Category: MIL-OSI

Source: Amnesty International –

Responding to the tabling of an amendment to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) in Lok Sabha (lower house of the Indian Parliament) that would grant the authorities sweeping new powers over the assets of NGOs that have had their licenses withdrawn, Aakar Patel, Chair of Board at Amnesty International India, said:

“Since coming into force in 2010, the FCRA has been cynically amended and misused to harass, intimidate and censor human rights defenders and NGOs carrying out vital human rights work across India.

“As of 26 March 2026, official data shows that 21,933 organizations had lost their FCRA licenses, depriving them of essential funds and often resulting in their closure or severe restrictions on their activities. Our research has demonstrated that those most impacted are organizations associated with minority rights, right to freedom of expression, environmental rights and climate action.

This amendment would be a blatant abuse of this legislation designed to further crack down on civil society under the pretext of national security.

Aakar Patel, Chair of Board at Amnesty International India

“This amendment would extend these sweeping powers even further. The FCRA already enables the authorities to cancel, suspend or refuse to renew FCRA licenses on arbitrary and vague grounds. These changes would grant them sweeping new powers to create a mechanism to appropriate, manage and dispose of the assets of organizations that have lost their licenses.

“Many organizations are currently litigating in various courts against the cancellation, suspension or non-renewal of their FCRA licenses. This amendment would be a blatant abuse of this legislation designed to further crack down on civil society under the pretext of national security. The Lok Sabha must reject this abusive amendment and uphold the country’s Constitution and international human rights obligations regarding the rights to freedom of expression and association.”

Background

Under the proposed changes, a “designated authority” would take over, manage or dispose of assets created out of foreign funds by an NGO or association, which has had its FCRA registration suspended, cancelled, or not renewed. The Indian government has repeatedly amended the Act to make it more stringent and burdensome for the civil society to carry out their legitimate human rights activities.

In 2024, the Financial Action Task Force found India only “partially compliant” on safeguards for non-profits, warning that measures such as the FCRA risk being misused to restrict legitimate civil society activity, and urged as a priority that they be made risk-based, proportionate, and developed in consultation with the sector. In 2016, the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association warned the Indian government that the FCRA contains overbroad and vague provisions that undermine the right to freedom of association.

Source: Greenpeace Statement –

Plastic is everywhere. It is in the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, and the clothes we wear. These particles have found their way to our blood and organs. Scientists are only beginning to understand the long-term effects of plastics on our health, but many of the chemicals present in plastic are linked to serious health issues such as endocrine disruption, insulin resistance, and decreased reproductive health.

Whether you just watched Plastic Detox on Netflix or because the first signs of summer inspired a good clean, here are five practical ways to detox your home from plastic.

1. Choose your cookware with care

Many everyday kitchen items contain plastic, from spatulas and chopping boards to storage containers and non-stick cookware. A recent report by Greenpeace International shows that plastic food packaging—commonly used for ready meals and takeaways—is exposing us to serious health risks, especially when heated.

You don’t need to replace everything at once. Start with small shifts. Swap plastic cutting boards for wood. Avoid heating food in plastic containers. Reuse glass jars for storage. If you are upgrading cookware, consider stainless steel or cast iron. These changes are manageable and can reduce everyday exposure.

2. Refuse, reuse, refill

Plastic-lined coffee cups, “bioplastic” packaging and cutlery, and even take-out containers labeled as recyclable, can contaminate our food and our bodies with microplastics and chemicals. Refuse what you do not need. Say no to plastic utensils, straws, and anything single-use. Build the habit of bringing reusables like eco bags, tumblers, and food containers. Tell the restaurant or store why it’s a no for you. The more they hear it, the more likely they’ll also make the change.

At home, use what you already have. Regular plates, cups, and utensils work just fine. Sharing containers during gatherings can also help reduce waste.

3. Polyester is just another way of saying plastic

About 60% of material made into clothing is plastic, which includes polyester, acrylic, and nylon. These synthetic textiles can shed microplastics when we wear, use and wash them.

Next time you go (second-hand) shopping, check the label. Choose natural fibers like cotton, linen, or hemp when possible. If you already own synthetic items, you can reduce impact by using specialized laundry bags that catch microfibers or by using and washing them less often.

4. Support zero-waste businesses

Corporations play a major role as producers and users of single-use plastic, but they also have the capacity to shift toward better systems.

More businesses are beginning to recognize that reducing plastic can make sense economically. Research shows that zero-waste approaches can create significantly more jobs compared to systems that rely on burning or dumping waste. This opens space for alternatives that support both livelihoods and sustainability.

In the Philippines, the Philippine Reuse Consortium brings together groups working to expand refill and reuse. Some members include Back to Basics Ecostore in Quezon City and Tingi Station in Baguio City. These stores allow customers to bring their own containers and access products without single-use packaging.

Not everyone has access to a zero-waste store, and that is a reality for many communities. Still, supporting these businesses where possible helps strengthen models that reduce waste at the source. It also sends a signal to larger companies that people are ready for systems built around reuse.

5. Engage your community

Cutting plastic at home can feel limiting, especially when most products are packaged that way before they even reach you. Change becomes stronger when it moves beyond individual action.

Start where you are. Talk to your barangay about waste reduction programs. Support or initiate reuse projects in your community. Encourage nearby stores to offer refill options. Ask your local government to strengthen implementation of existing waste prevention and management laws and invest in systems that prioritize reuse.

There is already proof that this works. Initiatives like Kuha sa Tingi show that refill models can fit into everyday Filipino life. By working with sari-sari stores, the model makes refill accessible within communities people already trust. Results point to repeat use, reduced reliance on sachets, and interest from local governments to expand similar efforts. It shows that reuse can work not only for the environment but also for local economies.

A plastic detox should not rest on people alone. Companies need to shift toward reuse, and governments need to create the conditions for it to scale. This means policies that support small businesses, incentivize stakeholders, and require large companies to move away from single-use plastic.

You can help push this further! Add your name to the petition calling for policies that support reuse and refill systems and reduce plastic production at the source.

Source: Amnesty International –

Saturday 28 March marks seven years since Amara Krumak, Abdalla Bari and Kone Tiemoko Abdul Kader – known as the El Hiblu 3 – were arrested in Malta for opposing their forced return to Libya, where they would be at risk of persecution, torture and other serious human rights violations. For this act of resistance, they were charged with “acts of terrorism” and other offences by the Maltese authorities.

“It is unconscionable that the El Hiblu 3, who survived abuse in Libya, a shipwreck, and an attempted unlawful return, are now facing the prospect of life imprisonment simply for asserting their rights and trying to prevent further harm,” said Dinushika Dissanayake, Amnesty International’s Deputy Regional Director for Europe. 

In March 2019, the three teenagers, (aged 15, 16, 19) fled Libya on a crowded rubber boat alongside 108 others. When the boat began to deflate, they were rescued by the El Hiblu cargo ship, which had been requested by the European Union’s (EU) naval operation in the Mediterranean to assist the vessel in distress.

Following the rescue, the ship’s captain attempted to return those on board to Libya, an act that would have violated international law, which requires rescued persons to be taken to a place of safety. When those onboard realized they were being returned, panic ensued. After they pleaded with the El Hiblu’s captain, with some people saying they’d rather die than return to Libya, the ship turned around and set off for Malta instead.

When the ship arrived in Malta, the Maltese authorities claimed the three youths had taken over the ship by force. They were charged with serious crimes punishable by life in prison under Maltese terrorism legislation, and to this day are still caught in court proceedings that should never have been brought.

No one should be punished for seeking protection

Dinushika Dissanayake, Deputy Regional Director for Europe.

“Libya is not a safe country. By resisting their return, they helped prevent a serious breach of international law which would most likely have resulted in horrible suffering for themselves and many others. No one should be punished for seeking protection. Amnesty International stands in solidarity with Amara, Abdalla and Kone as they endure a seventh year of an unjust legal ordeal.”

A catalogue of failures

Over the past seven years Malta has consistently failed these three young men, two of whom were children at the time of their arrest. The Maltese authorities failed to assess their best interests as children, detained them in a high-security adult prison and subjected them to adult court proceedings.

Amnesty International is also concerned by procedural issues and gaps in the investigation that have further affected the fairness of proceedings, for example, key witnesses never being summoned, including other people who were rescued. Despite the absence of evidence of violence, the authorities have persisted with terrorism-related charges that are unfounded.

“Malta has instituted a catalogue of failures in its handling of this case. These young men have been denied a fair trial and were treated as adults, spending seven years of their youth in legal limbo – time that should have been spent in education, work, and simply growing up free from the shadow of prosecution,” said Dinushika Dissanayake.

Kone is currently in migration detention in the UK and faces extradition to Malta. Amnesty International opposes his extradition as it would return him to a prosecution that should never have been brought.

Growing recognition of injustice

Amnesty International welcomes the recent remarks of four UN independent experts, who in January firmly criticized Malta’s handling of the case and called for the charges to be dropped. They specifically raised concerns about laying charges of “terrorism” which “do not appear to be based on violent or coercive criminal conduct” and the violation of fair trial rights, as well as failures to uphold the rights of the child.

The UN experts also recalled that the EU’s naval operation in the Mediterranean had instructed the El Hiblu on behalf of the Libyan Coast Guard to return the people rescued to Libya, thus directing an unlawful pushback. This is a reminder of the EU’s persistent cooperation with Libya where systematic and widespread violations against refugees and migrants are ongoing with impunity.

Reports of the EU seeking to extend its cooperation on migration and border control with the Libyan Arab Armed Forced (LAAF’s) armed group, the de facto authorities in eastern Libya and southern Libya, are deeply alarming, given the LAAF’s record of involvement in war crimes and other violations of international law.

“As Amnesty International has said from the outset, this case exemplifies all that is fundamentally wrong with European migration policies in the Central Mediterranean. There is a growing recognition that these charges are unjustified and deeply unfair.

“Criminalizing people for seeking protection only prolongs their suffering and compounds their trauma. After seven years, these young men have endured enough. Malta must drop the charges and dismiss this case,” said Dinushika Dissanayake.

Background

On 22 January 2025 the Court of Appeal in Valletta found that Malta has jurisdiction over the case, which must therefore continue to be heard by Malta’s criminal court. The preliminary hearings are ongoing.

For more information see here.

Source: Greenpeace Statement –

While politicians at ICoNE 2026 speak of first-world ambitions, the fishing families of Lake Victoria (who were not adequately & meaningfully consulted) are being asked to stake their livelihoods, their health, and their children’s futures on one of the world’s most dangerous and expensive energy technologies.

This week, President Ruto opened the International Conference on Nuclear Energy (ICoNE 2026) by declaring that fears about nuclear power are not supported by evidence. Siaya Governor James Orengo went further: nuclear energy, he said, is non-negotiable if Kenya wants to be a first-world economy. Greenpeace Africa has a question for both leaders. First-world for whom? Not for the 200,000-plus fishing families on Lake Victoria’s shores who have no idea their lake has been earmarked as a coolant source for a nuclear reactor.

Make no mistake: what is being proposed is the construction of a 2,000 MW nuclear power plant on the banks of Africa’s largest freshwater lake. A lake that feeds millions of people, connects to the Nile, and anchors over 100 globally significant ecosystems stretching across Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania. Nuclear plants require vast quantities of water for cooling (15 to 25 percent more than a coal facility, and even more in Kenya’s tropical heat). That warmed water goes back into the lake. It disrupts fish breeding. It degrades aquatic ecosystems. It crosses borders. And if there is ever a leak, as there has been at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, the contamination of one of Africa’s most vital freshwater systems would be irreversible.

The government calls this progress. We call it a gamble with assets that don’t belong to the state to gamble with.

What makes this worse is how it has been done. Residents in Uyombo, the original coastal site, reported being arrested for asking questions, phones confiscated, movements monitored. In Siaya, communities learned they were the preferred site not through consultation, but through a government conference announcement. The Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment is still a draft. No rights-compliant community process has taken place. And yet Governor Orengo boasts that Siaya has “moved with impressive speed.” Speed, it turns out, is easiest when you don’t stop to ask the people most affected.

“Nuclear power near Lake Victoria is not development – it is displacement dressed up as progress. Communities stand to lose their land, their fisheries, and their livelihoods, while carrying the long-term burden of radioactive waste that will outlast every promise being made at ICoNE this week. Africa and her Africans deserve better than this.”

Shumirai Zizhou, Responsive Campaigner, Greenpeace Africa

The economics are no more reassuring. Kenya already generates close to 90% of its electricity from clean sources: geothermal, wind, solar, and hydro. It is a continental leader. Nuclear adds nothing to the grid for at least eight years, will cost between $2 and $4 billion by optimistic estimates, and will almost certainly run late and over budget if global precedent holds. The cleanup costs of nuclear accidents and centuries of radioactive waste management are routinely excluded from headline cost figures. Kenya has no waste disposal framework. The liability, when it materialises, falls on the public. Meanwhile, ICoNE itself was co-funded by the US government’s FIRST programme and South Korea’s KHNP, entities with direct commercial interests in selling nuclear technology to new markets. Independent scrutiny of this programme is overdue.

Greenpeace Africa demands:

• An immediate suspension of Kenya’s nuclear programme pending a fully independent review, free from commercially interested parties.

• A halt to all site activity near Lake Victoria until free, prior, and informed consent is obtained from communities across Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania.

• A complete, independent ESIA that is publicly accessible, translated into local languages, with genuine participation before any further decisions are taken.

• A redirect of nuclear budgets toward Kenya’s proven clean energy strength: decentralised renewables that deliver energy justice now, not in 2034.

Kenya does not need nuclear power. It needs the political courage to invest in what is already working. The fishing families of Luanda Kotieno did not ask to be part of this experiment. They deserve a government that treats their lake, their livelihoods, and their consent as non-negotiable, not as obstacles to be managed on the way to a first-world photo opportunity.

ENDS

For media inquiries:

Sherie Gakii, Communications and Storytelling Manager, Greenpeace Africa, [email protected]  |  +254702776749

Source: Amnesty International –

In 2024, a Belgium court ordered the government to pay reparations to five ‘Metis’ women, born of an African mother and a European father between 1948 and 1952, who were kidnapped from their mothers during the colonial-era in Belgian Congo. 

It was a historic ruling and Jehosheba Bennett was one of the lawyers who represented the women. Born in French Guiana, which since 1946 became integrated into the French Republic as an “overseas territory”, Jehosheba moved to France when she was four. Affected by the systemic racism her family faced, she wanted to find a way to change things for the better.

Now an international criminal lawyer, living in Belgium, Jehosheba works on cases that address historical colonial crimes. In this piece, Jehosheba shares what working on the Metis case meant to her and why reparations are still relevant in today…

When I moved to France, I remember learning about the history of slavery at school. I spent my early childhood in French Guiana – a colonised country. However, it was clear the impacts of racism were still being felt, especially in countries across Europe.

I lived in a neighbourhood alongside people of African and Arab descent. However, we faced a lot of systemic racism. My brother, who was just 10 at time, was often targeted and beaten by the police.

I was shocked by how we were being treated and I wanted to find a way to change things. I was torn between a career in art or law – but I thought it would be more useful to learn how the world worked, so I could change it.  

Abducted from their mothers

I am now a lawyer, focusing on cases involving violence against women, and colonial wrongs and reparations. Most recently, I worked on a groundbreaking case, involving five Métis women – children born to European fathers and African mothers – who took Belgium to court for colonial kidnappings.

When my law firm took on the case, we asked the women to share their stories. It was the first time they’d been asked to relive their experience with someone who wasn’t from their community. It was a big deal.

The stories of Marie-Josée Loshi, Noëlle Verbeken, Léa Tavares Mujinga, Simone Ngalula and Monique Bintu Bingi from the Democratic Republic of Congo were all very similar – between the ages of two and five, they were snatched from their mothers and sent to live in a Catholic mission hundreds of kilometres from their home.

Public servants working for the Belgian colony were tasked with identifying any mixed-race children, who they would kidnap and take to the Commission of Tutorship.

Jehosheba Bennett

At the time, public servants working for the Belgian colony were tasked with identifying any mixed-race children, who they would kidnap and take to the Commission of Tutorship. The commission had the power to consider them abandoned even though they weren’t. From there, they were taken to the Catholic mission to live.

The young African mothers, many of whom were just 15, couldn’t oppose the public servants – they were threatened, forced to sign papers they couldn’t understand and told if they didn’t hand over their children, they of their family members would be put in jail.

Many of these Metis children were put in missions over 500 kilometres from home. The young mothers would try and visit their children, but they weren’t allowed to stay, so they would sleep in the village just to stay for an hour or two.

It was an awful situation. While the children were in the mission, they were forced to speak a different dialect, attend a village school, where they couldn’t understand the teacher, and they faced discrimination because they were Metis – or seen as white.

Even though they were raised by sisters, they weren’t baptised as they were “children of sin”. Instead, they were insulted, beaten and treated as bad seeds. There was a total absence of care, attention and love.

A web of lies

I learnt how it was common practice for Belgian colonial public servants to have more than one woman. These young mothers were seen as concubines. They birthed the children, breastfed them, and then they were taken away. The women told us how they grew up thinking their mothers were sex workers and their father was unknown – although it was all untrue.

When Marie-Josée, Noëlle, Léa, Simone and Monique spoke, it was so powerful. They didn’t prepare what to say. It wasn’t constructed, but it was clear the life they’d been forced to live was awful and unjustifiable. They showed me a file with documents from the Catholic mission that had shed light on their past.

© Private

I started looking through it. I found letters from the sisters to the governors saying they didn’t have the space to accept these children, but government said they had to.

I also discovered a book with the women’s original names, along with the names of their fathers and mothers. From there, the children were given a new name and birth document. Under father, it stated “unknown”… As I learnt more about their stories, it became clear that this was a case of systemic organization of the segregation of these children.

Crimes against humanity

I worked on the case alongside three other lawyers. We knew it wouldn’t be straightforward. The first time we took Belgium to court, in 2021, we were told crimes against humanity were only applicable to those that had taken place during World War Two. It was deeply racist, as they were essentially saying we don’t include Africans in our definition of humanity – but surely humanity means everyone.

We appealed as we knew we had a case. A few years earlier the Belgian government had publicly said discrimination against Metis children was a violation of humanity, yet the courts were saying something else. It was incredibly hypocritical and further validated our case.

We appealed again in 2024. When we received the verdict – Belgium was guilty of crimes against humanity for the abduction and systematic racial segregation of Métis children under Belgian colonial rule – we screamed, laughed and cried. We couldn’t believe our work had finally paid off.

We wanted to celebrate these brave women who became sisters by chance. They were witness to the whole trial, listening to the lawyers denying what they went through. Yet, they remained strong and powerful throughout. They spent their whole life not knowing their past. They didn’t have a family link and were torn away from their mothers and fathers. It was a real break in their construction. They didn’t have any roots; it was as though history had erased their right to exist.

Racism is the root of colonialism

This case needs to serve as a turning point when it comes to addressing colonial wrongs. If we don’t address colonialism, we will nevertackle racism. Racism has its roots in the ignorance of what happened in the past. And if we ignore what happened and don’t ask for reparations, things will never change – all non-white people will still be treated as less human. That’s the reality.

Until European governments offer reparations to those who suffered, there will be an imbalance in equity across the world.  

Jehosheba Bennett

Western countries benefitted from slavery, colonialism and neo colonialism, and it continues today. Until European governments offer reparations to those who suffered, there will be an imbalance in equity across the world.  

It’s not a story of money, but it’s a story of equity and asking for equality. After all, how can you have equality if you don’t offer to repair the crime – it’s what we teach our children every day. It should be the same for States.

This piece was originally published by La Libre.

In our series, Voices of Reparatory Justice, we speak with artists, activists and leaders who share their stories of repair and resilience in fighting against the negative impacts of historical injustices, slavery, and colonialism.  Despite existential challenges, their journey to secure dignity and rights of racialised groups, restores hopes for our collective future, humanity must always prevail. This is one of those stories. Find out more about our work.

Source: Amnesty International –

Reacting to the news that the family and lawyer of Nikita Zhuravel, who was sentenced in 2024 to 14 years’ imprisonment for “high treason”, “insulting religious feelings” and “hooliganism committed with religious hatred,” have raised concerns about his disappearance while being transferred to a penal colony, Marie Struthers, Amnesty International’s Eastern Europe and Central Asia Director, said:

“Russian authorities must urgently disclose the fate and whereabouts of Nikita Zhuravel and ensure his immediate contact with his lawyer and family. A person vanishing within the state penitentiary system for months amounts to enforced disappearance.

A person vanishing within the state penitentiary system for months amounts to enforced disappearance

Marie Struthers, Amnesty International’s Eastern Europe and Central Asia Director

“Nikita Zhuravel already experienced petrifying levels of lawlessness at the hands of the authorities, when he was detained and arbitrarily transferred to Chechnya after allegedly burning the Quran. Once there, he was brutally physically assaulted on video by the son of regional leader Ramzan Kadyrov. This assault was widely reported yet manifestly ignored by the federal investigation authorities.

“Аdding to this horror and injustice, Nikita Zhuravel’s initial sentence of three-and-a-half years was significantly extended after he was found guilty of ‘treason’ for alleged cooperation with the secret services of Ukraine. Against this backdrop, his enforced disappearance means that his life and health may be at risk.”

Background

Nikita Zhuravel’s family last heard from the 22-year-old on 24 December 2025, when they got a letter while he was transferred from Moscow to a penal colony in Ulyanovsk, Central Russia.

Originally from Sevastopol in Russia-occupied Crimea, Zhuravel was detained on 20 May 2023 in Volgograd where he was living with his family. His arrest came a day after a video showing the burning a Quran in front of a mosque in Volgograd appeared online. He reportedly admitted guilt, stating that he had acted on instructions from an individual he believed to be a representative of Ukraine’s security services, in exchange for 10,000 rubles (approximately US$ 130).

In apparent violation of jurisdictional rules, he was transferred for trial to the Chechen Republic, where he was beaten in detention by Adam Kadyrov, the then 15-year-old son of Ramzan Kadyrov. Footage of the assault was later published online by Ramzan Kadyrov himself, who praised his son’s actions.

On 27 February 2024, the Visaitovsky District Court of Grozny found Nikita Zhuravel guilty of “insulting the feelings of believers” (Article 148(2) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and “hooliganism committed on the grounds of religious hatred” (Article 213(2)) and sentenced him to 3.5 years of imprisonment in a penal colony. On 25 November 2024, the Volgograd Oblast Court increased his prison term to 14 years after finding him guilty of “high treason” (Article 275) for allegedly having “proactively offered cooperation to a representative of the Ukrainian Security Service” by sharing video footage of military transport.

Source: Amnesty International –

Responding to a US jury finding that Meta and YouTube were liable for designing platforms that are harmful to children and young people, Erika Guevara-Rosas, Amnesty International’s Senior Director of Research, Advocacy, Policy and Campaigns, said: 

“This damning verdict is a landmark moment in recognizing the harm caused by tech giants in the manipulative designs of their social media platforms. For years, social media companies including Meta and YouTube have profited from targeting children and young people with addictive design features that prioritize engagement over wellbeing. They have deliberately built into their platforms features such as infinite scroll, autoplay, and persistent notifications that are engineered to ‘hook’ young users into compulsive use. 

“The toxic impact of these unsafe design features was laid bare during the trial when 20-year-old KGM told the court in Los Angeles how she began using YouTube at just six and Instagram at nine. She described being online ‘all day long’ as a child. Over time, her compulsive use of these social media platforms intensified, leaving her struggling with addiction and deepening depression. 

“This court decision is clear: these platforms are unsafe by design and meaningful change is urgently needed. 

Erika Guevara-Rosas, Amnesty International’s Senior Director of Research, Advocacy, Policy and Campaigns

“Rather than using blunt tools like banning young teens from social media, states must require a fundamental overhaul of how these platforms operate, including addressing their addictive design. This is the only path to a truly safe social media.” 

Background 
 
Delivering the landmark judgement in KGM’s case, jurors said Meta and YouTube were negligent and ordered them to pay $6 million in damages. Meta and Google have both both stated separately that they disagree with the verdict and will appeal.  

Snap, the owner of Snapchat and TikTok were initially part of the case, but both companies reached a settlement before trial. 

The ruling could influence a raft of other cases accusing social media companies of causing children and young people harm. 
 
In a separate case in New Mexico, a jury also found Meta liable for harms to the mental health and safety of children in the state and ordered it to pay a hefty fine though Meta has indicated that it will appeal the decision. 

Source: Amnesty International –

Responding to the European Parliament’s vote on its position on the European Union (EU) Return Regulation today, Eve Geddie, Director of Amnesty International’s European Institutions Office, said:

“Today the European Parliament has voted to expand the EU’s punitive and restrictive detention and deportation plans. This agreement – the result of a collaboration between the European People’s Party and political groups that support anti-migration policies – was rushed through negotiations without adequate scrutiny or meaningful human rights assessments.

“This marks a growing trend towards increasingly harmful, exclusionary, and draconian policies on migration, with worrying repercussions for due process and evidence-based policymaking. Far from reducing irregularity, these proposals risk trapping more people in precarious situations.

“Today, the European Parliament has voted to ramp up disproportionate requirements, sanctions and restrictions on people issued with a return decision, and to vastly expand its use of detention and for far longer periods, falling short of international legal standards.

“People will also risk being sent to ‘return hubs’ – offshore detention centres – in countries where they have never set foot. Amnesty International is unequivocal: return hubs carry grave risks of rights violations, cannot be implemented in a human rights compliant manner, and should be rejected in full.”

Background

The European Commission presented a proposal for a Return Regulation to replace the existing Return Directive in March 2025. In December 2025, Amnesty International warned that the European Council’s negotiating position on this proposal entailed “unprecedented detention, sanctions, and stripping of rights based on migration status.”

On 9 March 2026, the European Parliament’s Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) Committee adopted its position on the Return Regulation. This followed rushed negotiations and votes on two different texts, including an alternative compromise by the European People’s Party with support from the European Conservatives and Reformists, Europe of Sovereign Nations and Patriots for Europe. It was this text that both received the LIBE Committee’s final support and was endorsed today as Parliament’s negotiating position on the reform.

Today’s vote paves the way for trilogue negotiations with the Council before the Regulation can be formally adopted. These are expected to advance quickly.

For further information please see:

Joint statement over 200 civil society organizations calling for deportation rules to be rejected

Source: Amnesty International –

BANGKOK, Thailand (26 March 2026) – We, the undersigned human rights organizations and networks, urge members of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) to continue to push for meaningful reforms at the National Human Rights Commission of India (NHRCI) ahead of GANHRI’s Annual Meeting in Geneva from 30 March to 1 April 2026.

In March 2025, GANHRI’s Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA) recommended a downgrade to NHRCI’s status from “A” to “B,” citing concerns over its ability to function independently. GANHRI gave the NHRCI a year to act upon the recommendations before it made a final decision. The NHRCI challenged the downgrade recommendation, but the appeal was rejected by the GANHRI Bureau, referring the matter back to the SCA. Under the original timeline, SCA was supposed to make a final decision in April 2026, however, it has now been postponed to November 2026.

NHRCI should use this time to undertake meaningful reforms to ensure compliance with the Paris Principles, the international minimum standards for effective, independent and transparent national human rights institutions.

The SCA first formally raised its concerns in 2011 and reiterated them in 2016, 2017, 2023, and 2024, then deferred NHRCI’s re-accreditation for two consecutive years, in 2023 and 2024.

GANHRI members should ensure continued scrutiny over the NHRCI’s persistent failures in addressing SCA’s longstanding recommendations as outlined below:

1. Conflict of interest in investigations

Concerns over the NHRCI’s reliance on police officers seconded from the government to conduct investigations remain unaddressed, particularly in cases involving alleged police abuses. This practice creates conflicts of interest, undermining impartiality and victims’ trust in the Commission. Despite consistent recommendations since 2017, the NHRCI has failed to diversify its investigative staff to include independent experts such as human rights investigators, forensic specialists, and legal professionals.

2. Lack of pluralism in leadership and staff

The NHRCI continues to fall short of the Paris Principles’ requirements on pluralism. Its composition lacks representation, with limited gender diversity and inadequate inclusion of minority perspectives. Key positions have remained vacant for extended periods, including seats reserved for civil society representation.

3. Opaque leadership appointments

The process for appointing the NHRCI’s Chairperson, members, and senior staff lacks transparency and meaningful public participation. The continued appointment of senior officials with close ties to the government, including the Secretary General, raises serious concerns over independence. Despite repeated SCA recommendations, vacancies are neither publicly advertised nor subject to open and merit-based selection processes, reinforcing a lack of independence and pluralism.

4. Inadequate response to shrinking civic space and reprisals against human rights defenders

The NHRCI has failed to effectively respond to the ever-deteriorating human rights environment in India, including increasing restrictions on freedom of expression, the misuse of repressive laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and reprisals against human rights defenders.

Despite receiving communications from United Nations Special Rapporteurs, the NHRCI has remained silent on emblematic cases, such as the illegal detention of refugees and asylum seekers from Myanmar. In other instances—including the case of Adivasi women human rights defender Suneetha Pottam—the NHRCI dismissed complaints on procedural grounds, such as pending judicial proceedings, rather than being pursued through independent inquiry.

More broadly, the Commission has failed to address patterns of repression, including the prolonged detention without trial—under the UAPA—of human rights defenders Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Ibrahim Dafadar, and Khurram Parvez. Similarly, despite rising attacks and harassment against journalists—including Rana Ayyub, Rajdeep Sardesai, Ravish Kumar, Mohammed Zubair, Arfa Khanum Sherwani, Mahesh Langa, and Prabir Purkayastha—the Commission has failed to respond to the broader pattern of intimidation and intervene beyond isolated cases.

In addition, the NHRCI has not exercised its visitation mandate to assess detention conditions and provide protection. These inactions reflect a systemic failure to address shrinking civic space and reprisals against dissenting voices.

5. Limited and selective engagement with civil society

The NHRCI’s engagement with civil society organizations (CSOs) remains limited and selective, as it largely interacts with a narrow group of actors while excluding defenders and organizations critical of its performance.

Such exclusions of independent and diverse CSOs negatively impact the NHRCI’s ability to adequately and independently address human rights violations.

For example, during the crisis in Manipur, the NHRCI failed to engage with independent civil society actors despite the availability of credible fact-finding reports, including those produced by the People’s Union of Civil Liberties alongside jurists and human rights defenders. The Commission neither consulted these actors nor facilitated a broader public dialogue, undermining its mandate for cooperative and participatory engagement.

Similarly, the NHRCI has neither engaged with civil society groups that contributed to critical reports submitted to the SCA, nor has it initiated transparent consultations on implementing the SCA’s recommendations.  Such useful engagements could have facilitated constructive dialogues that could have paved the way to concrete improvements of the NHRCI’s performance.

6. Silence on systemic human rights violations

Despite longstanding recommendations, the NHRCI has not consistently or proactively addressed serious human rights violations. It has remained largely silent on systemic issues raised by international bodies, including concerns highlighted by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination regarding forced evictions of indigenous communities, illegal detentions in Assam, and extrajudicial killings of Adivasi people in Bastar, Chhattisgarh. The NHRCI has not taken suo motu cognizance of these issues nor publicly articulated its position.

The Commission has failed to address widespread violations and systemic discrimination against minorities, including violent attacks, killings, and unlawful demolitions.

It has remained silent on the passage of new laws and regulations, such as the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, and Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, that could further enable state surveillance and undermine privacy and the right to freedom of expression.

CSOs have routinely raised concerns over the NHRCI’s inconsistencies and ineffectiveness in addressing serious human rights violations. As an example, most complaints have been routinely dismissed at the early stages of filing, often without detailed investigations. All these undermine the Commission’s mandate and compliance with the Paris Principles. 

Concerns regarding NHRCI’s remarks on the Paris Principles

We are deeply concerned over the recent suggestions of the NHRCI Chairperson—a member of the GANHRI Bureau—to “overhaul” or “revamp” the Paris Principles, the global standard for ensuring the independence and efficiency of national human rights institutions.

Overhauling the Paris Principles risks weakening human rights protections and eroding trust in an international system designed to hold NHRIs accountable.

The NHRCI Chairperson questioned the relevance of the Paris Principles, suggesting that they focus primarily on the “cosmetic” aspects of institutional design—such as formal structures and the issuance of public statements—rather than ensuring substantive effectiveness.

Such remarks risk undermining the foundational role of the Paris Principles, which were specifically developed to guarantee the independence, credibility, and functional effectiveness of national human rights institutions. Framing these standards as merely procedural overlooks their critical function in safeguarding institutional integrity and enabling these institutions to operate in line with international human rights norms.

The NHRCI Chairperson’s further suggestion to replace GANHRI as the international body overseeing the accreditation process is self-serving and alarming. Such a move risks undermining the independence and credibility of the accreditation system and weakening accountability for compliance with international standards.

Call to action

We urge GANHRI Members, especially the Bureau and the SCA, to:

1. Reaffirm the centrality and integrity of the Paris Principles;
2. Reject any attempts to weaken or reinterpret these standards in ways that compromise independence;
3. Continue to apply rigorous, consistent, and transparent accreditation processes.

We also call on the NHRCI to use the months ahead to strengthen its compliance with the Paris Principles. We urge the Commission to:

1. Act on the SCA’s longstanding recommendations without further delay;
2. Meaningfully consult with diverse and independent civil society actors beyond its existing CSO networks;
3. Ensure that reform efforts are participatory and transparent, in consultation with parliamentarians, civil society, and human rights defenders across the country.

The credibility of GANHRI’s accreditation system depends on the consistent application of its standards and the willingness of its Members to uphold them without exception. Continued principled scrutiny is essential to safeguarding the integrity of NHRIs globally.

We thank GANHRI Members for their continued commitment to strengthening independent NHRIs. We are ready to support all efforts that advance accountability, transparency, and genuine reform.

Sincerely,

Amnesty International

The All India Network of NGOs and Individuals working with National and State Human Rights Institutions (AiNNi)

The Asian NGO Network on National Human Rights Institutions (ANNI)

Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)

CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation

Front Line Defenders (FLD)

Human Rights Watch

The International Coalition against Enforced Disappearances (ICAED)

International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)

International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)

World Organisation against Torture (OMCT)