11
July
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.

Human rights defenders around the globe face numerous risks and threats, including verbal and physical attacks; criminalisation and arbitrary arrest; and torture, executions and other killings. [50] UN-OHCHR Fact Sheet No. 29: Human Rights Defenders: Protecting the Right to Defend Human Rights, p. 10 – 13, and Frontline Defenders (2023), Global Analysis 2022, 3 April 2023.
The UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, the UN Special Rapporteur on environmental defenders, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and other public bodies all have collected ample evidence and testimonies regarding the risks and threats experienced by human rights defenders globally, as have the EU-financed ProtectDefefenders.eu mechanism and numerous NGOs. [51] See for example the database on killings of environmental and land rights defenders maintained by Global Witness, available at: https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/environmental-activists/numbers-lethal-attacks-against-defenders-2012/

Globally, there were at least 401 verified killings of human rights defenders in 2022 alone, in 26 countries, as reported by the HRD Memorial project. [52] For more information see the HRD Memorial website on Celebrating those who were killed defending human rights, and Frontline Defenders (2023), Global Analysis 2022, 3 April 2023.
The overall number is likely to be higher since killings in remote areas, self-censorship by communities fearing reprisals, and suppression of information make it challenging to verify cases. Cases reported to the NGO Front Line Defenders through its programmes indicate that the top five threats and violations against human rights defenders are arrest or detention (19.5%), legal action (14.2%), physical attack (12.8%), death threats (10.9%) and surveillance (9.6%). [53] Frontline Defenders (2023), Global Analysis 2022, 3 April 2023, p. 6.

Judicial persecution is one of the main drivers motivating human rights defenders’ decisions to leave their country, according to a study on human rights defenders in long-term exile by the International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR). [54] IPHR (2023), Study on the situation of human rights defenders in exile (not published), available upon request.
But the great majority of human rights defenders (90% of the interviewed defenders) decide to leave their home country because of different threats. Such threats were typically related to their work and were ongoing for an extended period.

In certain cases, a specific event acted as a catalyst, placing the human rights defender in imminent danger, such as participating in a protest, helping activists to leave the country or holding a speech criticising the ruling regime.

A range of risks for human rights defenders have been documented:

  • killings and executions;
  • enforced disappearance;
  • torture;
  • physical attacks;
  • arbitrary arrest and detention;
  • long-term imprisonment (10 years or longer);
  • harassment, including gender-based abuse;
  • physical and digital surveillance;
  • online threats such as smear campaigns, doxing and targeted internet shutdowns;
  • criminalisation;
  • legal action, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) or prosecution of unfounded charges;
  • threats against them and their family members, including death threats;
  • raids / break-ins / theft;
  • defamation;
  • questioning/interrogations;
  • smear campaigns in state-controlled media;
  • transnational repression.

As the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights [55] For more information, see the OHCHR webpage on Challenges faced by human rights defenders.
notes:

“Violations most commonly target either human rights defenders themselves or the organizations and mechanisms through which they work. Occasionally, violations target members of defenders' families, as a means of applying pressure to the defender. Some human rights defenders are at greater risk because of the nature of the rights they seek to protect. Women human rights defenders might confront in addition risks that are gender-specific and require particular attention.”.

Other human rights defenders are also facing particular challenges and risks, such as environmental human rights defenders and climate activists, indigenous and land rights defenders, LGBTIQ+ human rights defenders, and youth and child rights defenders.

Regarding the issue of surveillance, the European Parliament has recently called on Member States to stop using spyware for surveillance of civil society actors and activists as this constitutes a severe violation of fundamental rights and underscores democracy. [56] European Parliament (22 May 2023), Report of the investigation of alleged contraventions and maladministration in the application of Union law in relation to the use of Pegasus and equivalent surveillance spyware. See also FRA (2023), Surveillance by intelligence services: Fundamental rights safeguards and remedies in the EU - 2023 update

The engagement and work of human rights defenders is invariably intertwined with the societies and places in which they live. In most instances, effective support should seek to enable human rights defenders to continue their human rights work in their location and community.

However, there are circumstances in which moving to another country in the region, or to the EU, may be the only means of protecting defenders and enabling them to continue their work in their countries of origin in the long term. This has been underlined by the EU-funded ProtectDefenders.eu mechanism (a consortium of 12 NGOs) and the European Parliament, among others, and is reflected in the EU guidelines on human rights defenders and the respective guidance notes. [57] For more information see ProtectDefenders.eu et al (September 2022), Joint Statement: International Civil Society Organisations call for an effective and enabling EU VISA framework for At-Risk Human Rights Defenders, European Parliament (2009), Resolution of 17 June 2010 on EU policies in favour of human rights defenders (2009/2199(INI)), paras 39 – 41, and European Parliament (2023), Report on the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders
There are also situations in which human rights defenders need to travel for respite, or to participate in events by international organisations, the EU or Member States.

There are no figures available to estimate the number of human rights defenders globally in need of relocation – inside their country, to a neighbouring country, or to other regions including the EU. There is usually an enhanced need in conflict situations, such as for Afghan defenders since 2021 or Russian and Ukrainian defenders since 2022. Considering the number of cases concerning human rights defenders at risk officially raised with states by the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, it is certainly clear that this is not a rare phenomenon. Between May 2020, when she took up her mandate, and June 2023, the current Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders signed 735 official communications sent to UN Member States and other actors concerning human rights defenders at risk, some of whom may need to turn to relocation as a means of last resort [58] All communications from the Special Rapporteur are searchable at the OHCHR database: https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TmSearch/Results (Statistics current as of 23 March 2023).
.

Table 1 sets out some of the common mobility needs of human rights defenders in relation to their work. These cover the following types of situations in which short-term visits and/or longer stay in the EU may be necessary to protect human rights defenders and to support their work.

Table 1 – Human rights defenders’ relocation needs and required responses

Type of situation

Required response

Existing legal tools

  • Immediate risk to life, physical integrity and liberty
  • Emergency evacuation

Schengen C visa issued with urgency, immediately, or upon arrival in the EU at the external borders, using available flexibility under the Visa Code – but reactivity of the competent authorities of the Member States is often too slow

  • Short- to medium-term risk to life, physical integrity and liberty (up to 1 year)
  • Temporary stay
  • Schengen C visa (up to 90 days in a 180-day period)
  • National D visa (beyond 3 months, up to 12 months)
  • Long-term risk to life, physical integrity and liberty (1+ years)
  • Long-term stay
  • Residence permit issued under national or EU law (on humanitarian grounds, in the national interest, for the purposes of study or research etc.)
  • International protection under the qualification directive (refugee status or subsidiary protection)
  • Anticipated risk to life, physical integrity and liberty
  • Temporary stay
  • Schengen Cvisa with long validity (maximum 5 years)
  • National D visa (beyond 3 months, up to 12 months)
  • Preventive protection for unanticipated risk
  • Flexible (multiple-entry) visa
  • Multiple-entry Schengen Cvisa with long validity (maximum 5 years)
  • Multiple-entry national D visa (beyond 3 months, up to 12 months)
  • Rest and respite
  • Temporary stay
  • Schengen C visa (up to 90 days in a 180-day period)
  • National D visa (beyond three months, up to 12 months)
  • Exchange and participation
  • Mobility into and within the EU
  • Multiple-entry Schengen Cvisa with long validity (maximum 5 years)
  • Multiple-entry national D visa (beyond 3 months, up to 12 months)

Source: FRA, 2023.

The following real-life story illustrates the response to the needs of a human rights defender from Iran.

Real-life story

Student visa for relocation purposes

An Iranian journalist, human rights defender and scholar had already fled to Turkey when they were offered residency in Belgium under the programme of the International Cities of Refuge Network (ICORN). Their work largely focuses on tackling LGBTQI+ issues and sexism, and criticism of the Iranian regime, and they continued facing persecution, threats, harassment and defamation in Turkey.

As the defender’s safety was at risk and they were unable to work freely, they required relocation and protection. Being a scholar, they were invited by an ICORN city in Belgium on the grounds of university enrolment for one academic year, with the possibility of extension. With the help of a lawyer, a student visa application was prepared, and significant numbers of the required personal, financial, and medical records were gathered. The visa was issued shortly after submission.

Source: Information provided by ICORN.


In situations where the pressure becomes too unbearable and the risks too great, human rights defenders need an exit strategy.

Mary Lawlor, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, interview with FRA, 8 March 2023

A number of human rights defenders, and in many cases also their family members, are facing risks to their life, physical integrity and liberty. In some situations, risks are immediate and pressing. Human rights defenders and/or their family members may receive death threats, suffer an assassination attempt, face a high risk of arbitrary arrest or detention, or be subject to similar risks of mistreatment. They may require emergency evacuation. In such circumstances, it may be possible to mitigate the risk by supporting a defender’s temporary relocation within their home country.

However, in-country relocation may not always be appropriate, since threats of arrest, for example, are national. Similarly, neighbouring countries may not be the best option for relocation of human rights defenders to find safety, considering a hostile climate for defenders generally; the risk of transnational repression, including activities of security forces from country A in country B, or collaboration between the governments of country A and B (e.g., risk of refoulement). In such cases, evacuation to another country, including in the EU, may be the most practical solution to enable the defender to escape persecution and find protection.

Real-life story

Long-term risk and possibility of continuing human rights work after relocation

A Belarusian media outlet became the target of persecution that included judicial liquidation and searches of its offices and the homes of its staff. The support provided via the Czech ‘civil society programme’ helped the journalists relocate to Czechia with their families and continue their activities, although their colleagues were charged and received lengthy prison sentences. Importantly, because they were able to register their media outlet locally and had access to banking. they were able to continue their work smoothly.

Source: Information provided by People in Need, an NGO in Czechia.

The family members of human rights defenders are often exposed to the same security risks as the defender and may need a similar level of protection. Sometimes such risks also extend to close associates, cooperation partners or members of the community. Family members may also be affected indirectly when the respective human rights defenders are able to relocate but their families are left behind without financial support. Another specific situation is when family members are evacuated to ensure their safety, while the human rights defender stays in the country to continue their human rights work.

In other situations, human rights defenders have a need for medium- or long-term protection to avoid serious risk for themselves and their families. In the IPHR study on human rights defenders in exile, when asked to distinguish between ‘relocation’ and ‘exile’, the majority of defenders identified exile as a perceived lack of choice to return compared with relocation. For some respondents, an initial decision to leave their country temporarily eventually transformed into a permanent solution. [59] IPHR (2023), Study on the situation of human rights defenders in exile (non-public), available upon request.

Real-life story

Deciding whether to stay short- or long-term

A human rights defender from Bahrein says that it took her/him some time to decide to leave the country into exile. Initially, s/he felt unsafe and targeted, and decided to leave but without any specific plan. The hope was that things would calm down and there would be an opportunity to go back. Yet, the defender faced criminal charges in Bahrein, which took over one and a half years to deal with. So, s/he started to settle down and realised that a long-term solution was the safer option.

Source: Information provided by People in Need.

Real-life story

Protection in case of anticipated risk

A human rights defender from Belarus who participated in election monitoring and subsequently reported on violations was subject to intimidation by the security forces who threatened the defender with imprisonment unless s/he gave out the names of other election observers. Receiving a long-term visa was extremely important for the defender to safely continue his/her work. This was also important for the colleagues to avoid persecution in case their names had been communicated under pressure of the security forces.

Source: Information provided by People in Need.

Unlike cases of ‘anticipated risk’, unforeseen risks cannot be planned for but require precaution. Visas, and in particular multiple-entry visas with a long validity period, are widely regarded by human rights defenders as a key element of a comprehensive (and preventive) security strategy for such cases. Such multiple-entry visas enable defenders to move in and out of their country quickly, reacting to changes in the level of risk, and at the same time to continue to work in their communities without forcing them to resort to permanent asylum paths when facing aggravated threats. [60] PortectDefenders.eu (2022), Joint Statement: International Civil Society Organisations call for an effective and enabling EU Visa framework for At-Risk Human Rights Defenders
In many cases, simply knowing about the opportunity to relocate in case of immediate risk can constitute a very effective form of support for human rights defenders, empowering them to continue their work knowing that they have an exit strategy in place.

Real-life story

Example of a ‘just-in-case’ safety net

In 2018, a researcher for Amnesty International Russia was abducted while on a mission in the North Caucasus, where he was subjected to ill-treatment and threatened, supposedly by law enforcement officials. He happened to have a Schengen visa at the time, which allowed him to leave the country within a few days and stay in Germany together with his family to recover and assess the security risks.

Information about the incident was publicised without fear for his or his family’s safety and prompted the authorities to start an investigation. Several weeks later, after a security assessment, it was deemed safe for him to return to Russia and continue his work.

Source: Amnesty International (2018), Russia: Amnesty researcher abducted and subjected to mock executions in Ingushetia


“The intention is that participating defenders will return and continue their work in their own country, with new energy, skills, and contacts.”

Shelter Cities Programme [61] Justice and Peace (2022), Shelter City: Exploring the impact of a decade of temporary relocation experiences

Alongside the risk of retaliation human rights defenders face for the work they do, they are often exposed to prolonged situations of heightened tension, stress and worry. Many come face-to-face with human rights violations and engage with victims of such abuse on a regular basis. Defenders themselves are often victims of violations or are members of communities at risk or under pressure, exposing them to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and/or secondary PTSD. A study has shown that levels of PTSD among front-line human rights defenders can be as high as among first responders and even combat veterans. [62] OpenGlobalRights (2017), Evidence of trauma: the impact of human rights work on advocates, Margaret Satterthwaite, 7 April 2017.
Some defenders may also face increased burdens as a result of being stigmatised in society for the work they do. This can be the case particularly for women’s rights activists or LGBTIQ+ defenders.

Under such pressures, defenders can benefit from a period of rest and respite in a safe environment to recover, build capacity, and return to their work recharged. This may not be possible in their own communities, where the stigma, pressures and risks they encounter may persist, and thus defenders may need to travel to find space to recover. Certain circumstances, including security risks, may also make real recuperation impossible in their home countries and regions. In such cases, travel to the EU for a temporary stay may provide a solution.

Real-life story

Need for rest and advocacy

A human rights defender worked with several organisations in the Cauca Department of Colombia. They worked to promote human rights with rural communities, including farmers, indigenous groups and student and workers’ unions in the region and held dialogues with state officials. They also helped local community leaders with legal actions to demand the rights to be respected, including by liaising with the human rights commission (Defensoria del Pueblo) in the case of threats to local community leaders. Due to this work, they were physically attacked and received threats. Amnesty International Spain gave the defender the opportunity to relocate to Spain for 1 year to get away from danger. They arrived in 2021 and were able to conduct activities including awareness raising and advocacy. They were also able to rest.

Source: Information provided by Amnesty International.

Real-life story

Need for rest and respite

An Uzbek human rights defender and prisoner of conscience was restricted from leaving the country after his release. Only after interference from international organisations was he allowed to travel to the EU. The facilitation of a Schengen visa allowed him to participate in several high-level advocacy events and undergo a month-long rest and respite programme. This journey motivated him to continue his work.

Source: Information provided by People in Need.

EU institutions, as well as NGOs, organise events and offer opportunities for exchange, networking and capacity building for the professional and personal development of human rights defenders. These sometimes take place inside the EU and have the related aim of connecting human rights defenders from different parts of the world. To benefit from such opportunities, defenders need to be able to enter the EU. While it is rare for human rights defenders to be denied visas to attend conferences or events organised by the UN or the EU, human rights defenders frequently report practical challenges in accessing visas for these purposes – including for events organised and/or funded by the EU itself. [63] See for example CEELI Institute (2020), The Challenge of Applications Reviewed by Proxy Consulate, 19 December 2020.
A report presented to the UN General Assembly in 2014 by the then Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association noted ‘inhospitable visa regimes’ being a source of concern regarding the participation of civil society actors at institutions headquartered in western Europe. [64] United Nations General Assembly (2014), Rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, (A/69/365)
Human rights defenders in the EU who already hold a visa with limited territorial validity also experience these challenges. ProtectDefenders.eu reports that it regularly faces challenges in bringing human rights defenders staying in an EU Member State to Brussels for meetings or capacity building activities. [65] Interview with ProtectDefenders.eu, 6 April 2023.

Real-life story

Getting a visa too late to attend a conference

A human rights defender and Russian citizen who had been living and working at a human rights NGO in the United Kingdom for many years applied for a Belgian Schengen visa to attend several events in Brussels. Instead of being issued with a multiple-entry long-term visa that she had applied for, she was issued a single-entry visa for just a few days of the first event. Moreover, she had waited for months and only received the passport with the visa after it had expired. In response to her enquiry, the Belgian consulate cited EU guidelines that recommended giving single-entry visas to Russian nationals traveling for tourist purposes. It also said the waiting times were longer because of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU.

Source: Information provided by Araminta and Amnesty International.

The usual application procedure for a Schengen visa, without visa facilitations being granted in advance by the competent consulate, is costly and time consuming. It is particularly challenging for human rights defenders who live far from embassies or consulates, org those living in countries without embassies or consulates. Applications require providing documentation and attending an in-person appointment with the relevant authority competent for their place of residence. Where the local security context is rapidly deteriorating or where risks are escalating quickly, the time frame for discussion decisions on action at international organisations’ headquarters can be short – often too short for defenders with direct experience to be able to receive a visa in time to participate in such discussions. Although opportunities for online participation have increased since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, there are some noteworthy challenges around such online participation, such as internet shutdowns, energy supply issues, connectivity challenges, the risk of surveillance, and imposed media blackouts.


“Host organisations play a central role in the implementation of protection stays. They accompany the human rights defenders, promote exchange, and prevent isolation. This allows human rights defenders to rest, to deal with trauma, to continue human rights work from a safe place, to build contacts that have a lasting effect, and to prepare for one’s return.”

Elisabeth Selbert Initiative [66] Elisabeth-Selbert-Initiative (2022), A protection programme for human rights defenders

This section focuses on cases in which human rights defenders have come to the EU for rest and respite or to escape a serious risk of immediate harm. In such cases, the main aims of relocating human rights defenders to the EU are first to protect them from harm, and second to enable them to continue their human rights work in the long term. To achieve these, human rights defenders need several types of support once in the EU. Interviews with civil society organisations and with human rights defenders in exile and secondary research point to the need for support in the following areas:

  • access to rights and services;
  • recovery;
  • support to continue their human rights work;
  • addressing security threats;
  • integration for those defenders requiring longer term stay;
  • the opportunity to travel inside the EU for networking and advocacy purposes;
  • support in case of lack/expiry of valid travel document.

Table 2 details the different types of support that relocated human rights defenders need under the seven areas listed above.

Table 2 – Support needs of human rights defenders during short and long-term stay in the EU

Support needs

Short-term stay / rest and respite

Long-term stay / exile

  • Access to rights and services
  • Financial assistance
  • Help with accommodation
  • Access to banking services
  • Access to education
  • Insurance
  • Financial assistance
  • Help with accommodation
  • Access to banking services
  • Access to education
  • Legal aid
  • Assistance with schooling for children
  • Insurance
  • Recovery
  • Medical aid and dental care
  • Rehabilitation
  • Psychological support/trauma relief
  • Coaching
  • Medical aid and dental care
  • Rehabilitation
  • Psychological support/trauma relief
  • Coaching
  • Support to continue human rights work
  • Access to free workspace
  • Opportunity to connect and exchange with other defenders
  • Capacity building
  • Work permit
  • Opportunity to connect and exchange with other defenders
  • Opportunity to register an NGO and receive funding
  • Access to free workspace
  • Integration
  • Language courses
  • Life coaching
  • Considering the needs of defenders placed in remote locations
  • Childcare (if applicable)
  • Assistance with employment/help with career change
  • Language courses
  • Life coaching
  • Integration into society (including of family members)
  • Considering the needs of defenders placed in remote locations
  • Childcare (if applicable)
  • Recognizing the potential threat posed by foreign states to individual human rights defenders (including physical threats, assassination, forced repatriation, harassment)
  • Raising public awareness of transnational repression
  • Coordination between intelligence and law enforcement bodies to warn and protect targeted individuals
  • Oversight and consultation among multiple government ministries in cases of foreign assistance requests, including for extradition and arrest (with a particular focus on often unjustified accusations of terrorism directed against exiled human rights defenders)
  • Sanctions and other diplomatic responses (such as “persona non grata” designations) create accountability following acts of transnational repression
  • Freedom of movement in the EU for networking and advocacy purposes
  • A visa or residence permit allowing for travel in the Schengen area.
  • Support in case of lack/expiry of a valid travel document
  • If it is impossible for the defender to acquire a national passport, as a replacement use an ID document issued by the country of origin or the Member State, or an alien’s passport.
  • Consider the specific challenges for transgender people who may have difficulty applying for a new passport at their consulates after having officially changed their gender.

Source: Overview based on interviews by the authors of this report. See also DefendDefenders (2016), Exiled and in Limbo. Support Mechanisms for Human Rights Defenders in Exile in Kenya, Uganda, and Rwanda. See also Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly (12/05/2023), PACE committee hails ‘resilience, courage and determination’ of exiled Belarusians, urges practical support for them.

The IPHR study among human rights defenders in exile finds that the support received by defenders during their stay in Europe depended heavily on the legal status of the defender. For example, those who had received refugee status had access to services such as unemployment benefits or state medical services. Human rights defenders also frequently mentioned challenges related to work visas and access to lawful employment opportunities. Renewal of residence permits was also cited as a challenge. [68] IPHR (2023), Study on the situation of human rights defenders in exile (not published, available upon request).