYQEH7KE pic.twitter.com/BOZQaTGa7J
— Action for Sustainable Development (@Action4SD) June 3, 2020

Dear Excellencies,

We, the undersigned 460 civil society organisations (CSOs) from 115 countries, write to seek your support in ensuring the effective participation of civil society during the upcoming UN High Level Political Forum (HLPF) scheduled for 7-16 July 2020. As the preeminent multistakeholder body responsible for the review and implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), HLPF processes derive strength from the engagement of diverse actors including a broad range of civil society organisations (CSOs) working at various levels. As the HLPF transitions to virtual communication and convening for its July 2020 session due to the global spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is essential that all relevant actors, including States and UN agencies, support and devise clear modalities to enable robust virtual civil society participation.

In response to disruptions caused by COVID-19, a number of Inter-governmental bodies have taken concerted efforts to facilitate extensive virtual participation in official meetings. Inclusive virtual modalities are crucial to supporting international cooperation in the spirit of multilateralism. An enabling environment for all stakeholders to participate that takes into account digital divides is thus crucial.

In his “We are all in this Together” statement of 23 April 2020, UN Secretary General António Guterres underlined the importance of promoting and protecting civic space in response to COVID-19. With respect to the SDGs, Secretary General Guterres unequivocally stated that, “Looking ahead, we need to build back better. The Sustainable Development Goals — which are underpinned by human rights — provide the framework for more inclusive and sustainable economies and societies”. Civil society is key to implementing the SDGs and we must take united action to ensure that the virtual HLPF reflects the broad spectrum of stakeholders who are committed to creating The World We Want.

To this end, we urge all states and UN agencies to support the following measures:
- Provide an opportunity for at least three Major Group and Other stakeholders to respond to each Voluntary National Review (VNR), one of which should be from civil society.
- Representatives from national civil society groups voices should be prioritized for inclusion during the HLPF, with adequate representation from regional and international civil society organisations.
- Written questions should also be presented and answered within a month of the HLPF for those who are unable to ask their question within the given time of the VNR session.
- All civil society shadow VNR reports should be published on the UN’s official HLPF website.
- Ensure side events are inclusive of stakeholder participation, including a wide range of civil society led side online events to be shared in the official programme.
- Identify more participatory approaches to engage with stakeholders on an ongoing basis, including best practice on use of online meeting technology to provide inputs, to ensure a more inclusive process before, during and after the main HLPF sessions
We thank you in advance for your consideration.

Sincerely,

A Toda Voz AC
Aakash Welfare Society Hyderabad
Access Now
Acción Solidaria
ACCIONA Transformando Caminospara SER y HACER A.C.
Accountability Lab
Achtung labs private limited
ACT Alliance
ActionAid Denmark
ActionAid International
Action for Sustainable Develpment
ADAB (Association of Development Agencies in Bangladesh)
ADD International
Adivasi Women's Network
Adivasi-Koordination, Germany
Advocacy, Research, Training and Services (ARTS) Foundation
Afghan NGOs Coordination Bureau (ANCB)
Ageing Nepal
Agenda Cero A.C.
Aid Organization
AIDS-Fondet - The Danish AIDS
Foundation
AidWatch Canada
AIESEC MÉXICO A.C.
Al Dua welfare organization
Al Falah Organization Islampur Swat
Alberta Council for Global
Cooperation
Alfalah Tanzeem Swat
Alimentos de México a Compartir, A. C.
Alkhidmat Foundation GB
Allai Developement Organization
American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU)
Amnesty International
Amnistia Inernacional, Portugal
Animis Philanthropic Ventures Inc.
Arab Youth Platform for Sustainable Development - League of Arab States
ARCADIA - Romanian Association for International Cooperation and
Development
Argentine Network for International Cooperation - RACI
ARTICLE 19
Asia Dalit Rights Forum
Asia Development Alliance
Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Center
Asian Solidarity Economy Council (ASEC)
Asociación de Organismos No Gubernamentales (ASONOG)
Asociación Mexicana de Amigos Metabólicos, A.C. A.C.
Asociación Nacional de Síndrome de Williams AC
Association femmes leadership et développement durable
Association for Farmers Rights Defense, AFRD
Association for Human Rights in Ethiopia
Association For Promotion Sustainable Development
Association Nationale des Partenaires Migrants
Associations 21
Augustinians International (Curia Generalizia Agostiniana)
Avoid Accident
Awaz Foundation Pakistan
AwazCDS-Pakistan
Azat Foundation
Baghbaan
Bai Indigenous Womens Network in the Philippines
Bangladesh Indigenous Women's Network
Bangladesh Nari Progati Shangha (BNPS)
Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio & Communication
Biosauenergie
Bond
Born Free Foundation
Bright Star Development Society Balochistan (BSDSB)
British Columbia Council For International Cooperation
Brooke
Bulgarian Platform for International Development (BPID)
Burundi Child Rights Coalition (BCRC)
CAFSO-WRAG for Development
Canadian Council for International Co-operation
Cancer Aid Society
Caribbean Coalition for Development and the Reduction of Armed Violence (CDRAV)
Caucus of Development NGO Networks (CODE-NGO)
Center for Civil Liberties
Center for Environmental Concerns - Philippines
Center for National and International Studies
Centre for Environmental Justice
Centre for Human Rights and Development
Centre for Research and Advocacy, Manipur
Centre for Social Equity and Inclusion (CSEI)
Centre for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights
Centro de Arte y Cultura Popular Tonalteca A.C.
Centro de Justicia y Paz - Cepaz
Centros de cuidado, Atencion y educación integral coralitos AC
ChildHelp Sierra Leone
Christian Blind Mission
Church of Sweden
Church Women United Washington DC Unit
Civic Initiatives
CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
Civil Society Coalition on Sustainable Development
Civil Society SDGs Campaign/GCAP Zambia
CIVILIS Derechos Humanos
COAST Trust
Colectivo Ollin, Alternativas para la Comunicaciòn, la Sexualidad y el Desarrollo Comunitario AC
Colectivo pro Inclusión e Igualdad Jalisco, A. C.
Colores del Rincón A.C. - MY World México
Commons Cluster of the UN NGO Major Group
Commons for EcoJustice
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI)
Commonwealth Medical Trust
Community Advancement through Research & Development CARD
Community Initiatives for development in Pakistan
Comunidad de Organizaciones Solidarias
Concord Italia
CONCORD Sweden
Congrégation des soeurs de Notre Dame de Charité du Bon Pasteur
Congregation of Notre Dame de Montreal
Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd
Congregation of the Mission
Consorcio para el Diálogo Parlamentario y la Equidad Oaxaca A.C:
Cooperation for Peace and Development (CPD)
CoopeSoliDar R.L
Coordinación de ONG y Cooperativas CONGCOOP
Council for NGOs in Malawi - CONGOMA
Council for Participatory Development
Crispin Swedi Bilombele
CRV & Co
D.C. Unit Church Women United
Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation
Dalit NGO Federation, Nepal
Dalit Youth Alliance (DYA)
DanChurchAid
Danish United Nations Association
Dawn Development Organization
Debasis Chowdhury Rana
DefendDefenders (East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
Dehi Ijtimai Tarqyati Social Workers Council (DITSWC)
Dehi Taraqiati Tanzeem (DTT) BILLITANG KOHAT KPK
Derecho, Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (DAR)
Desértica, Soluciones Endovasculares A.C.
Despertares Derechos Humanos
Development Dynamics
DHEWA (development for health education work & awareness) Welfare Society Chakwal Bheen
Dillu Prasad Ghimire
District Development Association
District Development Association Tharparkar (DDAT)
Dóchas
Dominican Leadership Conference
Dosse SOSSOUGA
Dr. Tristaca McCray
DSW (Deutsche Stiftung Weltbevölkerung)
DUF - The Danish Youth Council
Earth Community
East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN)
Ecumenical Institute for Labor Education and Research
Edmund Rice International
EMPOWER INDIA
Empresa marhnos®
Environmental Partnership Council
EOS - Association for Studies, Cooperation and Development
Equality Bahamas
Equality For All Development Organisation
Estonian Roundtable for Development Cooperation
Ethiopian Human Rights Council
European Youth Forum
Fagaras Research Institute
Federation of Environmental and Ecological Diversity for Agricultural Revampment and Human Rights
Feminist Dalit Organizations (FEDO)
FIAN Sri Lanka
Finnish Development NGOs Fingo
Fixing The World
FKM BKA YWU
FOKUS - Forum for Women and Development
Fondazione Proclade Internazionale - onlus
Food Security Network-PRAN
Foreign Spouses Support Group and Malaysian Campaign for Equal Citizenship
Former Commissioner, National Human Rights Commission Nepal
Forum for Women in Democracy
Forum of women's NGOs of Kyrgyzstan
Forum Syd
Forus
Foundation for Older Persons' Development (FOPDEV)
Foundation For Sustainable Development and Climate Action (FSDCA)
Freshwater Action Network Mexico (FANMex)
Friends of Angola
FUNDACIÓN CONSTRUIR
Fundación Dibujando un Mañana
Fundación Heinrich Böll - Ciudad de México, México y el Caribe
Fundación Mexicana de Medicina Paliativa y Alivio del Dolor en Cáncer A.C.
Fundación Mexicana para la Planeación Familiar, A. C. MEXFAM
FUNDACIÓN MÉXICO MOTIVACTE A.C
Fundación MYWM- MY World México
Fundación Sanders AC
FUNDACION SERENDIPIA A.C.
Fundamedios
Gals Forum International
Gatef orginzation
Generacion2030
GESIP Centro para la Gestión Integral y Participativa S.C.
Gestión Estratégica para Resultados de Desarrollo S.C.
Gestos (soropositividade, comunicação, gênero)
Global Call to Action against Poverty
Global Citizen
Global Integrity
Global NGO Executive Committee
Global Shepherds
Globalt Fokus
Good Shepherd International Foundation- Nepal
Good Shepherd Sisters
Gopal Kiran Samaj Sevi Sanstha
Governance, Elections, Advocacy, Research Services (GEARS) Initiative Zambia
Gram Bharati Samiti (GBS)
GREENfluidics
Groupe d'Action pour le Progrès et la Paix (G.A.P.P.-Afrique)
Groupe d'Action pour le Progrès et la Paix (G.A.P.P.-BÉNIN)
Groupe d'Action pour le Progrès et la Paix (G.A.P.P.-Mali)
Grupo Holístico para el bienestar investigación y desarrollo social Integral, A.C
H. AYUNTAMIENTO DE TECAMACHALCO, PUEBLA MEX.
HAKI Africa
HelpAge Deutschland
Hevas Innovación
Human Rights Focus Pakistan (HRFP)
IMCS Pax Romana
IMS (International Media Support)
Incidencia y Gobernanza Ambiental AC
INCIDIR, A. C.
Institute for Socioeconomic Studies - INESC
Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary -Loreto Generalate
Instituto de Comunicación y Desarrollo (ICD)
Instituto Potosino de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica, AC
International Association for Religious Freedom Coordination Council for South Asia
International Commission of Jurists
International Federation of Business and Professional Women
International IPMSDL
International Movement for Advancement of Education Culture Social & Economic Development (IMAECSED)
International Network of Women Engineers and Scientists
International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development
International Open Network
International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR)
International Planned Parenthood Federation
International Service for Human Rights
International Women's Development Agency (IWDA)
International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs
INTRAC
Jaag Welfare Movement
Jairos Jiri Association
Jandran Welfare Foundation
Japan Civil Society Network on SDGs
Japan NGO Center for International Cooperation (JANIC)
Jeunes Verts Togo
Julián Carrillo My Words México Kids
Juventud 2030 GTO.
K.U.L.U. - Women and Development (KULU)
Kafka Welfare Organization
Kamal Subedi
Kanimi EcoTienda
Karapatan Alliance Philippines
Kathak Academy
Khpal Kore Organization
KINDERENERGY
Kothowain (Vulnerable Peoples Development Organization)
Kyawkrup Foundation
La Transformación del Graffiti al Arte Pictorico, A. C.
Lanakaná Princípios Sustentáveis
Lanka Fundamental Rights Organization
Latvian Platform for Development Cooperation
Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada
Lepaje Environmental Organization
Let There Be Light International
LGBT+ Danmark
Life Education and Development Support (LEADS)
Light for the World
LSO Sada-e-Thal Welfare Organization
Lutheran World Federation (LWF)
Malaysian CSO SDG Alliance
Maldives NGO Federation
Maleya Foundation
Maranatha Hope
Maryknoll Sisters of St. Dominic, Inc.
Más Coudadanía, AC
Mechanism for Rational Change MERC
Medical Mission Sisters
Mihai and Maria Foundation
Mitini Nepal
MPact Global Action for Gay Men's Health & Rights
Mujer Y Salud en Uruguay - MYSU
MUSONET
MY World Mexico
Myanmar Youth Foundation for SDG
Nagorik Uddyog
Natasha Dokovska
National Advocacy for Rights of Innocent-NARI Foundation
National Campaign Against COVID-19
National Campaign for Education Nepal
National Campaign for Sustainable Development Nepal
National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights
National CSO Platform of Sri Lanka
National Integrated Development Association (NIDA-Pakistan)
National Organization for Sustainable Development (NOSD)
National Trade Union Center (NTUC Phl)
National Youth Council of Russia
Neelab Children and Women Development council
Neighbourhood Community Network
Nepal Development Initiative (NEDI)
Nepal Climate Change Federation
Nepal National Dalit Social Welfare Organization
Nepal SDGs Forum
NGO EFA
NGO Federation of Nepal
NGOCSW/NYC Women and Girls of African Descent Caucus N. America, Latin America and the Caribbean Descent N. America,
Nigeria Network of NGOs
Noakhali Rural Development Organization
NOSOTROS POR LOS NIÑOS CON CÁNCER A.C.
Observatory of Vulnerable peoples' Rights (OVPR)
Okogun Odigie Safewomb International Foundation (OOSAIF)
ONAAR Development Organization
ONE (SINGAPORE)
ONG PADJENA
Open School of Sustainable Development (Openshkola)
Organizacion Mexicana de Enfermedades Raras
Organización por la Cooperación Ecológica A.C.
Organization for the Marginalized And Neglected Groups OMANG
Our Fish, Denmark
Outreach Social Care Project - OSCAR
OutRight Action International
Pakistan Development Alliance (GCAP-Pakistan)
Parliamentarians Commission for Human Rights
Parliamentarians for Global Action (PGA)
Participatory Research Action Network- PRAN
Peace Infinity
Peace Justice Youth Organization
PEREMPUAN AMAN
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement
Plan International
PlanBørnefonden
Plataforma de ONG de Accion Social
Plataforma Portuguesa das ONGD (NGDO Portuguese Platform)
Portuguese National Youth Council
Portuguese Platform for Women's Rights
POSCO Agenda 2030/GCAP Sénégal
Potohar Organization for Development Advocacy (PODA)
Povod
Programa Venezolano de Educación-Acción en DDHH (Provea)
Projonma Academy
Promotora Juvenil don Bosco AC
Proyecto Cantera Juntos por México AC
Purvanchal Rural Development and Training Institute
Radanar Ayar Association
Real Vision Development Organization
Reality of Aid - Asia Pacific (RoA-AP)
Red Agenda 2030 MX
Red Ciudadana 2030 por el Desarrollo Sostenible
Red de Educadores Ambientales de Chihuahua
Red Nicaraguense de Comercio Comunitario (RENICC)
Regional Centre for International Development Cooperation (RCIDC)
REPACT Africa
Rescue Alternatives Liberia (RAL)
Research Centre for Gender, Family and Environment in Development (CHFED)
Réseau Centrafricain au Leadership des Jeunes Femmes en Afrique Francophone
Réseau de Défenseurs des Droits Humains de l'Afrique Centrale (REDHAC)
Roberto ravagnani
Rozaria Memorial Trust
Rural Area Development Programme (RADP)
Rural community devlipment council Gwadar
Rutgers
S.O.S. - Criança e Desenvolvimento Integrale de ANG
SAHARA Voluntary Social Welfare Agency
Sahara Welfare Foundation
Saif Khan
Samarthyam
Sami Foundation
Saudi Green Building Forum
Save the Children International
School of International Futures
SDG Action Alliance Bangladesh
SDGs National Network Nepal
SDSN Youth Mexico
Semillas para la Democracia
SEND-GHANA/Ghana CSOs Platform on the SDGs
SERAC-Bangladesh
SERR Servicios Ecumenicos para Reconciliacion y Reconstruccion
SEVERE Joseph
Sex & Samfund / The Danish Family Planning Association
Shaur Taraqiyati Tanzeem
Shirley Ann Sullivan Educational Foundation
Shivi Development Society
Sindh Desert Development Organization
Sindh Rural Development Organization
Sistemico, Regeneración Socioambiental AC
SLOGA Slovene NGO Platform for Development, Global Education and Humanitarian Aid
Slum Child Empowerment and Development Initiative
Smile Myanmar
Social and Economic Develepment Associares (SEDA)
Social Economic and Governance Promotion Centre
Society for Access to Quality Education
Society for Education and Development
Society for Indigenous Women's Progress
Society for Sustainable Development
Society for the Empowerment of the People
Soka Gakkai International
Soñando y Construyendo por un México Mejor a.c
Soroptimist International
Spektro Asociación para el Desarrollo Social
Sri Lanka Nature Group
Sudan SDGs Platform
Sukaar Welfare Organization
Sustainable Agriculture and Environment.
Sustainable Development Organization (SDO)
Taiwan AID
Takhleeq Foundation
Taraqee Foundation
Teerath Kumar
Temple of Understanding
Teresa Kotturan
The Inclusivity Project
The National Civic Forum - Sudan
The National Council of NGOs/Action on Sustainable Development Goals Kenya Coalition
The Nationwide Movement Yuksalish
The Norwegian Forum for Development and Environment
Think Centre
Tirtha Biswokarma
Toktli Educación Ambiental
Uganda National NGO Forum
Uganda Network of Young People living with HIV/AIDS (UNYPA)
UNA Sweden
Unanima International
UNANIMA International
Union de l'Action Féministe
Unión Nacional de Instituciones para el Trabajo de Acción Social - UNITAS
Unitarian Universalist Association
United Disabled Person of Kenya
United Global Organization of Development (UGOOD)
United Nations Association of Fiji
Universidad Anáhuac Mayab
Universidad Tecnológica de los Valles Centrales de Oaxaca
Urgent Action Fund for Women's Human Rights
Vaagdhara
Vabieka Fest, Festival Internacional de Payasas.
Validity Foundation - Mental Disability Advocacy Centre
Varieties of Democracy Institute
VIER PFOTEN International
Village Development Organization (VDO)
Virginia Gildersleeve International Fund (DBA- Women First International Fund)
Vision GRAM-International
Voces de Cambio, Agenda para el Desarrollo
Voices for Interactive Choice and Empowerment (VOICE)
Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO)
Wada Na Todo Abhiyan
Water, Environment & Sanitation Society (WESS)
Women & Child Welfare Society
Women Deliver
Women's Center for Guidance and Legal Awareness
Women's Rights and Democracy Centre (WORD Centre)
WomenShade Pak
World Animal Net
World Federalist Movement - Canada
Youth Action Hub Guinea - CNUCED
Youth For Environment Education And Development Foundation (YFEED Foundation)
Youth Inter-Active
Yuma Inzolia
YZ Proyectos de Desarrollo a.C.
Zakir Hossain
Zonta International

Page 10 sur 21

civic space

Siège social

Bureau pour l’onu: New-York