11
Juli
2023

Protecting human rights defenders at risk: EU entry, stay and support

Across the world, human rights defenders protect and uphold human rights in some of the most challenging situations. In some countries they face worrying levels of threats and attacks, intimidation and harassment. This report outlines how human rights defenders can enter and stay in the EU when they need protection. It suggests how EU institutions and Member States could use the flexibility in existing legal provisions and provide shelter for defenders who seek protection.

Providing support to human rights defenders is one of the EU’s priorities in its external human rights policy. However, there are few reliable dedicated avenues for human rights defenders to lawfully enter and stay (even temporarily) in the EU in case of risk. In addition, existing provisions for flexibility – such as those provided by the visa acquis are not sufficiently applied to human rights defenders.

There is currently no coordinated EU-level approach. However, several Member States - making use of the flexibility provided by the EU visa acquis or provisions of national law - have established dedicated programmes enabling human rights defenders to relocate temporarily to the EU. There is much to learn from these practices and they can serve as inspiration for how to offer access to EU territory and relevant services in a secure and sustainable way, and how to best support human rights defenders during relocation.

Moreover, there is scope to remove unnecessary obstacles in the visa application process ensuring flexibility in considering and processing visa applications from human rights defenders and their family members. For those who face immediate risk or danger it is necessary to consider the needs and challenges particular to human rights defenders and their family members.

The following actions could be considered to enhance the EU’s responsiveness to the protection needs of human rights defenders from third countries:

make better and more frequent use of existing flexibility in EU law;

  • broaden existing relocation programmes;
  • increase awareness about human rights defenders’ work, risks and needs;
  • take into account the opportunities and risks through the application of large-scale IT systems;
  • provide more adequate support during stay;
  • assess the need to revise existing legal instruments to address the specific needs of human rights defenders.

Visas, and in particular multiple-entry visas, are widely regarded as a key element of a comprehensive protection strategy enabling defenders to move in and out of their country in a way that allows them to continue working in their home communities without forcing them to resort to permanent asylum paths.

To make better use of the flexibility under the Schengen acquis, the European Commission could provide guidance for Member States regarding the options for human rights defenders to lawfully enter and stay in the EU. Such guidance should be provided in all relevant languages and be disseminated via efficient channels such as the ProtectDefenders.eu platform.

Moreover, the Visa Code Handbook I [205] Annex to the Commission implementing decision amending Commission Decision C(2010) 1620 final as regards the replacement of the handbook for the processing of visa applications and the modification of issued visas (Visa Code Handbook I), C(2020) 395 final.
, which provides practical guidance to Member States on how to implement the Visa Code, could be updated to provide clearer guidance and case study examples on human rights defenders. The September 2022 EU guidelines for visa issuance in relation to Russian applicants [206] European Commission (9 September 2022), Communication from the European Commission - Providing guidelines on general visa issuance in relation to Russian applicants following Council Decision (EU) 2022/1500 of 9 September 2022 on the suspension in whole of the application of the Agreement between the European Community and the Russian Federation on the facilitation of the issuance of visas to the citizens of the European Union and the Russian Federation
could serve as inspiration in this regard, since they outline how provisions in the Visa Code allow for exceptional procedures and derogations for specific categories of visa applicants, including human rights defenders, journalists and dissidents, and explicitly encourage EU Member States to use these exceptions (in the context of Russia).

Such guidance could include reference to:

  • the opportunity to apply for a visa at a consulate in a country where the applicant is physically present but does not reside (Article 6 (2) of the Visa Code);
  • lodging visa applications without an appointment and within shorter time frames in justified cases of urgency (Article 9 (3));
  • in case of emergency, waiving the requirement that a passport must be valid for at least 3 months after the intended departure from the Member State (Article 12);
  • where applicants’ integrity and reliability have been demonstrated, waiving the requirement for one or more supporting documents (Article 14(6));
  • waiving visa fees (Article 16);
  • where applicants’ integrity and reliability have been demonstrated, issuing multiple-entry visa (Article 24, in particular Article 24 (2c));
  • issuing visas with limited territorial validity without carrying out prior consultation (Article 25 (1)(a)(iii));
  • consulting relevant and trusted civil society organisations when assessing the application (Article 21).

EU law allows for multiple-entry visas which Member States can issue with a validity of up to 5 years to applicants who prove their need or justify their intention to travel frequently or regularly and who fulfil certain criteria. Such visas could be used more often by Member States for the purposes of supporting the work of human rights defenders at risk, which would allow them to move in and out of their country depending on their level of risk.

Member States that do not yet have a human rights defenders’ relocation practice in place could consider developing specific schemes facilitating access to visas and support for human rights defenders at risk, drawing on the promising practices already put in place by some Member States.

Most relocation programmes available in the EU last from 3-6 months, which is usually insufficient for recovery from persecution. Drawing on the promising practices described in Chapter 4, Member States could consider establishing programmes for human rights defenders to stay longer. In parallel, more flexible options for short stays could be considered for networking and respite activities for defenders who are not able to leave home for a longer period [207] Amnesty International Netherlands has supported a 10-day stay which included networking and respite activities for HRDs, which was very positively evaluated by the participating human rights defenders.
. For example, Amnesty International Netherlands has supported a 10-day stay including networking and respite activities for human rights defenders, which the participating defenders evaluated very positively.

A number of relocation programmes establish specific requirements regarding the ‘type’ (journalist, artist, etc.) and language knowledge of human rights defender who can take part. Similarly, defenders seem to profit to differing degrees from relocation to the EU depending on the region or country they come from. Family members are not always included. The (personal) scope of existing programmes could be broadened to allow more human rights defenders to participate.

There is a need to raise awareness among relevant bodies and officials in EU institutions and Member State authorities. This includes (1) who human rights defenders are, (2) what risks they face and why they may need to travel temporarily to the EU, (3) the need for and opportunities to make full use of the flexibility allowed by EU law on visas and borders, and (4) how to best support human rights defenders once they are relocated to an EU Member State.

Often family members of human rights defenders are exposed to the same security risks as the defenders themselves and may need the same level of protection. A better understanding of the risks and threats facing such family members (including those in LGBTIQ+ partnerships) needs to be developed. It is important that in such cases relocation programmes and visas are extended to cover close family members, and that LGBTIQ+ partnerships are officially considered families.

It is important that border guards and visa officers receive appropriate training in the EU’s commitments to support human rights defenders, including how the relevant EU legislation on the border and visa procedures allow them to enable the mobility of human rights defenders. Targeted training by Member States on the Visa Code, VIS, the Schengen Borders Code, the entry-exit system and ETIAS could incorporate these aspects. It could also include information about human rights defenders, the risks they face, their protection needs, the obstacles they face in accessing visas and the use of limited territorial validity visas. Peer-to-peer learning on good practices from Member State programmes could be encouraged.

Human rights defenders from some countries do not require a visa for a short stay of up to 90 days. However, once ETIAS is in operation they will need to request travel authorisation to be allowed to travel. The ETIAS public information website should explain all available options to human rights defenders and provide clear information on the possibility of obtaining authorisation with limited territorial validity and what information the defender should provide to ensure that their application is fairly and appropriately assessed.

It is also important to raise awareness of the role, advantages and potential risks of the future digitalisation of the visa process and of EU large-scale IT systems in the areas of migration and security, including the impact that alerts in Interpol databases can have on human rights defenders.

In line with the EU’s policy priorities on human rights, the main aims of relocating human rights defenders to the EU are to protect them from harm and to enable them to continue their human rights work. Achieving these will require work permits, capacity-building support, access to work spaces and the possibility to register an NGO and receive funding. Also required is access to housing, healthcare, employment and education.

There is a need to raise awareness of the issue of transnational repression of defenders among law enforcement officers and to increase the resilience of human rights defenders through (digital) security trainings and psychosocial, legal and social support. The support should include the opportunity to connect with other defenders and for advocacy with EU and international organisations, including the opportunity to travel within the EU.

Moreover, many defenders may be exhausted and traumatised when they arrive in the EU. Measures for physical and mental recovery, including trauma relief, are therefore important. In addition, defenders may require police protection from security threats even while in the EU.

Cooperation with local civil society and local authorities is crucial to tailor these different dimensions of support to their specific needs.

The EU’s increased efforts to rely on technological developments and digitalisation to support asylum, border and migration-related procedures present benefits and challenges specific to human rights defenders.

Human rights defenders might be subjected to surveillance activities in their own country and hence might be afraid to share their data in large-scale databases or online platforms. While EU law has strong safeguards to avoid the misuse or inappropriate sharing of personal data, the competent national authorities should process the personal data of defenders with extreme care. As concerns personal data stored in EU large-scale IT systems, it is important that the existing safeguards are known and that effective remedies become available and known to defenders regarding their rights to information, access, correction, and erasure.

The EU could review the adequacy of its legal tools for supporting human rights defenders, especially regarding the Visa Code, the VIS Regulation, the ETIAS Regulation and the Entry-Exit System Regulation, and suggest possible amendments if necessary. To respond to evolving risks for human rights defenders globally, the EU and the Member States are encouraged to continuously assess the need for additional policies and tools to protect and support human rights defenders at risk when coming to and staying in the EU.