Subcommittee on Human Rights Ordinary meeting DROI/EEAS joint event on Safeguarding the absolute prohibition of torture and ill-treatment in the current global context
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Live capture
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
DROI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsEllis Mathews
Ratification and effective implementation of the UN Convention against Torture is also a prerequisite for trade benefits under the EU's Generalized Scheme of Preferences, GSP+. And on the normative framework, I should say that we continue to give political and financial support to the international human rights architecture in this domain. And a particularly important dimension of that is the work of the international and regional monitoring mechanisms, such as the Committee against Torture, the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture, and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and other ill-treatment, that's known as the CPT, and of course the work of the UN Special Rapporteur who's sitting beside me.
And these bodies help to shape states' understanding of their obligations, but they also support survivors' pursuit of justice, reparation, and recognition. And so we're committed as the EU to working more closely with affected communities, with survivors, with local actors, and that's at the heart of our partnership with the United Against Torture Consortium, which is also represented today. And we hope that that collaboration serves to amplify the geopolitical impact of what we do in terms of human rights action around the globe.
And as we're going to hear today in the testimonies that are given, I hope it allows us to include survivors and also local experts in our conversations and our decision-making. And in that regard, the Charter of Rights of Victims and Survivors of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, launched this year by the UN Special Rapporteur, I'm sure we'll hear more about it, in collaboration with survivors, deserves special recognition. And we think that that sets out a really important global agenda for realizing survivors' rights while engaging all of the actors that are involved in the fight against justice.
All victims and survivors of torture have a right to truth, justice, reparation, and guarantees of non-repetition. And while we support our civil society partners' work on strategic litigation, reparation, and survivor rehabilitation, our multifaceted approach to accountability for international crimes, including torture, also includes our strong support to the International Criminal Court and capacity building for national prosecutions under universal jurisdiction. I should also mention briefly the EU-funded Global Initiative Against Impunity for International Crimes and Serious Human Rights Violations, which is designed to combine survivor support, documentation, litigation, advocacy, and engagement with human rights mechanisms, and includes documentation, a complaints procedure, and engagement as amongst the tools that it works with.
So we have deployed also our global human rights sanctions regime. Designations under that have targeted people responsible for repressive detention and torture in places like North Korea, Chechnya, actors of the Wagner Group in Africa, and prison officials and entities linked to the cruel and degrading treatment of Alexei Navalny. And of course these sanctions are not a substitute for criminal accountability, but they are an important signal that perpetrators and those who enable torture will face consequences.
Finally, just to say that no international human rights standards regarding controls in goods used to inflict torture and the application of the death penalty are currently in force. However, the EU has been trying to be a pioneer in this area to set the standard. Over two decades ago, it adopted the so-called anti-torture regulation, which was the first legally binding instrument in the world of this kind. And that was amended again last July, in July 2023, to address evolving trends in the international security market and trends, in fact, in the way in which torture and ill-treatment are used in extra-custodial settings, such as the policing of assembly.
So an example of some of the objects that are falling under that newly amended regulation are so-called kinetic impact projectiles, the misuse of which has been widely documented and has caused a number of serious injuries and even deaths. So we hope that that action will be an example for the development of similar trade measures by third countries. And building on this, alongside the co-chairs in the initiative, Argentina and Mongolia, we have been working with the Global Alliance for Torture-Free Trade, which now has over 60 members.
Latterly, Monaco and Andorra have joined it. And we hope that with the increase in reports of torture and ill-treatment in the context of protests, we'll be able to continue to advocate for the strict implementation of international standards on the use of force by law enforcement officials and that these standards on torture-free trade will will help us to do that. Just finally to say, we place an enormous emphasis on partnerships, obviously between institutions, with civil society, with survivors, with international actors such as the UN and crucially also, of course, with the Parliament. And today's event is a demonstration of that. And with that, I conclude my introductory remarks.
Thank you very much.
Mounir Satouri
Merci à vous, Monsieur Matthews, et je vais donner tout de suite la parole à notre lauréat du prix Sakharov 2017, Lorent Saleh.
Vous avez la parole. Merci d'être là pour cette minute. Allez-y.
Lorent Saleh
Hola. Muchas gracias. ¿Qué es la tortura? Se supone que es infringir dolor, sufrimiento, sufrimiento extremo a un individuo.
Es someterlo, aplastarlo, vulnerarlo. Busca quebrarlo. El tema con la tortura es que no es un fin, sino un medio. Y ese hombre o mujer que está ahí encerrado en este momento mientras nosotros hablamos en Venezuela, en Cuba, en Nicaragua, en El Salvador, en Rusia, en Bielorrusia, no es el objetivo.
Esa persona también es un medio. Porque estos regímenes no torturan porque buscan una verdad. Torturan y no disimulan porque el objetivo es atemorizar, es aterrorizar a la población.
La tortura es el medio para mandar un mensaje a la sociedad para dominarla, controlarla, porque efectivamente el miedo es una forma efectiva de control social. La tortura que también sucede en países democráticos, en los regímenes, en dictaduras, la mayoría de los casos no se denuncian.
No se denuncian. Hay números, tratamos de conseguir números, de investigar y tener más o menos idea de cuántas personas están siendo torturadas en tal o cual país, pero la verdad es que si tú estás viviendo bajo un régimen dictatorial y llegan a tu casa, se llevan a un familiar, saquean tu casa, golpean a todos y se lo llevan, ¿qué posibilidades hay de que esa familia vaya a algún lugar a denunciar lo que le hicieron? Es muy, posiblemente no lo hagan. Porque ¿a dónde van a denunciar? ¿A quiénes?
¿Dónde van a poner la queja? ¿A los mismos que se llevaron a tu papá o a tu mamá o a tu hijo?
Y ahí está lo grave. En el 2014 me secuestraron en Colombia, ni siquiera en mi país. Y me pasaron ilegalmente a Venezuela y me encerraron en un lugar llamado La Tumba. Cinco pisos bajo tierra, debajo del metro de Caracas. Y aunque hay una intervención y Venezuela pasó a ser un país tutelado y han liberado a centenares de presos políticos, La Tumba hoy sigue existiendo y en este momento hay gente ahí encerrada.
Estuve dos años ahí y luego dos años en El Helicoide.
Y ellos no querían saber ninguna verdad. Ellos me torturaban porque querían mandar un mensaje al resto de estudiantes en Venezuela. Querían hacerles saber a los estudiantes en Venezuela lo que les iba a pasar si denunciaban la crisis en nuestro país.
Una crisis que por muchos años fue ignorada y que si se hubiese ignorado menos, quizás hoy no fuéramos un país tutelado. Porque mientras eso pasaba, las democracias del mundo negociaban petróleo venezolano y muchas veces no nos abrieron la puerta. La tortura va más allá del individuo, va a su familia, va a sus compañeros, va a toda la sociedad.
Por eso agarran y torturan a una ama de casa como pueden torturar a un activista de derechos humanos, como a un dirigente político, como a un maestro. Porque no necesitan detener a todos los periodistas, agarrar a dos, tres periodistas y someterlos a una violencia extrema para que el resto de los periodistas se censuren. Tú no necesitas meter a todos los estudiantes de un país. Necesitas agarrar a varios estudiantes y darle con tanta violencia, con tanta saña, con tanta ira para que el resto de los estudiantes se la piensen antes de salir a protestar.
Por eso cualquiera, cualquiera puede terminar siendo torturado en estos regímenes. No necesitas ser un dirigente político. Yo hoy puedo hablar aquí porque la Unión Europea y especialmente el Parlamento Europeo peleó mi libertad. Esa es la razón por la cual no me mataron.
Porque así como hoy estamos hablando, hace unos años atrás se habló de lo que estaba pasando en Venezuela y se habló de lo que me estaba sucediendo a mí. Y eso generó una presión que me sacaron de ese lugar y me trajeron a Europa. Pero esa celda donde estuve durante años no está vacía. Está ocupada en este momento. Y en este momento siguen torturando gente en Venezuela.
Entonces, siempre va a existir gente que nos diga que esto no es importante.
Va a haber gente que diga que bueno, en algunos casos se se puede consentir la tortura. Hay gente que lo cree y hay gente que lo defiende y lo defiende en escenarios institucionales y políticos y lo justifica.
Queda mucho trabajo por hacer. Pero yo les pido de verdad que no dejen de insistir en proteger y ayudar a las víctimas en cualquier parte del mundo porque aunque a veces parece poco, aunque a veces nos llenamos de frustración, aunque a veces nos llenamos de impotencia, sí vale la pena un rehén que rescatemos, una sola vida que podamos sacar de un centro de tortura merece todo el esfuerzo posible porque el mensaje que quieren dar los regímenes autoritarios es que hacer el mal sale barato, que hacer el mal no tiene consecuencias y el trabajo de nosotros quienes creemos en el respeto a la dignidad humana es que quien torture no va a quedar impune.
La impunidad es la base de las violaciones de derechos humanos y nuestro trabajo es combatir la impunidad. Por eso, sí hay que sancionar individualmente a quienes violan los derechos humanos. Por favor, no dejen de hacer su trabajo. Gracias.
Mounir Satouri
Merci pour votre intervention et merci pour le message adressé à moi comme à mes collègues sur le sens que peut avoir nos délibérations, nos résolutions.
Car vous avez raison, des fois on se pose la question sur à quoi ça sert. Mais vous êtes aussi la démonstration que parfois ça peut servir et que nos modes de fonctionnement font sens. Merci pour ça. Anna Kuris, vous êtes originaire du Bélarus. Vous avez la parole, pareil pour sept minutes.
Allez-y.
Anna Kuris
I want to start with a little introduction. I am a former political prisoner from Belarus.
Speaker 7
I spent two years in prison just for expressing my opinion, not even on some protests, but on social media. And at the end of the last year, I got deported in Lithuania from my own country.
So I'm here to share with you my personal experience and the experience of many people who are still imprisoned in Belarus for political motives mostly, and how they treated by the regime, by the workers of prisons. When we talk about torture, many people think of physical violence mostly, but in reality, torture often includes psychological pressure. And in women's prison in Belarus, this is mostly psychological pressure, for example, humiliation, degradation, or some threats to you or to your family.
And these forms of torture are less visible, but they can have much more impact on your everyday life in future after your reunion with your family and after you become free. Psychological tortures can come in different ways. It can be the lack of information, for example, from your family or from your friends, so you don't know what's happening in your home.
Or deprivation of sleep or complete isolation when a person sits alone somewhere just not for months, it can be even for years. And through some time, a person begins to lose a sense of control, a sense of stability, a sense of even their own identity. And when you live in constant fear, you can't predict what will happen next, even not day, but hour.
You feel completely powerless and you feel a need to survive, to adapt, to break your personality into pieces just to survive that and reunite with your family in the future. And after the release, when people are finally free, they have a lot of problems in their daily life because it's really hard to explain to people what you've been through.
It's even hard to explain to your family and to your friends because they expect you to be completely not changed, but everyone who's been through the imprisonment or tortures, they are a completely different person. And many people don't know how to act right and how to behave to not trigger, for example, them.
And it leads to the feeling that you're just alone and no one in the world can understand you. So, in this context, the role of European Union and organizations that are fight with the torture is very important because all survivors need a long-term accessible psychological and social rehabilitation because it's really hard to just live like you lived before that with all that new experience, with all the trauma that you've been through.
And it's very important to know that even if the person may seem recovered, may seem healed, it doesn't mean that in the future there won't be any new triggers to make the situation worse.
So it's really important to protect them not only in the moment of crisis, after the... After they become free, but through all their life, so people can feel safe and also always know that they can ask for help and get this help. Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Merci pour ce témoignage qui n'a pas laissé insensible la salle. Et je vais donner maintenant la parole à Jawad Fayrouz. Vous êtes originaire, Monsieur Fayrouz, du Bahreïn. Vous avez la parole pour sept minutes.
Jawad Fayrouz
Thank you, Chair.
I'll try to summarize my intervention in three points. One is my journey as survivor of torture. Second, a little bit talk about the survivor charter which been launched by Dr. Alice Edwards in Human Rights Council. And then last one is a global framework for action. My name is Jawad Fayrouz.
I was elected councillor in Bahrain 2002 till 2006 and become member of the parliament from 2006 till 2011 when me and our colleagues we resigned from the parliament due to the uprising happens in Bahrain in February, 14 February 2011. After that I been detained and tortured. The torture case, the worst thing about it is it start badly after my court is over. As we know usually you could be tortured during the detention, during the any types of the summons, during of any interrogation with you. But when you find yourself that badly you be tortured even after the sentence is over and the verdict is done by the court, so this is going to be a little bit worrying.
And the most worrying part of it that you going to remain with uncertainty.
All the types of the torture is you can imagine is been applied. I was been kept in a cell which is one and a half meter by two meter. This cell is you can be by yourself, no one else. This is solitary confinement. No link with my family for more than 45 days.
Later on I knew that one of my family member is been detained just to force her and she been tortured just to give a false testimony against me.
Type of the torture that while you are in the cell, they stick photos of the leaders of the country. You have to stand up and continuously kiss these photos, otherwise there's a dog behind the door is barking and the dog can come inside anytime and beat you. I've been tortured in the health clinic of the prison so many times in the presence of the physician.
Physician refused that type of the torture but they didn't care. I've been tortured by one of the ruling family's member just because I standed in the parliament against the corruption of the ruling family and so on. After my release this types of the targeting continued. It happens that I was in a short visit to UK where my nationality's been revoked and then since I became stateless. Such continuation of revocation of nationalities to the all the activist continued till April 2019 with the list continued to become 990 although during that time the royal decree reinstated 551.
But recently we can see such act to target the activist and silence the society to demand their rights continue.
Recently 69 citizens, their nationality's been revoked and forcibly they've been deported from Bahrain just a month back. Among these is a kid, is a newborn baby, she's just two months old, because the grandfather's nationality's been revoked, then they impose it on the rest of the members of the family. For me, it was to fight back. The fighting back is not through a revenge, the fighting back to how to stop such wrong act and unhuman act against the others.
So for me, while I was in this confinement, solitary, I was thinking that how can I plan ahead for that reason. So I found myself in a chance while I'm in UK, I established this NGO called Salam for Democracy and Human Rights, try to be engaged with the UN mechanism, special rapporteurs and other special procedures within UN mechanism and fight back all that one. And that's lead me to become a human rights activist. And currently I am member in the global alliances to end statelessness. I am part of the advisory committee and recently we've been elected by UNHCR as a global advisory board.
And I am actively involved with so many other regional and international entities like Redress.
Redress assigned a survivor advisory group that we can organize ourselves as a survivor. I become involved with Alice special rapporteurs through this healing and hearing session in Clementor in in Nepal.
Then through there where we've been consulted and I want to thank her a lot. I think through this charter we can see a historical movement which we're going to have a roadmap toward how we can get our rights as a survivor of torture. And through that chart we could see the all types of the action to be taken through international community, either through the Committee Against Torture or through other policy makers and other stakeholders that we can find our way. For sure this charter which consists of the seven major articles, we think that this is to be taken and adopted by all policy makers. And for sure that it is part of our duty as survivor how to support it and to be actively part of it.
And the charter which makes us to be empowered how to deliver it.
I'd like here to give a very, very short say, which is part of this charter it was. Last paragraph, it says that we will continue to tell our stories, to support one another, and to transform our suffering into strength. We will honor those who did not survive by ensuring that no one else endures what we have suffered. Our voices will not be taken from us again. My last word is to the committee.
The international community have obligation to act right away. For example, the torture which I've been faced, unfortunately, in that region, mainly in Bahrain, still continued. The last victim was in March. He been detained 19 March 2022, 2022, and his body's been given to his family in 27th March. So clearly how he been brutally been tortured.
So I believe international community, especially the allies of these countries in the region, mainly Bahrain, UK, EU, United States, have major obligation to at least to condemn it. Unfortunately, this case I couldn't hear yet any condemnation.
Mounir Satouri
Monsieur Firooz nous offre une bonne transition. Madame la Rapporteure spéciale, il vous a cité à plusieurs reprises. C'est à vous.
Alice Jill Edwards
President, honorable members, distinguished panelists, thank you for bringing us together during this important week of the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture on the 26th of June.
As I approach the end of my mandate as Special Rapporteur on Torture, I've been thinking about and reflecting on the broader trends shaping our world and what they mean for the prevention of torture and other forms of ill-treatment. Our challenge is not the absence of legal norms, but the environments in which these norms operate. We are living through a period of profound volatility. Armed conflicts are multiplying and becoming more protracted and more brazenly cruel, and they are having impacts far beyond the war zone. Geopolitical competition is intensifying.
Many societies are turning inward, placing renewed emphasis on sovereignty, security, and national interests.
Economic uncertainty, technological disruption and social fragmentation are placing additional pressures on institutions and communities. Fundamental freedoms to assemble, to speak and to enjoy one's faith are heightened political battlegrounds. My sense is that these trends are not temporary. They are likely to remain with us for years, perhaps decades. The challenge therefore is not to wait for a return to a more stable era, if one ever did exist, but to ensure that the principles we have built over generations are strong enough to withstand the turbulence ahead.
This means we must confront the challenges of distortion, misinformation and propaganda.
We must resist weaponizing human suffering for political purposes. We have been witnessing unhelpful competitions over whose suffering matters more, and endless attempts to rank victims according to nationality, ethnicity, religion, or political affiliation. And we see a troubling decline in the sense of shame and accountability that should accompany cruelty, abuse, and the deliberate infliction of suffering. Torture thrives where empathy collapses. It becomes easier to justify cruelty when people are reduced to labels, stereotypes, or enemies.
The challenge therefore before us is not simply to defend legal norms, but to defend our common humanity. At the same time, it is important not to lose perspective. There has never been a period in which all states applied the prohibition on torture equally, nor a golden age in which compliance was universal. Progress has always been uneven.
During my mandate, I have encountered governments, national human rights institutions, national preventive mechanisms, and civil society organizations working seriously to strengthen safeguards, improve detention conditions, and investigate abuses and support victims. Every session of the Human Rights Council brings examples of reforms that rarely make the headlines but nevertheless improve people's lives. These efforts deserve recognition. They remind us that progress is possible and that many countries remain committed to strengthening the prohibition of torture even in difficult circumstances. And this is where European leadership matters and continues to matter.
European leadership has helped advance the Mendez principles to ensure that investigations move away from coerced confessions, a major source of violence by the police and miscarriages of justice, and move towards rapport-based investigative interviewing. The European Union is playing a leading role in the Alliance for Torture-Free Trade and efforts to regulate the trade in goods used for torture and ill-treatment. I congratulate you for the adoption of the revised EU regulation on torture-free trade and for updating the lists of both prohibited and controlled goods to be more in alignment with my own lists. This work is increasingly important as technologies, equipment, and methods of control become more sophisticated and more widely available. The European Union has been a consistent global leader in efforts to eradicate the death penalty.
And European states have also demonstrated leadership through the exercise of universal jurisdiction. Countries such as Germany, France, and Belgium have shown that accountability for torture and other international crimes do not stop at the border. The Netherlands as well as Canada have shown leadership at the International Court of Justice against Syrian abuses in detention facilities. While that case has paused, I strongly support its continuation. It remains an incredibly important avenue for justice and exposure of the truth of Assad's torture chambers.
And that brings me to the survivors whose voices we have heard today.
First let me thank each one of you for being here and sharing your important views with us. Hanna Kurts, Lauren Salle and Jawad Fairuz. Their interventions have explained to us the very serious costs and effects of torture and other ill-treatment. Not only for themselves, but deeply also for themselves, but their families and their communities. Those three countries, Venezuela, Belarus and Bahrain are on a long list of countries that continue to perpetrate torture on their own citizens and on foreigners.
Honorable members, too often we debate legal definitions, policies and procedures.
These matter enormously, of course. They set the baseline for our interventions. However, ultimately our success is measured elsewhere. It is measured in the release of political prisoners. It is measured in the liberation of those who are oppressed.
It is measured by the ending of wars and the introduction of calm.
And most importantly too, it is whether those who survived the worst of humanity can recover, rebuild their lives, find peace, and participate fully in their communities once again. The true test of any society is not simply whether it condemns torture, but whether it helps people heal from it and reforms the institutions that allowed it. That is why one of the most important achievements of my mandate has been the development of the Charter of Rights of Victims and Survivors of Torture, a landmark document shaped by survivors themselves from every region of the world. For eight decades at the United Nations, we have built an impressive legal and institutional architecture to prohibit torture, prevent abuses, and pursue accountability.
Yet one important element has often been missing: a framework developed from the perspective of survivors themselves. The Charter is a reminder that survivors are not passive recipients of assistance; they are rights holders, experts through experience, and essential partners. The Charter has attracted very positive endorsements from a range of states, the Global Alliance on Human Rights Institutions, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and the International Committee of the Red Cross, among others.
I appreciated the strong statement from the European Union at the March Human Rights Council as did the survivors. Now we need to ensure that this survivors lives on. Gerard Staberock is going to give us some ideas also on this, but from my side, I am hopeful and would strongly encourage that survivors' perspectives and rights and their charter be made the central theme of the resolution before the Human Rights Council in March 2027. This is a triennial resolution. I look to Denmark as the penholder to drive this forward.
And just as a reminder, this is how the basic principles and guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparation gained traction.
I view the survivors' charter as a necessary supplement to that important instrument, which was developed by the late Theo van Boven, not uncoincidentally when he was special rapporteur on torture. It has been an absolute honor to have been trusted by survivors to put their views, perspectives, and their demands on the international and European agendas. The voice of all survivors must remain at the center of our work.
And finally, and I know I've gone over time, I encourage you as the European Parliament members and as part of the committee to be bolder in your support for survivors and for torture prevention and response, and bolder in your commitment to liberal democracy and the rule of law, which is sorely missing in some arenas. Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Merci beaucoup et du coup je vais donner la parole à Gerald Staberock pour une intervention de sept minutes.
Gerald Staberock
Merci. It's it's difficult after all these speeches to come up with something still meaningful. But I want to start with really what June 26 is and to retake it, that this is the UN day for the victims of torture. Because I also believe that for far too long in the anti-torture community we were very legalistic. I'm a lawyer, I believe in law to protect.
But I think this charter is really changing the way we look at the fight against torture. And nothing is as as powerful as your testimonies that you gave and I really want to congratulate and thank you for this. And by not having survivors on the table, we deprive ourselves in the torture movement also of one of the most important tools and weapons we have. So I really congratulate you for the charter and for your work as well.
And I'm very proud also as OMCT but also representing this broader coalition that was mentioned earlier, United Against Torture, which is a coalition of six leading anti-torture organizations, all of which have networks in countries like Venezuela, Belarus, or a member who's sitting with us on this table here, that we could contribute to this. And and to have this sea change where really survivors and victims are at the center and have agencies and as you said are not just the beneficiaries of help that is provided. So that changes how we look at this. But then I also have to say you spoke about a difficult moment etc. I think we all feel working on human rights that our our buildings are shaking.
It's an earthquake. I often think about the song of REM, it's it's the end of the world as we knew it.
That's I think how many of us feel at the moment. But what is the lesson then learned? How do we respond to this? I think in times of crisis you go back to the foundations. And there is no human rights if there is no absolute prohibition on torture.
But one of the things that I think also we have to make much clearer is torture is still out there. We will launch on the 25th the second edition of our global index on torture precisely a bit like the survivors' stories you give to make this issue of torture visible because it is often invisible. And something that is not seen will not be treated.
So I invite you on the 25th, there will be a launch with at this point 39 countries assessing the risk of torture in those places. One of the telling experiences is that we didn't find any country with a low risk of torture. There are different degrees of course, with high risks etc., and we analyze policing, we analyze detention conditions, we also analyze what is the ability of human rights defenders to work on torture. Because if there's no civic space, what prospect of implementation we have? And on this I would like to congratulate the Parliament taking up cases, doing country resolutions.
This work still matters.
It frees people, it helps to change. So please, yes, stay bold or bolder. But I also think that sometimes we reduce the torture issue to a sort of humanitarian issue. And especially at the moment when I speak to member states, also of the European Union, I have the impression that there is a sea change to say, well, human rights, this was for the good days. And now it's about security, it's about our national interests etc.
And once we've dealt with this, we can go back to look at torture or human rights protections.
And I think this is a real challenge. And we have to see that torture destroys people, torture destroys societies, torture is also destroying the prospect of security. And I give you just one example, and there are plenty others. Why do you think the organization Memorial, which documented the Gulag and torture in the past, why was that organization two months before the Ukraine war abolished or dissolved? It was not a coincidence.
It was part of the plan to attack Ukraine. And there are so many examples where we see these early warning signs and we don't treat them as early warning signs.
If we want to have security, we have to take human rights seriously. And this is also one of the things with this torture index we want to do. We want to show if you invest in this country, if you if you want to engage with this country, there are risks of torture and you should take this into your risk assessment as well. And for as long as we don't manage to speak to security people or change these paradigms, we will stay on a more humanitarian side and we will be less effective.
But let me also speak a bit about what United Against Torture does. It's really the first instrument where the leading anti-torture organizations have come together to join forces in order to be more effective and impactful. And your support as European Union in creating and encouraging this mechanism is really one of the drivers I think for us in the future. When I look at hope, my hope is that we are more united as a movement, that we learn from the best that each of us has, but also that our movement gets bigger. We have more human rights organizations that work on torture than we ever had.
We have more survivors that are engaging with us.
So we have a strength as well. And while we are always a bit defeatist and see the negative, yes, it delivers change. Yes, we have countries like Colombia or Bangladesh that ratify an optional protocol on torture. Even a country like Pakistan that adopted a new anti-torture law where the GSP+ process and the reporting to the Committee Against Torture were crucially important. Yes, we have victims that are supported and this will remain very important.
Last year we were all traumatized with the Trump administration coming in with USAID abolishment etc.
What maybe very few people know, USAID was the biggest donor for the rehabilitation of torture. And many of our local members and partners have suffered enormously from this. Today, the European Union is a bit the last man standing, or last woman standing, protecting from torture through this United Against Torture consortium, and it's unique, it's the only consortium of that sort that exists.
So my appeal in some way is, stay course, continue supporting also financially a movement that is very scattered, that is very, our ecosystem is under threat in the human rights movement, and the European Union is today the biggest human rights donor that still exists. And I very much hope that it will continue so, and also that if I look at the guidelines that you have on torture etc., that you stay course in having really a focus continuously on the thematic of torture. My last point before I conclude is, of course, we have to protect also the norm. And please forgive me that I'm also voicing something as a more critical note, not necessarily on the European Union, but on its member states.
We have seen over the last couple of months an attack on the principle of non-refoulement, the principle that you can't send somebody back to torture to a third country. And I think this is something very dangerous if EU member states attack, for example, the European Court of Human Rights and established jurisprudence on this matter. But ultimately, the problem, I understand the concern on migration, but ultimately the problem is not a norm that says you can't send somebody to torture, but the torture in the country. And this is where the cure has to be focused. And I hope you will continue doing so because your support makes a difference.
I'm originally from Germany.
I've learned in crises, as we say this about the Weimar Republic, we ask why could the Nazis come to power? And we say it's not because of the Nazis. It was for the lack of friends of democracy. And the same way we need these friends of democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and the fight against torture. And I'm very happy that we are invited here today because this friendship will be very important for us also in the future.
Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Merci pour votre intervention et un grand merci pour toutes ces interventions passionnantes. Alors avant d'ouvrir la parole à des participantes et participants dans la salle, je laisse la priorité aux membres. Monsieur Mularczyk, est-ce que vous souhaitez dire quelque chose?
Si c'est le cas, je vous invite à prendre la parole.
Arkadiusz Mularczyk
Dziękuję, I will speak in Polish. Bardzo dziękuję za zorganizowanie tej ciekawej i inspirującej konferencji.
Dziękuję też państwu za te świadectwa, które przedstawiliście o stosowaniu tortur w różnych krajach na świecie. Ta konferencja jednak mówi o skutkach. Skutkach tego, że w krajach, w których państwo mieszkacie, o których państwo mówicie, działają reżimy, które kierują się właściwą ideologią, której skutkiem są tortury. Nikt z państwa nie mówi jednak o tym, jakie to są reżimy. To jest jakby kwestia podstawowa.
Mówimy o takich krajach jak Białoruś, Iran, Wenezuela, Kuba, Myanmar i kilku jeszcze innych krajach.
Ale kluczem dla reżimów, które te kraje reprezentują, jest ideologia. W zdecydowanej większości w tych krajach obowiązuje autorytaryzm, nie ma demokracji, ale u podstaw tych autorytaryzmów leżą przede wszystkim skrajna lewicowość czy też radykalny islam.
I w dużej mierze to to jest powodem, że jesteście państwo ofiarami tortur. Jeżeli mówimy poważnie o przeciwdziałaniu torturom, to nie chodzi tylko o finansowanie organizacji prawoczłowieczych. Bo środki USAID czy Unii Europejskiej w dużej mierze szły również na działalność polityczną przeciwko określonym rządom, a niezbyt często właśnie na walkę z radykalnym islamem czy radykalnym komunizmem. Wręcz przeciwnie, wręcz przeciwnie, te środki często wspierały takie reżimy. Chociażby kwestia Kuby, gdzie Unia Europejska finansuje wciąż reżim Castro na Kubie.
Więc mówimy dzisiaj o przyczynach, mówimy o skutkach, a nie mówimy o powodach tych reżimów. W mojej ocenie istotnym jest, żeby Unia Europejska wyleczyła się, podobnie jak to się stało w USA, z tego, że z reżimami trzeba współpracować czy je współfinansować. Z reżimami trzeba walczyć. I te skutki powoli widzimy w polityce chociażby amerykańskiej. Reżimów nie można zmienić pokojowo, nie można zmienić demokratycznie.
Reżimy trzeba osłabiać i obalać. W związku z tym widzimy absolutny brak konsekwencji Unii Europejskiej w walce z reżimami.
I mówię to jako parlamentarzysta z dużym stażem. Dziękuję bardzo.
Mounir Satouri
Bien. Avant de donner la parole à des représentants de la société civile présents dans la salle, je vais donner la parole à Mohamed El Azzouzi, chef du secteur droits de l'homme à la DG INTPA. Vous avez la parole pour trois minutes.
Mohamed El Azouzi
Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the survivors for your testimonies.
Gérald, you said it's difficult to talk after all the intervenants to say something meaningful, and difficult to say indeed something meaningful or even interesting as a lot have been already said, but I will still try. Chair, honorable members, dear colleagues, the European Union remains firmly committed to preventing torture and ill-treatment, fighting impunity, and supporting survivors in their recovery and pursuit of justice. We continue to work with survivors, civil society, international partners, and member states to ensure the absolute prohibition of torture is upheld in practice everywhere. Mr. Salé, you said torture is not an end, it's a mean.
It's a means indeed because it not only devastates individuals, it also has a profound and lasting impact on societies as a whole. It undermines trust in institutions, it represses freedom of expression and contributes to the shrinking of civic space, weakening the foundation of democratic governance and the rule of law. To respond to this, to address this, we need to bridge these international norms that we talked about earlier with concrete actions.
And I will not go too much in detail because Gerald already mentioned our key support to the United Against Torture Consortium, which provides this comprehensive support. And that's really the value of this initiative, to provide support on the prevention with the work on stronger safeguards, legal framework, and independent monitoring, on rehabilitation, as well as on justice seeking.
And we we found that really this mechanism that was that was put in place is really a good example of how we can provide this holistic support in this against this this torture and and ill-treatment. Happy as well that we can announce that additional funding, continued funding will be is being let's say finalized for this for this for this initiatives which will allow continued support with with 7 million euro to continue this this critical work you are doing. A work that you do with these as you say these international NGOs but that has this network within partner countries in the in the countries to be able to support the local civil society organization and to do this critical work. Beside beside the work with with the consortium on torture, we have as well our initiative the global initiatives against impunity. Because indeed prevention, rehabilitation is critical but accountability and and the fight against impunity is is also a critical work.
And there as well, happy as well to announce that additional funding is foreseen next year to ensure again continuity of this global initiative against against impunity against against impunity. Maybe one last element. So we talked about this prevention, the rehabilitation, I mentioned the fight against impunity, but there is as well our major initiatives in terms of protection of human rights defender with our protectdefender.eu, this global initiative that that provide emergency support to human rights defender across the world.
To conclude, my main message today is that the EU approach is not only principled, it's also operational. We support prevention, accountability and redress, and eradicating torture requires joint commitment, information and long-term partnership with civil society. Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Et bah merci à vous.
Je vais maintenant donner la parole en premier à Roberto Frifini du Conseil international de réadaptation pour les victimes. Trois minutes.
Roberto Frizfrini
Good morning everyone and thank you for the opportunity to speak to the members of the DROI committee and to share the experience that we are that are guiding our work both as a consortium, as the United Against Torture Consortium, and as the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims.
So what is, what is extremely relevant at this moment is from the European Union, for all the persons here in front of us, to discuss and to strengthen the fight against torture in this geopolitical atmosphere, which is threatening the due respect of human rights and is threatening what we have already took for granted for several years and is declining just in front of us.
We have listened to the experiences, to the testimonies of survivors and what is important is that the process of fighting against torture is not limited to a temporal mandate, let's say, to the trial or to the rehabilitation process of the survivors because the survivors are suffering from physical and psychological sequelae all over their life and we have to face and to support them in their rehabilitation process. We have to strengthen our efforts in front of the judiciary in order to implement what we already have from a legislative and legal point of view and we, the institutional actors in the room, they have to use the institutional leverage in front of the countries in order to increase the due respect for human rights.
For the IRCT, what is extremely important, what is crucial in our work, is to put the survivors at the very center of our daily work. So giving back agency to persons who have been deprived of their inner soul and their capacity and their role as and their human dignity. Without this, the IRCT can't continue to work.
And this is why we have this effort, we have this focus on including survivors in every kind of our activities. As we have seen, the Survivor Charter is the best example of what the survivors can do after a discussion among themselves. And they can produce a guiding guide to inform the states, to inform institutional actors, and to inform NGOs on what is really needed from them in terms of accountability, in terms of redress and rehabilitation. I guess my time is over. Thank you very much.
Mounir Satouri
C'était presque respecté. C'était bien dosé.
Merci pour cette intervention. On va donner la parole maintenant à Olivia Rope, directrice exécutive de Réforme Pénale International pour trois minutes aussi bien dosées.
Olivia Rope
Okay, thank you. Firstly, I want to acknowledge the brave colleagues who have shared their testimonies on the panel.
And at PRI, we advocate for the inclusion of experiences of survivors, people with lived experience of detention, etc. into all stages of policy reform, in the design and implementation and testing. And we note that it's very important that formats are designed according to the needs of such people and in a manner that will make them feel comfortable. I wanted to raise a couple of thoughts relevant to this very important event today.
The first being that we recommend that the prevention of torture is looked at from a very comprehensive view, one that stops the relentless rise in the number of people that are going to prison globally. And so when I talk about a comprehensive view, that means looking at who is going to prison, who is being subjected to torture and ill-treatment in degrading conditions that are documented the world over. And this means decriminalizing certain offenses. It means addressing the social and economic conditions that criminalize poverty, for example. And it means investing in the communities and support systems that keep people out of these degrading prisons.
So, in short, you cannot torture-proof a system that is structurally designed to overflow. And a second issue that I wanted to bring to everybody's attention is around prison work and prison labor. And this is a topic that we have been researching recently because we have noticed that it is completely unregulated.
And people in prison the world over are coerced, unpaid, and face conditions on so-called work regimes that amount to torture or ill-treatment. And this has been also evidenced by many of the anti-torture bodies and also the Special Rapporteur on slavery, linking prison work to modern slavery and a violation of the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment. So we published a new guide and our findings a couple of weeks ago. And maybe just to highlight a couple of points that we covered.
So people with lived experience and testimonies that we gathered told us that they were, for example, forced to handle toxic chemicals without any protective equipment. People described being assigned degrading tasks as part of so-called prison work, for example, disposing of soiled sanitary pads with a single glove, carrying heavy drums of water, and these were actually linked as punishment for certain behaviors. People told us that they were beaten or placed in isolation for failing to meet work quotas. So these kinds of patterns that we have documented really outline how people in prison are not only excluded from labor law protections, but they are facing ill-treatment and torture under so-called work regimes.
So just to conclude, I think Penal Reform International would recommend that all of us
Speaker 16
A priori il n'y a pas de danger imminent. Donc on peut reprendre nos travaux.
Mounir Satouri
Je suis désolé. C'est vraiment une interruption exceptionnelle que vous avez eue. Moi je ne l'ai jamais vécue. Si vous souhaitez prendre quelques secondes pour terminer allez-y.
Olivia Rope
I didn't realize new rules about NGOs speaking. No, joking. No, I was about to conclude to say that we would recommend a renewed interest in the daily regime of prison life and the 11.5 million people who are held in prisons globally from an anti-torture point of view. And I know Alice has done a lot of work around this issue, which we very much welcome. And I would conclude there.
Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Eh bien merci. Bravo, vous étiez imperturbable. Vous avez repris comme s'il ne s'était rien passé. Bravo. Et donc pour finir ce tour de la société civile, je vais donner la parole à Ahmed Attala, directeur exécutif du Front égyptien pour les droits.
Vous avez la parole, comme vos collègues, pour trois minutes.
Ahmed Attala
Thanks a lot. Thanks for this opportunity to speak with you about the torture in Egypt. So the torture and arbitrary detention are ongoing practices embedded within a broader system of authoritarian policing and weakened rule of law and undermining judicial independence and normalize violence across the justice system.
In its UPR, January 2025, Egypt received many recommendations from the states calling for preventing torture, investigating allegations, and holding perpetrators accountable. Many human rights organizations keep documenting testimonies of defendants and detainees which show widespread torture in prisons, police stations, and national security headquarters. The documentation shows that detainees are subjected to beating, electric shocks, suspension in painful position, threats, solitary confinement, deprivation of food, water, and medical care, and denial of family visits.
Regarding the prolonged pretrial detention as a form of torture, the counter-terrorism laws in Egypt contribute to this system by using vague definitions and weaponizing the freedom of expression, association, and assembly. Nowadays, and because the authorities changed the criminal procedural code, limiting the maximum period of the pretrial detention up to one and a half years, instead of releasing hundreds or even thousands of detainees, the Egyptian prosecutions refer thousands of those detainees into trials, including those who have been in the detention for up to five years.
On the other hand, it continues its practice of rotating detainees into new cases on similar charges. Furthermore, the consequences of pre-trial detention extend beyond detainees to families who face economic hardship, debt, social stigma, and psychological trauma.
Also, victims often suffer long-term physical and psychological damage that hinder reintegration, integration, sorry, into society after release. On the other hand, local and international organizations, including the Refugee Platform in Egypt, have documented the arbitrary detention of refugees and asylum seekers in official and unofficial facilities under inhuman conditions that involve beatings, threats, and the denial of contacts with families and lawyers in order to force them into signing so-called "voluntary return" forms that are then used for their forcible deportation to countries where they face a real risk of torture and prosecution as part of a broader state policy that use detention, security, and judicial tools to whitewash violations and transform violence and forcing into mere consent on paper. Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Et ben merci. Je vais donc redonner la parole au panel pour celles et ceux qui souhaitent reprendre la parole et répondre aux réflexions ou aux interrogations qu'on a eues. Moi j'avais deux points. Monsieur Matthews a évoqué tout à l'heure le rôle de la justice internationale dans la lutte contre la torture. On est en ce moment à DROI en train de travailler un rapport d'initiative autour du rôle que peut jouer la justice internationale et comment l'Union européenne peut la soutenir.
Est-ce que les autres intervenants ont des recommandations sur ce point particulier, spécifique de la lutte contre la torture pour les cours internationales ? Madame la rapporteuse, vous avez évoqué la question financière et qui est importante. On est en train de discuter ici au Parlement du nouveau cadre pluriannuel financier. C'est sûr, et c'est pas un secret, l'Union européenne ne pourra pas compenser enfin la baisse américaine. Ça, c'est pas possible.
Certains ici vont se battre pour que la contribution de l'Union européenne soit plus importante, mais ce qui est sûr, ça ne mentionnera, ça ne remplacera jamais la baisse de l'USAID.
Quel type quels sont les partenaires, madame la rapporteuse, internationaux qu'on peut mobiliser pour faire en sorte que les financements internationaux puissent être au rendez-vous ? Y a-t-il des stratégies particulières avec des États en particulier avec lesquels on peut coordonner cet effort international ? Donc voilà mes deux petites questions pour celles et ceux qui souhaitent y répondre. Et puis je vous propose qu'on reprenne dans l'ordre du début et celles et ceux qui n'ont pas de commentaires qui ne se sentent pas obligés de prendre la parole. Allez-y.
Lorent Saleh
Lástima que se fue el eurodiputado que habló porque dijo 50 por ciento 50 por ciento de una verdad.
Dijo 50 por ciento de una verdad. Efectivamente no tiene sentido y es una tremenda injusticia que se siga financiando el régimen cubano. Es una de las dictaduras más antiguas del mundo que mata y que tortura y que sin esa impunidad seguramente el resto de América Latina no tuviera tanta impunidad.
Y es verdad que muchos de esos fondos, que es un tema también, se pudieran revisar mejor para optimizar mejor y que no terminen en grupos como la guerrilla colombiana, donde ha terminado fondos internacionales. Pero la tortura no es un tema de izquierdas ni de derechas. Porque mencionó Irán, mencionó Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bielorrusia, víctimas directas mías, pero se le olvidó mencionar que en Estados Unidos torturan y matan como pocos. Y que en El Salvador torturan y matan. Pero lo más incómodo y la peor verdad es que en Israel torturan y matan.
Torturan y matan.
Y el manejo de tal impunidad con el caso de Israel nos ha puesto a todos nosotros, defensores de derechos humanos, en serios aprietos, y sobre todo los que estamos vinculados a la Unión Europea. Porque ¿con qué moral yo, como Premio Sájarov, le pido cuentas al régimen venezolano desde la Unión Europea cuando me restriegan en mi cara que en Gaza han asesinado sistemáticamente a niños? Y eso es una de las cosas más difíciles que nos ha tocado a los defensores de derechos humanos. Porque esa capacidad de influencia que teníamos se vio total y absolutamente mermada con la impunidad con la que se ha manejado el tema en Gaza.
Entonces, dijo 50% de una verdad. Y me parece extremadamente peligroso que llevemos el asunto de la tortura a un tema de derecha o izquierda porque la lucha contra la tortura y la lucha por el respeto a los derechos humanos tiene que ser el mínimo y el máximo punto de encuentro y de unidad política global. Y yo creo que hay que ser implacable cuando se quiera parcializar esto a un tema prácticamente panfletario y político.
Lamento que no estaba aquí pero por favor háganle llegar este mensaje a él. Y el tema de los recursos bueno hay que optimizar y revisar mejor eso hay que buscar mucho y las sanciones insisto en esto porque cuando yo estaba encerrado y sancionaron a funcionarios del régimen venezolano la tortura se redujo drásticamente porque claro los que torturan en estos regímenes quieren que sus hijos estudien en Europa quieren venir a comprar una casa en Salamanca en en Madrid quieren venir a disfrutar de el el Mediterráneo.
Y esas sanciones pueden hacer muchísimo más, por favor, presidente, no dejen de sancionar. Y a los que hemos salido, por favor, ayúdennos a regresar a nuestro país. Yo quiero regresar a Venezuela después de haber sido expatriado. Gracias.
Mounir Satouri
Merci. Je pense que vos remarques, comme elles sont publiques, cet échange est retransmis, pourront arriver y compris aux collègues qui ont dû nous quitter. Mais il y a une certaine tradition de la liberté d'expression et du pluralisme dans cette assemblée. Et en tout cas, on y tient droit, il faut que toutes les sensibilités au Parlement européen puissent s'exprimer. Ça ne veut pas dire qu'on est tous d'accord.
Moi, je suis entièrement d'accord sur d'abord sur tous les points. Et le point sur Israël, sur le deux poids deux mesures, sur la manière dont nous Européens on traite le dossier israélien. Vous avez raison, il nous décrédibilise sur le sujet de la lutte contre la torture. Mais en vrai, il nous décrédibilise sur plein d'autres sujets.
Voilà.
Je pense que notre crédibilité vis-à-vis de tout un pan des pays dans le monde et de populations, et je pense principalement et facilement au Sud global, je pense que le deux poids deux mesures qu'on met entre la manière dont on traite la question ukrainienne avec l'invasion de la Russie et la manière dont on a traité et qu'on continue à traiter la question israélienne et le comportement de ce gouvernement d'extrême droite, je pense qu'il nous a définitivement discrédités aux yeux de plein de gens et je suis pas certain qu'on s'en relève. Je ferme la parenthèse et je la rends aux panélistes. C'est Monsieur Matthews, c'est ça, dans l'ordre tout à l'heure ? Vous souhaitez intervenir ? Allez-y, allez-y, on n'est pas obligé de respecter l'ordre de tout à l'heure.
Monsieur Ferous, allez-y.
Jawad Fayrouz
Thank you, thank you, Chair.
I will continue the same comments with regards of our evaluation and criticism to the EU policy makers, either EU or even sometimes related to the parliamentarian. We can see there is a clear double standards. This is, as they say, business as usual. We cannot find a firm condemnation of the allies of the Western countries, EU, from the MENA region, specifically those who are in the Gulf. The main interest is given to the military support, to the financial and economical investments.
Less attention is given to the human rights violations.
We can see clear human rights violation in that region. I think all of you heard about the continuous revocation of nationalities in Kuwait, in Bahrain, in UAE and rest of the countries and issue related to the clear torture. For sure I can describe the revocation of nationalities where you become stateless, it is part of the torture because you could be considered as a civil death where you don't have any access to your basic rights. I've been experienced this one and still facing that one and the rest of the victims.
Here the questions, where is the action is been taken by EU with that regard? I think that if we read latest Human Rights Committee's, Human Rights Committee's clear indication is there, there is continuous of the systematic types of the torture been acted. CAT review of Bahrain for example, it was in November 2025 and clearly indicated there is systematic act of torture. The action is been taken by the international committee almost not that much.
We cannot much depend just on the UPR, Universal Periodic Review, because at the end it will read as a recommendation. As we deal with the issue of the sanctions, for example, or preventing these torturers to enter Europe, or to take any firm action with their investments and so on in this country and in this part of the region, that should be done with all these torturers and governmental officials in the MENA region. Thank you very much.
Mounir Satouri
Bon, sur la question sur ce que peut faire l'Union européenne, Monsieur Mateus répondra, mais Madame la Rapporteure, allez-y.
Alice Jill Edwards
Thank you very much for the statements and views.
I had just maybe three points. Olivia from Penal Reform International on the prison work, I think I would make sure that any work that is done on this is well-balanced.
And I say that because rehabilitation is meant to be the center of prison life, as you know, and part of that is the opportunity to work. I understand you're talking about slavery-type conditions or low pay, etc. But this is really a fragile space within prisons that are functioning well, because there are always questions about why the prisoner is having this opportunity and not our unemployed people in the community, for example, running bakeries, having help with computer skills, fabrics and ceramics and all kinds of things that go on in prisons. So I agree, obviously, with labor law protections, etc., and being able to be paid. You might want to have a look, although it's a different circumstance, the right to work or the obligation to work provisions in the Geneva Conventions, which oblige prisoners of war to work.
So there's some comparison there and there are some standards. There was a question about international justice.
I did produce two reports during my time A/HRC/52/30 and A/79/181. One was on national prosecutions criminalization of torture as well as a report on sexual torture which was an extension in a way of that report. And one of my observations is that we put a lot of emphasis on international justice. Maybe that's because we're operating in the international world but we are never ever going to get justice for each individual by only looking at international justice.
So we must make sure it is balanced with building good court systems, fair representation, legal systems, etc. at the domestic level. The amount of cases are just exponential and the international system, very expensive, only deals with some of them. I think the best successes from my perspective is not actually the International Criminal Court when you look at how many cases they've taken up. I just published a report on their inconsistent jurisprudence on whether they consider conflict-related sexual violence sexual torture.
They've only had six out of the 33 concluded cases that all dealt with sexual torture actually have findings on those issues. But really these hybrid courts or these international and national joint tribunals are a much more effective way because they actually capacitate locally, their local laws are changed and the idea is there's a legacy afterwards. So I think some refocus also on those mechanisms where they exist and where they should be built. In terms of funding, I don't have a comment about what other partnerships maybe Gerald has more views on that.
But as we see more countries, especially within the European Union but also elsewhere, spending money on defense and national security, larger budgets, the obligation of 3% by whatever date it was, 2030 is it? There is an obligation in the Convention against Torture to ensure that training and education on torture includes the military. And what I'd like to see is those defense budgets, where we can influence them, to ensure that all of the militaries are trained on their performance on codes of conduct and how they should engage in military as well as with obviously training militaries abroad. So it's one way to use the funding that is going to defense to also bolster the anti-torture area. I think I'll leave it there.
Gerald Staberock
Maybe just adding to on a few of the points. I'm very glad that impunity was mentioned because I do think that when we ask ourselves, I mean, I remember many years back after the Tunisian revolution, we were there in the country, we have an office there, and somebody said as a part of a campaign, torture, does it still exist? You know, I mean, we had the Spanish Inquisition, but it's still around. Why is it? So it serves a purpose.
But I think the most important point is it's sanctioned with impunity. And very often our good legal reforms, the new institutions in a transition context that are created, they don't produce because there's no red line, there's no end to impunity.
So I think this is certainly a focus we should have. Certainly there is the international criminal law dimension. Torture is a crime under international law, both in humanitarian law, but also under the torture convention. So the tools are there.
But most of the countries where we see torture on a relatively continuous basis wouldn't come to that level of sort of an ICC type of investigation. You have plenty of countries in Latin America where torture is not necessarily, we've heard more about torture in a political context here, but maybe the majority of torture is not in the direct political repression. It's people in ordinary criminal justice system, it's people that are marginalized, belonging to minorities, indigenous and others. So I think while it is important to make this link with political repression, it's not the only context in which torture is a real issue. Of course, it is often linked to democracy and one of the topics that my colleagues wanted me to raise and I haven't done so, so I abuse now the possibility of still speaking, is torture in the context of protest.
Just think about Belarus, what happened after the elections.
Torture was there to punish demonstrators. But there are also standards that have been developed, for example, by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of assembly and association, on guidelines on the right to protest, which include clear provisions against torture and some of the safeguards from the torture world that apply in this context. And also United Against Torture has just published a guidance on the right to protest from an anti-torture perspective. You raised the issue of funding, so I just want to respond to this very briefly. It's not only the US that has stopped funding human rights.
European countries have massively reduced, from A to Z.
There's maybe two exceptions, I think Liechtenstein and Ireland have not reduced their funding for human rights. So it is not only about the United States and USAID. And I think here we have to appeal to European countries to come back to funding because it is in their interest. But there are massive cuts that really are a threat to the human rights community. What I like about the support that we've received from the European Union is that I think it is quite strategic, both when we look at the ProtectDefenders.eu, the EU mechanism to protect human rights defenders, but also the torture consortium and probably the impunity alliance that were mentioned, that they're more than just a project.
It's effectively a mechanism of support. And I think that's a very smart way of supporting the broader human rights movement. Because the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders Mary Lawlor always said projects are nice, but the biggest protection that people have are their networks, their movements. And I think this is where funding has to concentrate on having these protection mechanisms that are holistic and that are connected local, regional and global.
Ellis Mathews
Thank you very much. I'll try to nod towards some of the questions as well within the constraints of time. First of all, I want to salute the courage of those who gave testimony today from their own experience. And second just to say that I think the whole discussion has been a reminder of what a heinous denial of humanity torture is.
And that's reminded us also that the approaches can't just be legal, they've got to be at the human scale. And I also subscribe very much to what's been said about the profound and long-lasting effects, not just on the survivors, but on their families and ultimately the damage that's done to the societies that then struggle with the legacy of abuse and repression. And I think what was added to that from the testimonies was the dimension of potentially permanent exile, which is I think another feature of the systemic torture and repression that we've seen.
I think that also reminds us of what was said by Mr. Staborok which I think is very important which is that in a discourse which has become increasingly geopolitical transactional but also security related it's very important that we don't forget the link between human rights and sustainable peace and security so human rights failings the absence of the observance of norms isn't just a consequence but also a cause of conflict. On international justice I think the key thing's already been said in other words that complementarity is the most important thing so the ICC is there at the pinnacle but you need to look at national justice hybrid systems but also transitional justice mechanisms all of that needs to take into account the torture dimension as we've been discussing it.
I think there is an important development which has been underlined across the interventions related to, I think, a conceptual development in the understanding of torture, so not just linked to places of detention, but out in the open, sometimes coming from law enforcement forces. You mentioned Belarus, but we've seen that also in Georgia, and we've been trying to capture that in what we've done in the update of the anti-torture regulation.
And that was linked to another very important observation, I think, which is related to the protection of civic space as a cornerstone of EU human rights policy. In other words, I think increasingly the debate is bringing out the interrelatedness of the rights, so the right to peaceful assembly, freedom of expression, all of those kind of things, and that protection of civil society applies in all of those situations.
I think important points were made also on the importance not just of campaigning for releases, but for systemic change. So I think the real test there, the example of Venezuela was given, but the real test now is whether we can work with Venezuela, bring back the OHCHR presence, but work on permanent changes in terms of democracy, governance and the rule of law, which would then create a different systemic context for the kinds of issues that we've been that we've been talking about here. And perhaps just to to round off a couple of points. First of all, I I hear and acknowledge the questions related to global double standards.
I would just like to say that in terms of some of the key mechanisms that we've been talking about, so protection of human rights defenders, but also what we do on torture, that is truly global and the way in which we intervene and act around the world makes no distinction in terms of the countries where the problems are occurring. And final a final reflection would be I think very much those I think conceptual changes that we need to make, but also the way in which we need to design our action in the future. We've got opportunities to tackle both of those, first of all in the update of the EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy, where we're going through the civil society and stakeholder consultation at the moment and wanting that to run concurrently then with the new multiannual financial framework. And I think a lot of the things that have been said today can very much help us with the design of programs under the under the next EU budget.
Mounir Satouri
Ben merci. Dans un monde qui se complique et dans lequel l'état de cause de la lutte contre la torture ne s'améliore pas, c'est le moins qu'on puisse dire, l'événement de ce matin était à la fois passionnant mais utile, je le crois sincèrement.
Alors il était important, je pense, de montrer la plus-value des politiques européennes. Ceux qui me connaissent savent que parfois je peux être sévère sur les politiques que mène l'Union européenne, mais je sais aussi être juste. Et je crois que vous nous avez aujourd'hui rappelé la pertinence des dispositifs que mène l'Union européenne. Et c'est important que ça perdure. Et en tout cas, en ma qualité de parlementaire, je ferai en sorte de soutenir au mieux, et notamment dans les discussions budgétaires pour la prochaine programmation pluriannuelle.
Madame la rapporteure spéciale, vous l'avez dit, vous arrivez à la fin de votre mandat. Permettez-moi de vous féliciter pour le travail que vous avez réalisé pendant les quatre années qui viennent de s'écouler. Ce travail est utile, il est important. Merci de l'avoir fait.
On va évidemment être attentifs et suivre le déroulé jusqu'au vote de la prochaine résolution. On essaiera d'être utiles comme on peut, parce que c'est important que cette résolution existe et qu'elle soit forte. Elle envoie un message à l'ensemble du monde sur ces sujets. À nos trois témoins, grand merci, sincèrement. Merci d'accepter d'apporter ces témoignages.
Au-delà de la profondeur, de la sincérité et de l'émotion dans laquelle vous mettez la salle, je pense que vos témoignages sont importants parce que ça nous permet de garder la boussole des bonnes réponses à apporter.
Parce que vous nous éclairez sur des choses profondes qui nous permettent dans les dispositifs ou dans les actions, dans la manière dont on construit des politiques publiques, de ne pas répondre à côté. Et donc votre parole est importante, il faut qu'elle perdure. Et en tout cas, ici à DROI, à chaque fois que l'occasion nous sera donnée pour vous faire participer à nos réflexions, nous le ferons avec plaisir. Monsieur Matteos, je l'ai dit au début, mais sincèrement merci pour la confiance et le partenariat. C'est important qu'il y ait cet événement ici, mais c'était aussi important de le faire dans le cadre de la Team Europe.
Et donc merci beaucoup et j'espère qu'on aura d'autres occasions à l'avenir pour le faire. Nous allons faire une pause de cinq minutes pour le sujet suivant. Et je demande d'ailleurs à celles et ceux qui ont le temps de rester puisque le prochain point sera consacré à la mémoire des défenseurs des droits humains assassinés. Donc si vous souhaitez rester en salle pour participer au débat, faites-le. Et puis ceux qui ont d'autres engagements, je comprends.
Et donc voilà, cinq minutes pour qu'on puisse installer le nouveau panel. Merci.
Je crois que le marteau ici est moins efficace que dans les cours de justice. Allez, je vous propose de reprendre. On va continuer notre réunion avec un débat très important sur le signalement et la lutte contre les exécutions extrajudiciaires et arbitraires et les morts des défenseurs des droits de l'homme. La semaine dernière, l'organisation Frontline Defenders a publié son analyse mondiale 2025-2026 qui comprend le mémorial des défenseurs des droits de l'homme.
Il s'agit d'une précieuse initiative visant à documenter les cas de certains de défenseurs des droits de l'homme qui ont été tués et à honorer leur mémoire. Il est important pour nous d'honorer la mémoire des personnes disparues tout en affirmant notre solidarité indéfectible avec leur combat pour les droits humains. Aujourd'hui, notre sous-commission est unanime pour ancrer ce rendez-vous annuel, garantissant que cet engagement collectif reste gravé dans le temps. Je souhaite pour ce débat la bienvenue à Claire Ivers, directrice du plaidoyer mondial de l'association Front Line Defenders, qui est avec nous aujourd'hui pour présenter le rapport.
Je souhaite également la bienvenue à Madame Andrea Bolanos Vargas qui est connectée avec nous en ligne. Madame vous saurez vous venez d'être nommée rapporteure spéciale des Nations Unies pour les défenseurs des droits de l'homme. Toutes nos félicitations pour cette nomination et je suis certain que nous poursuivrons d'excellentes collaborations comme nous l'avions avec votre prédécesseuse sur la défense de la protection des défenseurs des droits de l'homme un sujet qui évidemment nous tient à cœur.
Je souhaite enfin, j'allais dire la bienvenue mais on poursuit puisqu'il était avec nous pour le point d'avant, je salue la présence de Monsieur Ellis Matthews, chef de la division des droits de l'homme au SEAE qui est resté avec nous pour ce point. Les exécutions extrajudiciaires et arbitraires et les meurtres de défenseurs des droits de l'homme ont connu une augmentation alarmante à l'échelle mondiale, des centaines de personnes ayant été tuées en 2025 par des acteurs étatiques et non étatiques. Le débat d'aujourd'hui vise non seulement à faire un état des lieux de la situation et rendre hommage à la mémoire des défenseurs assassinés, mais aussi à discuter des meilleures pratiques identifiées dans le monde entier pour améliorer la prévention efficace de tels homicides ainsi que les enquêtes et les traitements judiciaires de ces meurtres. Et je vais donner tout de suite la parole à Andrea Bolanos Vargas.
Vous avez la parole pour sept minutes. Madame Vargas, on n'a pas le son. Je vais vous interrompre.
On vous voit, mais on ne vous entend pas.
Andrea Bolaños Vargas
Honorables, señor presidente, honorables diputados y diputadas del Parlamento Europeo, excelencias, distinguidos y distinguidas delegadas. Agradezco la oportunidad que se me brinda de dirigirme hoy a ustedes para abordar una cuestión de máxima urgencia: las ejecuciones extrajudiciales de personas defensoras de los derechos humanos. Hablo no solo en mi calidad de titular de mandato, sino en nombre de innumerables personas defensoras cuyas vidas han sido truncadas simplemente por ejercer el derecho a defender la dignidad, la justicia y el estado de derecho.
Las personas defensoras de los derechos humanos son la columna vertebral de las sociedades democráticas. Sin embargo, en todas las regiones del mundo, las están silenciando de forma letal. Las ejecuciones extrajudiciales no son incidentes aislados. Reflejan patrones de represión, intolerancia hacia la disidencia, reducción del espacio cívico y, lo más grave, una impunidad estructural. Permítanme destacar con ustedes tres reflexiones.
En primer lugar, la persistencia y magnitud de los ataques mortales. A lo largo de los años, mi mandato ha documentado denuncias creíbles de asesinatos dirigidos contra personas que defendían el derecho a la tierra, la protección del ambiente, la lucha contra la corrupción, los derechos de las minorías e igualdad de género, entre otros. Estos asesinatos no surgen de la nada.
A menudo van precedidos de campañas de desprestigio, amenazas físicas y en línea, vigilancia y acoso judicial, los cuales hacen parte de un ciclo de criminalización y son señales de alerta que con frecuencia se ignoran. Ciertos grupos corren mayor riesgo: las personas indígenas, las personas defensoras del ambiente, las mujeres defensoras y los jóvenes defensores de derechos humanos y aquellos que trabajan en contextos de conflicto y autoritarios. Los riesgos aumentan para las personas que se encuentran en la intersección de múltiples sistemas de discriminación. Las mujeres indígenas defensoras, por ejemplo, enfrentan formas específicas y agravadas de violencia debido a la convergencia del racismo, el sexismo e intereses que afectan sus territorios. Los asesinatos van desde asesinatos selectivos hasta muertes bajo custodia, que apuntan a fallas sistemáticas en la protección y en algunos casos a la posible omisión o aquiescencia de actores estatales.
En el último mes, mi mandato ha realizado una encuesta en la que participaron 1122 personas defensoras a nivel mundial. En ella, las personas defensoras identificaron los ataques contra la integridad personal como su tercera preocupación. Por otro lado, la Oficina del Alto Comisionado de Derechos Humanos ha recopilado y verificado datos sobre los asesinatos de personas defensoras. Las cifras son alarmantes. 668 personas fueron asesinadas en 2024, 550 en 2025 y se prevé que para este año la cifra supere 743 víctimas.
En segundo lugar, quisiera hablar de la cultura generalizada de la impunidad. Quizás el aspecto más preocupante no solo sea que se asesine a las personas defensoras, sino que sus asesinos rara vez rinden cuentas. Las investigaciones suelen retrasarse, resultan inconclusas o se ven comprometidas. Las familias y los compañeros que buscan suelen sufrir intimidación. En numerosos casos, el debido proceso ha brillado por su ausencia o ha adolecido de grandes deficiencias.
Esta incapacidad para garantizar la rendición de cuentas transmite un mensaje escalofriante. La violencia contra las personas defensoras se tolera. Y este mensaje es cruel, socava la confianza en las instituciones y debilita el Estado de derecho. En tercer lugar, la responsabilidad y el potencial de los Estados y de los actores internacionales, incluida la Unión Europea.
Mi mandato ha instado constantemente a los Estados a la adopción de marcos de protección integrales para las personas defensoras y aplicar plenamente los ya existentes. Esto incluye mecanismos o políticas nacionales que partan de la participación efectiva y significativa de la sociedad civil, tanto en su diseño como en su implementación, y que contengan medidas de prevención y protección colectivas, sistemas de alerta temprana y programas eficaces de protección de testigos, entre otras medidas. Esto significa cumplir con la letra y el espíritu de las directrices europeas sobre personas defensoras de derechos humanos.
Además, junto con mi predecesora, estamos terminando un informe de seguimiento sobre los asesinatos de algunas personas defensoras en los que aún no se ha garantizado la rendición de cuentas. Espero que podamos presentar las conclusiones de este trabajo en julio. Hemos también enviado comunicaciones a los gobiernos, realizado visitas a distintos países, elaborado informes temáticos en los que se analizan los patrones de violencia y los indicios de alerta temprana y las buenas prácticas. En este sentido, el Parlamento Europeo y la Unión Europea tienen un papel crucial que desempeñar. Las directrices de la Unión Europea sobre personas defensoras proporcionan un marco importante.
Sin embargo, su aplicación debe reforzarse y hacerse más coherente.
Las declaraciones públicas, la intervención diplomática, el seguimiento de los juicios y el apoyo de emergencia marcan la diferencia y créanme que han marcado la diferencia. Además, la acción exterior de la Unión Europea debe integrar sistemáticamente la protección de las personas defensoras en sus decisiones políticas y prioridades temáticas. Cuando persistan patrones de asesinatos e impunidad, deberían considerarse la aplicación de condicionalidades o sanciones cuando procedan. Honorables distinguidos diputados y distinguidas participantes, permítanme proponer varias recomendaciones concretas.
Dar prioridad a la prevención, reforzar los mecanismos de alerta temprana y garantizar que las amenazas creíbles contra las personas defensoras desencadenen respuestas inmediatas y coordinadas. Garantizar la rendición de cuentas, apoyar investigaciones independientes, rápidas, exhaustivas e imparciales de todas las amenazas, asesinatos y ejecuciones en contra de personas defensoras. Proteger a las personas en situación de riesgo, ampliar la financiación y el acceso a programas de reubicación. Los visados de emergencia y los programas de protección, especialmente para personas defensoras en alto riesgo.
Abordar los problemas estructurales como la corrupción, los conflictos por la tierra, los abusos corporativos y la discriminación que a menudo subyacen los ataques contra las personas defensoras. Fomentar un entorno seguro y propicio, derogar las leyes que penalizan la labor legítima de la defensa de los derechos humanos y abstenerse de estigmatizar a las personas defensoras. Por último, debemos reafirmar un principio fundamental: el derecho a defender los derechos humanos no es un delito.
Quienes llevan a cabo esta labor son socias esenciales de la construcción de sociedades justas y resilientes. Cada ejecución extrajudicial de una persona defensora no es una tragedia para la persona y sus seres queridos, es un ataque contra nuestras sociedades y nuestra democracia, contra el mismo los mismos valores que afirmamos defender. Insto al Parlamento Europeo a que siga liderando con acciones basadas en principios y decisivas. De ello depende la credibilidad de nuestro compromiso colectivo con los derechos humanos.
Muchísimas gracias, señor presidente y todas y todos.
Mounir Satouri
Merci beaucoup. Je vais donner la parole maintenant à Clare Ivers pour dix minutes pour présenter le rapport.
Clare Ivers
Great. Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you to the subcommittee for the opportunity to present the findings from Front Line Defenders' Global Analysis for 2025. We have some slides during the course of my presentation which highlight some of the statistics from our report covering the last year, which I hope will soon be shown on the screen. If we can move to the next slide, please.
So, Front Line Defenders' Global Analysis presents our assessment of the environment facing human rights defenders worldwide over the course of the previous year. Our findings for 2025 point to a world in which many human rights defenders are continuing to operate in very difficult and often very dangerous environments as they work to promote and protect human rights and support the communities that they serve. We are seeing defenders continuing to operate in a context marked by growing authoritarianism, escalating armed conflict, shrinking civic space, and increasingly, of course, a funding crisis affecting both defenders and the organizations that support them.
And against that backdrop, I will focus today on one of the most serious and irreversible consequences of this hostile environment, which is the killing of human rights defenders documented by the Human Rights Defender Memorial project. Um, so just maybe a few words to explain the Human Rights Defender Memorial. It's a joint initiative of 13 national, regional, and international organizations that's led by Front Line Defenders, which documents the killings of human rights defenders globally.
And this data that we publish is really only possible because of a collaborative nature of work with not only the Human Rights Defender Memorial partners, but also with a wide network of defenders and organizations who support us throughout the case verification process. And for a case to be considered and included in the Memorial, there must be evidence linking the individual's human rights work to their killing. And also the figures I present today will represent the documented and verified cases, but there are many other cases which I will touch on that we are still looking to verify over the course of the past year. Um, as you will see from this slide, the project documented at least 358 human rights defenders killed across 28 countries last year.
And it's really a figure that no one working in this field ever wants to see remain so high year after year, but the figures this year largely mirror what we saw in 2024. Behind the figures, of course, they're not just statistics, they're hundreds of individual stories, families, and communities affected by these losses. On pages six to eight of the report, we have listed the names of all the human rights defenders whose killings we verified. You'll see in the report that six human rights defenders are listed as anonymous in the report, and this is at the request of their families and communities due to fears of reprisal.
Unfortunately, even after death, fear remains a reality for many of those closest to human rights defenders around the world. So you'll see from the slide that the Americas once again accounted for the overwhelming majority of documented killings, with 275 killings verified in the region.
Colombia continues to account for a significant proportion of documented killings, and we documented in that country alone 165 killings, really demonstrating the persistent risks faced by human rights defenders working in context affected by violence, by territorial disputes, and of course the presence of multiple armed actors. The continued high numbers also documented in Mexico highlights the persistent risks faced by human rights defenders in that country too, despite years of national and international attention to their protection. You'll also see from the map that the MENA region accounts for 52 killings this year, with 42 killings alone recorded in Gaza. And the number of defenders killed in Gaza really reflects the extraordinary risks faced by human rights defenders working in conflict situations.
As I mentioned from the outset, I should add that this data does not reflect the total number of killings perpetrated last year. There are cases that really are simply impossible to verify or document due to the challenges such as imposition of internet blackouts, suppression of the media or total closure of civic space, particularly in countries and regions subjected to ongoing conflicts. And this includes but is not restricted to or limited to countries such as the DRC, to Ethiopia, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Sudan and China. And if we can move to the next slide, please.
So this slide looks at some of the most targeted areas of human rights defense when it comes to the killing of human rights defenders. And as in previous years, we see that land, environmental, and indigenous rights defenders remain disproportionately represented amongst those killed. This reflects the continued risks faced by communities defending their land, resources, and ways of life, often in situations involving very powerful competing interests. Also amongst the top areas of human rights defense when it comes to killing, almost 10% of human rights defenders killed last year were targeted because of their human rights work in conflict situations. And if we can move to the next slide.
So the next slide will look and take us through a breakdown of the killing of human rights defenders by their gender. So we saw that 297 human rights defenders were men, 50 were women human rights defenders, and 8 defenders were trans and gender non-conforming.
In terms of what we know about the perpetrators of the killings, 159 killings were by unknown perpetrators, 131 killings were by alleged non-state actors, 65 killings were by state actors, and 3 from what we know by family members. And the high number of cases involving unknown perpetrators also highlights really the continuing challenges of impunity and the difficulties associated with investigating attacks against human rights defenders. If we can move to the next slide. The next slide takes us through the nature of threats that we have seen the human rights defenders face prior to their killing. So we saw that at least 64 human rights defenders had received direct and individual threats.
129 defenders killed were targeted in areas where human rights defenders are regularly subjected to threats.
And I should add through our research the majority of human rights defenders who were killed last year, the number is 236, were killed by shootings. The memorial project continues to investigate and verify an additional 119 cases from last year. And again this really illustrates the challenges of documenting attacks against human rights defenders, particularly in contexts affected by conflict, as I've mentioned media restrictions, shrinking space, shrinking civic space, and also where establishing the full circumstances surrounding a killing can take considerable time and effort.
So now looking to what the international community can do, and hopefully we will have an opportunity to discuss this in more detail during the question and answers round. But as the EU is moving to develop its new EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy, we would of course encourage a very strong and visible focus on the protection of human rights defenders. And the findings of the Human Rights Defender Memorial Project really remind us that attacks against defenders rarely begin with the killing itself. They are often preceded by threats, harassment, criminalization, and other warning signs.
And we really do need to see better effective implementation of the EU guidelines on human rights defenders. And this requires proactive engagement by EU delegations and member state embassies, early identification of human rights defenders at risk, and consistent political support and the mobilization of protection measures before situations escalate into violence. The EU possesses one of the world's strongest policy frameworks on human rights defenders, namely through the EU guidelines on human rights defenders adopted well over 20 years ago now.
But the challenge, as the UN Special Rapporteur pointed to, is effective implementation, and from what we've seen over the past years, of course, the political will as well. We do feel that the European Parliament, in particular this subcommittee, has long been one of the strongest voices and political supporters of human rights defenders globally and has played a really important role in scrutinizing how the EU's commitments are translated into very concrete action by the EU institutions and its member states. And right now, we believe that that leadership is needed now more than ever. The Parliament and especially the subcommittee can continue to ensure that attacks against defenders are not forgotten, that accountability remains on the agenda, and that those who continue to defend the rights of others know that they are not alone. Thank you.
Ellis Mathews
Thank you very much, and good morning again. We're very glad to contribute to this important discussion today. I think as we've just heard, the latest findings documented by Front Line Defenders are a stark reminder that killings of human rights defenders remain a global and a deeply entrenched phenomenon, and that these cases are not isolated incidents. They reflect wider patterns of repression, impunity, and shrinking civic space.
And we're obviously very concerned by that and by the persistent pattern of extrajudicial, arbitrary, and unlawful killings of human rights defenders widely documented by civil society, Front Line Defenders being part of that. And human rights defenders must be able to carry out their legitimate work freely and safely online and offline, as the UN Special Rapporteur was saying, without fear of threats, criminalization, transnational repression, arbitrary detention, or enforced disappearance or killing. So what does the EU through the EEAS have to say on this issue? Well, first of all, it's our practice to condemn killings publicly.
That includes attacks and reprisals against human rights defenders and we do this wherever they occur through statements by the High Representative, through the EEAS spokesperson, by the EUSR, the EU's own Special Representative for Human Rights, by EU delegations and in multilateral fora. And we call on all states to protect human rights defenders, to prevent attacks before they happen, to conduct prompt, independent, impartial and effective investigations into alleged killings, to hold both the perpetrators and those ordering or enabling such crimes accountable and to ensure access to justice and remedy for victims and their families. And we also stress that impunity is one of the main drivers of repeated violence.
Where defenders are killed in contexts marked by corruption, conflict, organized crime, land disputes, extractive activities or authoritarian repression, accountability is all the more essential. And so we raise specifically those risks faced by groups that are disproportionately targeted, including as has been outlined in the report, women human rights defenders, environmental and land defenders, indigenous people and defenders working in remote or conflict-affected areas. So that's our policy. And second, what do we do in practice? Well, we work through a combination of political engagement, diplomacy, monitoring, protection and support.
There's a lot of activity through diplomatic action by EU delegations and by member state embassies. So EU delegations and member states monitor cases, they stay in close contact with defenders and civil society, they raise concerns with national authorities, they observe trials where possible, they track restrictions on civic space, and they coordinate local protection responses. And that local presence matters because in many cases, as Claire Ivers was saying, early visible and coordinated diplomatic engagement can reduce risk.
We support through the ProtectDefenders.eu mechanism. And this mechanism provides emergency support to defenders at risk. And that includes temporary relocation. It includes legal support. It includes medical and psychosocial assistance, digital and physical security support, family support in acute situations.
But obviously the mechanism alone is not enough and we have to mobilize all of our tools in combination with one another in a complementary manner. And that leads me on to political and human rights dialogues.
So we do our best consistently to integrate concerns about attacks on human rights defenders into our human rights dialogues, into political consultations and bilateral engagement with partner countries at whatever level. And we call for legal and institutional safeguards, including protection mechanisms, improved witness protection as was also referenced, and stronger prosecution of attacks and the repeal of laws that are used to stigmatize or criminalize defenders or those who support them. And a further dimension would be multilateral action. So this includes at the UN Human Rights Council, at the UN General Assembly, in cooperation with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the relevant UN special procedures, including the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.
And in that context, I'm very glad to greet the new UN SR and to say that engagement between my team and her and her office has already begun. Thirdly, what should we say about the current trends and how to respond? First of all, one of the things that comes out very clearly is that killings rarely occur in isolation. They're preceded by stigmatization, by surveillance, by threats, harassment of various kinds, arbitrary detention, smear campaigns. So prevention means acting on the early warning signs.
Secondly, many killings occur where defenders challenge powerful interests. And so protection can't be looked at only as an emergency response, but it's got to look at structural impunity, at the fight against corruption, against restrictions on civic space and more generally support for the rule of law. Thirdly, online attacks increasingly feed offline violence and they can directly increase the physical risk faced by defenders. And so we treat online and offline protection as interconnected. Fourthly, transnational repression is an increasing concern.
So exile or relocation doesn't always mean safety.
This is a topic that's been raised, I think very usefully, on multiple occasions by the European Parliament. It's a serious challenge to human rights defenders, to civic space and to the international protection system and it requires close cooperation with host states and international partners. And finally to say that accountability is indispensable, so it's not enough to condemn, but the cycle of violence will continue if there's no credible investigation or justice.
So just to conclude, we continue to be committed with our Commission partners to using all available means to support human rights defenders. The European Parliament has long been a strong voice for human rights defenders and we value our parliament, our partnership with the Parliament in this area so that attacks against defenders are not met with silence but with protection, visibility and accountability. And so we're very glad to continue our work with all of the parties represented in today's discussion, whether it be the Parliament, EU member states, UN mechanisms or indeed and above all civil society because they're essential partners for democracy, the rule of law and sustainable development and ultimately peace. Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Merci à vous Monsieur Matthews.
Avant de donner la parole à mes collègues pour leurs interventions, je veux juste signaler que Madame la Rapporteure spéciale ne peut pas rester pour la partie questions-réponses. Alors s'il y a des réflexions, des questions, on pourra lui transmettre, et de toute façon, nous allons renforcer le travail avec son bureau. Donc voilà, il y aura des suites et peut-être des occasions futures. Monsieur Tarquinio.
Marco Tarquinio
Grazie, signor Presidente. Parlo in italiano.
Io sono grato per le sottolineature che sono arrivate oggi e la conferma di un fenomeno che resta globale e che ha dei punti di acutezza straordinaria. Grazie alla dottoressa per averci aiutato a vedere di nuovo una situazione in un paese come quello della Colombia che recentemente questo Parlamento, seguendo una linea delle istituzioni europee, ha definito un paese sicuro.
Io parto da qui e la mia domanda ai rappresentanti al tavolo dei relatori e dei testimoni è proprio riguarda questo. Come si concilia l'azione che in questo Parlamento svolgiamo, che l'Unione Europea attraverso i suoi uffici continua a esercitare, con un'evoluzione delle politiche europee che mette al primo posto il controllo e il blocco dei movimenti delle persone, classificando come sicuri anche paesi che sono l'epicentro di azioni di violenza contro coloro che si oppongono ai regimi pro tempore, che difendono i diritti reali delle comunità sotto scacco? È chiaro dove vado a concludere, no? Questa è un'emergenza che ci riguarda e che riguarda la nostra politica e l'orientamento di tutte le nostre politiche.
Pirkko Adina.
Catarina Vieira
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to our three speakers.
I think it goes without saying, but it should still be said, that we really do see that the right to defend human rights is really under attack and the civic space is shrinking all around the world. And it's really concerning to see the figures that you presented today and to hear the testimonies that you shared, and also especially concerning seeing that impunity continues to be what drives and what continues to perpetrate these cycles of violence against human rights defenders, so many of which are human rights defenders, but also land rights defenders and climate activists and protectors of local communities and indigenous peoples. And there's a very strong link there, both with those issues, but also with issues related to economic interests, which are often at stake and often human rights defenders or land defenders see themselves grasping with.
In that case, I wanted to specifically name the case of Berta Cáceres, whose family continues to seek justice and accountability here in Europe. They were here in Brussels a few days ago. And hers is really a case, a murder that shows the challenges of large-scale development and extractive projects and the consequence that it can have on people that are trying to raise their voices against those issues. And then thank you also for mentioning the growing online repression and digital surveillance and online harassment, also the use of AI, which is more and more causing, as you were saying, not only danger offline but also danger in person. And then I guess my questions to you, first of all, I would like to know, especially regarding this last point, the point on online harassment, on AI, these are new ways to repress.
What tools, what responses can we as European Union, in your view, develop or work on to make sure that online spaces remain safe or become safer for human rights defenders? Secondly, I was wondering, when you showed the image, obviously Central and South America seem to be very much hotspots. Can you explain and elaborate a little bit on why this region is so dangerous for human rights defenders? And then another question related to that is, what about our own responsibility, particularly as European companies that establish businesses or supply chains in these countries and often are linked with these crimes? Can you tell a little bit about the European angle?
And then my last question would be to Mr. Matthews. You spoke a little bit about the EU mechanism, the emergency mechanism to response to acute crisis.
Can you tell us a little bit more of who are the people that we are helping as the European Union, which regions do they come from, more or less which numbers or or what do they seek, how how do we help them in practice when this mechanism is activated? Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Merci, je vais donner la parole maintenant au représentant de la Commission qui est resté, Monsieur Mohamed El Azouzi, vous êtes chef du secteur Droits de l'homme à la DG INTPA, vous avez la parole pour trois minutes.
Mohamed El Azouzi
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much and and I will take the opportunity maybe to answer part of of the question you you raised.
Earlier today we discussed torture and we heard testimony of survivors and now discussing the phenomenon of the growing phenomenon of the extrajudicial killings, both symptoms of growing pressure on human rights. And I would say both as well as was discussed this morning, not an end in itself but also a means to an end to shrink the civic space and prevent civil society organization, human rights defenders to raise their voice and defend their right. We welcome this timely report and indeed the alarming figures underscore the escalating threats faced by those defending rights and freedoms worldwide and serve as a reminder of the importance of our collective work across all the area of our mission.
Here as well like like like earlier this morning a comprehensive approach is is required with a strong focus on protection and the fight against impunity and accountability. Alice mentioned earlier the the ProtectDefenders mechanism which basically provide this multifaceted support to to the most at-risk human rights defender worldwide.
Since the beginning of the initiative in 2015, 97,000 human rights defender have been supported across the world, across the continent. It include those at extreme risk of killings and reprisal. And only in the past year, 90% of those benefiting from the emergency grants component was directed to these human rights defender in the most hostile environment, and 50% of which of this group identified as land, environmental, indigenous people's rights human rights defender.
Through this protection mechanism, we offer through PD.eu a range of services such as support for temporary relocation, shelter initiatives, capacity building initiatives in support of local human rights defender groups, communities and organizations. On top of this mechanism, the PD.eu, note as well that while we have these global initiatives, in some countries, in some EU delegations, there may be local initiatives of protection that are there when the needs are very high. We also support civil society organizations, including media and journalists in the most fragile repressive context to build their capacity and enhance their resilience by improving their physical and digital security. We also support the international institutions with which civil society organizations, human rights defenders collaborate to enhance monitoring and protection of human rights such as OHCHR and ICC.
And as as I was also mentioning earlier this this this morning we have we have our global initiative against impunity for international crime that also covers that also covers extrajudicial killings and forced disappearance which focuses on inclusive survivor-centered justice worldwide with a strong focus on supporting grassroots organization and here again it covers 28 countries across Africa, the Americas, Asia and and the Middle East.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.