Media in exile: Eurasia’s last vestiges of freedom of expression

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Journalists Erdem Gül and Can Dündar (Photo: Bianet)

Can Dündar, editor-in-chief of Cumhuriyyet, one of Turkey’s most popular newspapers, was awaiting an appeal on his case in Turkey from Germany when the news of the coup d’etat in his homeland came. Scores of arrests followed, and his lawyer advised that Dündar, who had just narrowly escaped an assassination attempt in May 2016 outside a courtroom and was facing over five years in prison for allegedly leaking state secrets, stay in Germany.

He recalls that it was the hardest decision in his life, 40 years of which he had devoted to working as a journalist in Turkey.

“I thought it was impossible to go back, decided to stay and work from Germany, and about a year ago I with a small team started a media organization here, Özgürüz.”

When it’s time to leave

As shocking as Dündar’s story is, it is hardly unusual in the Eurasian region, where, according to International Media Support, there was a steady decline in freedom of expression in Eurasia since 2011. While for years the Committee to Protect Journalists named Turkey the biggest jailer of journalists globally, there are other nations competing for this dubious title.

For some journalists, the alternative to being jailed is an exile. According to Yavuz Baydar, chief editor of Ahval Online, a Turkey-oriented news site based in Germany, “That’s an inevitable result of oppression in any country because as long as the conventional media are suffocated and put under the yoke of the powers, it leaves journalists with no other choice than leaving the profession altogether or moving abroad.”

However, only a select few survive the shock and reemerge as viable journalists continuing to work in exile.

Some of the most successful examples of the media in exile emerged from the region and operating in the more permissive environment of Western Europe, according to Jens Uwe Thomas with RSF Germany, are Meduza, Amurburg and Spektr, Russia-oriented news portals, as well as MeydanTV, an Azerbaijani multimedia outlet in exile, Dündar’s Özgürüz and Baydar’s Ahval Online.

Challenges of exile

Thomas says that upon settling in exile, the first step for the journalists is usually to legalize their status, and then they start looking for opportunities to establish their outlets.

“The most important thing is to support these media abroad in terms of their registration,” says Bektour Iskander, editor of Kyrgyz media Kloop, who monitors exiled media and is in the process of creating a digital resources kit for them, adding that oftentimes, the media can’t relocate abroad due to lack of financial resources or visas.

“In 2010 we were threatened by the special services because of our investigative reporting about the son of president Bakiyev [of Kyrgyzstan]. But we had no opportunity to leave the country. Only now I realize that we were facing scary consequences, even assassination. We were so clueless as to how to do that, or find the resources for that, we were saved by the miracle, a revolution happened in the country and the threat disappeared,” he recalls.

One common thread for these media across the board is that while their editorial teams operate in exile, they have networks of journalists working for them from inside their home country, says Thomas, adding that secure communication and creating collaborative work environment in such circumstances is often a challenge.

“Those are operating under the great risks, which causes a lot of hurdles and obstacles for continuity and consistency in the content quality,” Baydar adds. MeydanTV founder Emin Milli agrees, “Unfortunately, journalists and their family members are under pressure. The ones who work with us have been attacked, some tortured. Some parents of theirs were fired”. Galima Bukhabrayeva, former editor of exiled Uznews web site that was allegedly hacked by the Uzbek government and is now defunct, says: “In our case, the best journalists in Uzbekistan worked with us, because in our case it wasn’t enough to be a journalist, one had to be a patriot and a citizen, and a brave person, at that.”

But the relocation doesn’t always pose a challenge, says Aleksandr Kushnar, editor of Russian exiled media Amurburg. Commenting on the success of Meduza, he says, “It makes more sense for them to be located where they are for the reasons of safety of the editorial staff [because] their geographic location doesn’t affect the quality of their content.”

Uniformly, the exiled media representatives bemoan the perception in their home countries that these media lack the situational awareness on the ground. One example of successfully solving this challenge is MeydanTV, says Iskander, adding that “they encourage citizen journalism, their readers [are] often involved in the content creation, they send photos, videos, materials.”

Another challenge all of the exiled media managers interviewed for this article cite is the lack of funding, which poses a constant problem on the back of everybody’s mind. What complicates things for the managers of these outlets is the stipulation set forward by the international donors that the medium be located in-country in order to satisfy the funding criteria, which is impossible to abide by for those operating in exile.

Silver linings

But not all is hopeless for the uprooted journalists and media managers, and alongside obvious challenges, there are reasons for cautious optimism. There are quite a few success stories among the outlets who learned to capitalise on the advantages of operating from free environments.  

Kushnar says attaining success is very difficult in reality, and he attributes it to the issues of funding, resources and teams. Speaking of the outlets, he says that  “Their capabilities are seriously restricted. Oftentimes, they cannot compete with the leading news agencies that are funded very generously. We all know very well how RT is funded all over the world. The goal for these media is to identify the niches where they still can get in and tell the truth. It’s very difficult when pro-Kremlin outlets have an audience of 40 million, and your budget is a thousand times smaller.”

The upsides are quite self-evident, according to Anton Lysenkov, editor of Latvia-based Spektr: “Our situation is beneficial. We are not subjected to constant audits and provocations. Our work environment is much more peaceful. I admire those who continue to work from Russia, and we are trying to help them,” he adds.

According to Baydar, “The upside is you can see everything with a bird’s eye, in a free domain, analyse things much more clearly in a macro way which gives a lot of advantages to focus on the main areas that need to be covered.”

Some media in exile not only survive, but they manage to thrive and even increase their audiences, like Meduza. “They have millions of unique visitors a month, and it’s been rising year to year. They’re  trusted,” says Milli. “They can work freely in Russia and come and go as they please. They’re a successful model.”

Galina Timchenko, Meduza’s editor-in-chief, cannot attribute the success of her outfit to any one strategy: “Unfortunately, there are no long-term plans and effective strategies for success in the current political climate. So far, we are not considering the possibility of moving to Russia because we cannot remain oblivious to the rising risks in that case. The media market in Russia is almost completely controlled by the state, and we don’t see a place for ourselves within such a market in the short term perspective,” she adds.

Preserving and rehearsing for the return

But what is the purpose of the media in exile and what is their end game?

While Kushnar says, exiled media preserve the freedom of the press in a dictatorship, Lysenkov adds that their goal is to supply the population with propaganda-free and less emotionally-charged content. Milli sees the enormous power of the free media to change the society for the better. “People have big hopes and need this, too. That’s why we keep working”.

Others see their ultimate goal as return home. Iskander cautions that “when a dictatorship in their home country comes to an end and [the media in exile] return home, their ratings start falling sharply. Because the credit of trust has been disintegrating, because the rhetoric could change from “at least someone is trying to do some good, even if it is from abroad” to “where have you been all these years while we were suffering?”

Despite such dangers, Bukharbayeva says, the ultimate goal of the exiled media is the return home. She points out that one loses focus and ability to write accurately when unable to visit their home country for over a decade, but “exiled media cannot exist indefinitely, and we must try to return because the time has come.”

Dündar, who has also started publishing a print magazine and opened a publishing house, is looking into opening a TV channel. He says his team’s current work is like a rehearsal in preparations for the future.

“It’s impossible to be in Turkey. But like the German Jews in WWII [who] came to Turkey, rehearsed there, came up with new ideas, and then went back to Germany after the war, we, Turks, are rehearsing and preparing for a better day in Turkey to return there”. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”10″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1523289736466-bd3f6e90-fdac-9″ taxonomies=”8607″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Chechnya: Immediately release human rights defender Oyub Titiev

Oyub Titiev

Oyub Titiev

We, members of the Civic Solidarity Platform (CSP), are deeply concerned at reports of the arrest of Oyub Titiev, head of Human Rights Center Memorial’s Grozny office in Chechnya on highly dubious narcotics charges. We call for his immediate and unconditional release and dropping of all charges.

Titiev is highly respected in the international human rights community, as well as in the North Caucasus, where he is part of a small group of brave human rights defenders still working to uncover and document grave ongoing human rights violations. Titiev has led Memorial’s work in Chechnya since the horrific murder of his colleague Natalia Estemirova in 2009. In recent years, he received numerous threats aimed at making him quit human rights work. Now, his life and safety are in jeopardy.

According to reports, Oyub Titiev was brought to the Kurchaloi district police department shortly after his car was stopped and searched near the Khymuk bridge around 10:30 am on Tuesday 9 January. Titiev’s lawyer has been informed that he is being charged with the illegal possession of drugs, reportedly a large amount (180 grams) of marijuana.

Similar trumped-up charges have previously led to several years’ imprisonment for activists and independent journalists in Chechnya. Framing people for drug crimes has become an increasingly frequent tactic used by Chechnya’s authorities to punish and discredit their critics in the eyes of Chechen society.

The Civic Solidarity Platform is a network of more than 90 human rights organizations working across the OSCE region. We consider the suggestion that a highly experienced human rights defender such as 60 year-old Oyub Titiev would travel around Chechnya with any amount of drugs in his car to be absurd, and to be evidence only of the tactics employed by Chechen authorities against principled and hard-working human rights defenders. We believe Chechen authorities are seeking to frame Titiev and close down the extremely important work of Human Rights Center Memorial in the region by means of threats and harassment.

Russia is under an obligation to respect and enable the work of human rights defenders. An important resolution in the UN General Assembly – adopted by consensus on 24 December 2017 – “Calls upon States to take concrete steps to prevent and put an end to arbitrary arrest and detention, including of human rights defenders, and in this regard strongly urges the release of persons detained or imprisoned, in violation of the obligations and commitments of States under international human rights law, for exercising their human rights and fundamental freedoms, such as the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, including in relation to cooperation with the United Nations or other international mechanisms in the area of human rights”.

The undersigned members of the Civic Solidarity Platform call on Chechen authorities as well as central Russian authorities to immediately release Oyub Titiev and stop his persecution as we believe that he is being punished solely in retaliation for his legitimate and peaceful human rights work. Furthermore, we call on authorities to ensure the safety of Memorial staff in Chechnya. Furthermore, we call on authorities not to hinder but to assist brave individuals such as Titiev in their work to uncover grave human rights violations in the North Caucasus region.

We call on international organizations and foreign governments to follow Titiev’s case closely and to bring our concerns to the attention of the authorities in the Russian Federation. Russia must abide by its international human rights obligations and OSCE commitments.

Signed:

  1. Advisory Centre on contemporary international practices and their implementation in law ”Human Constanta” (Belarus)
  2. Albanian Helsinki Committee (Albania)
  3. Article 19 (United Kingdom)
  4. Association UMPDL (Ukraine)
  5. Barys Zvozskau Belarusian Human Rights House (Lithuania)
  6. Belarusian Helsinki Committee (Belarus)
  7. Bir Duino (Kyrgyzstan)
  8. Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (Bulgaria)
  9. Center for Civil Liberties (Ukraine)
  10. Center for Participation and Development (Georgia)
  11. Center for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights (Russia)
  12. Centre de la Protection Internationale (France)
  13. Citizens’ Watch (Russia)
  14. Committee Against Torture (Russia)
  15. Crude Accountability (USA)
  16. Freedom Files (Poland/Russia)
  17. Georgian Centre for Psychosocial and Medical Rehabilitation of Torture Victims-GCRT (Georgia)
  18. German-Russian Exchange (Germany)
  19. Helsinki Association Armenia (Armenia)
  20. Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly-Vanadzor (Armenia)
  21. Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia (Serbia)
  22. Helsinki Committee of Armenia (Armenia)
  23. Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (Poland)
  24. Human Rights Center of Azerbaijan (Azerbaijan)
  25. Human Rights Center “Viasna” (Belarus)
  26. Human Rights Club (Azerbaijan)
  27. Human Rights Matter (Germany)
  28. Human Rights Monitoring Institute (Lithuania)
  29. IDP Women Association Consent (Georgia)
  30. Index on Censorship (United Kingdom)
  31. Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety (Azerbaijan)
  32. International Partnership for Human Rights (Belgium)
  33. International Protection Center (Russia)
  34. Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law (Kazakhstan)
  35. Kharkiv Regional Foundation Public Alternative (Ukraine)
  36. Legal Transformation Center (Belarus)
  37. Macedonian Helsinki Committee (Macedonia)
  38. Moscow Helsinki Group (Russia)
  39. Netherlands Helsinki Committee (Netherlands)
  40. Norwegian Helsinki Committee (Norway)
  41. Notabene (Tajikistan)
  42. OMCT – World Organisation Against Torture (Switzerland)
  43. Office of Civil Freedoms (Tajikistan)
  44. Promo LEX Association (Moldova)
  45. Protection of Rights Without Borders (Armenia)
  46. Public Association Dignity (Kazakhstan)
  47. Public Verdict (Russia)
  48. Regional Center for Strategic Studies (Azerbaijan/Georgia)
  49. Solidarus (Germany)
  50. Truth Hounds (Ukraine)
  51. Women of the Don (Russia)

58 NGOs support motion for dismissal of PACE president Pedro Agramunt

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Pedro Agramunt

Pedro Agramunt. Credit: European People’s Party/Flickr

Update: On 6 October 2017, Pedro Agramunt announced his resignation as President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE).

We, members of the NGO coalition the Civic Solidarity Platform (CSP) and other NGOs across Europe, welcome the recent motion for dismissal of the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) Pedro Agramunt put forward by 158 members of the Assembly. We urge all its members to support this motion at the forthcoming session of the Assembly on 9 October 2017.

The no-confidence motion marks a historic opportunity to start the process of rebuilding PACE’s reputation as a defender of human rights and the rule of law.The Assembly has, for far too long, tolerated unethical and corrupt behaviour by some of its members,

The Assembly has, for far too long, tolerated unethical and corrupt behaviour by some of its members, as exposed in a number of credible investigative reports by several highly reputable NGOs and the media, most recently in the Azerbaijani Laundromat report by the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and publications in over a dozen of media outlets in a number of European countries in September 2017. Unethical fostering of interests and corruption lasting for many years in PACE have strongly damaged the credibility of the Council of Europe.

The Assembly has allowed corrupt practices by certain governments of its member states, in particular Azerbaijan, to undermine its commitment to uphold fundamental values of human rights and democracy in the Council of Europe member states. This has dismayed human rights defenders in the Eastern Partnership states and beyond who looked to PACE and other representative bodies such as the European Parliament for support in defending these values.

The recent establishment of an independent external Investigation Body by PACE and plans to overhaul the PACE Code of Conduct for Members and to adopt declaratory requirements give us hope that the much-needed renewal of the Assembly will be irreversible and will not stop with the departure of the disgraced President. It also serves notice to all current and former members of PACE that corrupt practices will no longer be tolerated and enjoy impunity. This process must continue after the end of 2017 when the Independent Body is due to report and should lead to an investigation of allegations of corruption by the law enforcement bodies at the national level.

The investigations by OCCRP and others show that democratic parliamentary assemblies in the free world must remain vigilant against threats to their integrity from unscrupulous and cynical governments. Otherwise, the hope and support that these assemblies can extend to political prisoners and democrats who are working for human rights, free and fair elections, and the rule of law in the Council of Europe countries and elsewhere will continue to be undermined.

Signed by the following organisations:

1. Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (Poland)
2. Centre for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights (Russia)
3. Center for Civil Liberties (Ukraine)
4. Human Rights Movement “Bir Duino-Kyrgyzstan” (Kyrgyzstan)
5. International Partnership for Human Rights (Belgium)
6. Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and the Rule of Law (Kazakhstan)
7. Public Verdict Foundation (Russia)
8. Regional Center for Strategic Studies (Georgia/Azerbaijan)
9. Promo LEX (Moldova)
10. The Netherlands Helsinki Committee (Netherlands)
11. Centre de la Protection Internationale (France)
12. Citizens’ Watch (Russia)
13. Committee Against Torture (Russia)
14. World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)
15. Human Rights Centre “Viasna” (Belarus)
16. Association UMDPL (Ukraine)
17. Index on Censorship (United Kingdom)
18. International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (Belgium)
19. Helsinki Committee of Armenia (Armenia)
20. Barys Zvozskau Belarusian Human Rights House (Belarus/Lithuania)
21. Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly-Vanadzor (Armenia)
22. Institute of Public Affairs (Poland)
23. Freedom Files (Russia/Poland)
24. Libereco – Partnership for Human Rights (Germany/Switzerland)
25. Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (Bulgaria)
26. Kharkiv Regional Foundation “Public Alternative” (Ukraine)
27. Human Rights Club (Azerbaijan)
28. Legal Transformation Center (Belarus)
29. Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia (Serbia)
30. Norwegian Helsinki Committee (Norway)
31. Public Association “Dignity” (Kazakhstan)
32. Human Rights Information Center (Ukraine)
33. “Protection of Rights without Borders” (Armenia)
34. Crude Accountability (USA)
35. DRA – German-Russian Exchange (Germany)
36. Institute for Reporters Freedom and Safety (IRFS) (Azerbaijan)
37. Moscow Helsinki Group (Russia)
38. Albanian Helsinki Committee (Albania)
39. Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union (Ukraine)
40. Sova Center for Information and Analysis (Russia)
41. Kosova Centre for Rehabilitation of Torture Victims (Kosovo)
42. Truth Hounds (Ukraine)
43. Article 19 (United Kingdom)
44. Human Rights Matter (Germany)
45. Helsinki Association for Human Rights (Armenia)
46. Center for Participation and Development (Georgia)
47. Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union (Ukraine)
48. Office of Civil Freedoms (Tajikistan)
49. Women of the Don (Russia)
50. Human Rights Monitoring Institute (Lithuania)
51. Media Rights Institute (Azerbaijan)
52. Batory Foundation (Poland)
53. International Youth Human Rights Movement
54. Institute for Peace and Democracy (Netherlands/Azerbaijan)
55. Monitoring Centre for Political Prisoners (Azerbaijan)
56. Democratic Civil Union of Turkmenistan (Turkmenistan/Netherlands)
57. Public Alliance “Azerbaijan without Political Prisoners” (Azerbaijan)
58. Humanrights.ch (Switzerland)[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

International Association of Prosecutors urged to promote adherence to their own standards

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

The Hague, 5 September 2017

Dear members of the International Association of Prosecutors members, executive committee and senate,

In the run-up to the annual conference and general meeting of the International Association of Prosecutors (IAP) in Beijing, China, the undersigned civil society organisations urge the IAP to live up to its vision and bolster its efforts to preserve the integrity of the profession.

Increasingly, in many regions of the world, in clear breach of professional integrity and fair trial standards, public prosecutors use their powers to suppress critical voices.

In China, over the last two years, dozens of prominent lawyers, labour rights advocates and activists have been targeted by the prosecution service. Many remain behind bars, convicted or in prolonged detention for legal and peaceful activities protected by international human rights standards, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Azerbaijan is in the midst of a major crackdown on civil rights defenders, bloggers and journalists, imposing hefty sentences on fabricated charges in trials that make a mockery of justice. In Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkey many prosecutors play an active role in the repression of human rights defenders, and in committing, covering up or condoning other grave human rights abuses.

Patterns of abusive practices by prosecutors in these and other countries ought to be of grave concern to the professional associations they belong to, such as the IAP. Upholding the rule of law and human rights is a key aspect of the profession of a prosecutor, as is certified by the IAP’s Standards of Professional Responsibility and Statement of the Essential Duties and Rights of Prosecutors, that explicitly refer to the importance of observing and protecting the right to a fair trial and other human rights at all stages of work.

Maintaining the credibility of the profession should be a key concern for the IAP. This requires explicit steps by the IAP to introduce a meaningful human rights policy. Such steps will help to counter devaluation of ethical standards in the profession, revamp public trust in justice professionals and protect the organisation and its members from damaging reputational impact and allegations of whitewashing or complicity in human rights abuses.

For the second year in a row, civil society appeals to the IAP to honour its human rights responsibilities by introducing a tangible human rights policy. In particular:

We urge the IAP Executive Committee and the Senate to:

  • introduce human rights due diligence and compliance procedures for new and current members, including scope for complaint mechanisms with respect to institutional and individual members, making information public about its institutional members and creating openings for stakeholder engagement from the side of civil society and victims of human rights abuses.

We call on individual members of the IAP to:

  • raise the problem of a lack of human rights compliance mechanisms at the IAP and thoroughly discuss the human rights implications before making decisions about hosting IAP meetings;
  • identify relevant human rights concerns before travelling to IAP conferences and meetings and raise these issues with their counterparts from countries where politically-motivated prosecution and human rights abuses by prosecution authorities are reported by intergovernmental organisations and internationally renowned human rights groups.

Supporting organisations:

Amnesty International

Africa Network for Environment and Economic Justice, Benin

Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa, Kwekwe

Article 19, London

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

Asia Justice and Rights, Jakarta

Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact, Chiang Mai

Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong SAR

Asia Monitor Resource Centre, Hong Kong SAR

Association for Legal Intervention, Warsaw

Association Humanrights.ch, Bern

Association Malienne des Droits de l’Homme, Bamako

Association of Ukrainian Human Rights Monitors on Law Enforcement, Kyiv

Associazione Antigone, Rome

Barys Zvozskau Belarusian Human Rights House in exile, Vilnius

Belarusian Helsinki Committee, Minsk

Bir-Duino Kyrgyzstan, Bishkek

Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, Sofia

Canadian Human Rights International Organisation, Toronto

Center for Civil Liberties, Kyiv

Centre for Development and Democratization of Institutions, Tirana

Centre for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights, Moscow

China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group, Hong Kong SAR

Civil Rights Defenders, Stockholm

Civil Society Institute, Yerevan

Citizen Watch, St. Petersburg

Collective Human Rights Defenders “Laura Acosta” International Organization COHURIDELA, Toronto

Comunidad de Derechos Humanos, La Paz

Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Humanos, Lima

Destination Justice, Phnom Penh

East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project, Kampala

Equality Myanmar, Yangon

Faculty of Law – University of Indonesia, Depok

Fair Trials, London

Federation of Equal Journalists, Almaty

Former Vietnamese Prisoners of Conscience, Hanoi

Free Press Unlimited, Amsterdam

Front Line Defenders, Dublin

Foundation ADRA Poland, Wroclaw

German-Russian Exchange, Berlin

Gram Bharati Samiti, Jaipur

Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor, Yerevan

Helsinki Association of Armenia, Yerevan

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Warsaw

Human Rights Center Azerbaijan, Baku

Human Rights Center Georgia, Tbilisi

Human Rights Club, Baku

Human Rights Embassy, Chisinau

Human Rights House Foundation, Oslo

Human Rights Information Center, Kyiv

Human Rights Matter, Berlin

Human Rights Monitoring Institute, Vilnius

Human Rights Now, Tokyo

Human Rights Without Frontiers International, Brussels

Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, Budapest

IDP Women Association “Consent”, Tbilisi

IMPARSIAL, the Indonesian Human Rights Monitor, Jakarta

Index on Censorship, London

Indonesian Legal Roundtable, Jakarta

Institute for Criminal Justice Reform, Jakarta

Institute for Democracy and Mediation, Tirana

Institute for Development of Freedom of Information, Tbilisi

International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)

International Partnership for Human Rights, Brussels

International Service for Human Rights, Geneva

International Youth Human Rights Movement

Jerusalem Institute of Justice, Jerusalem

Jordan Transparency Center, Amman

Justiça Global, Rio de Janeiro

Justice and Peace Netherlands, The Hague

Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law, Almaty

Kharkiv Regional Foundation Public Alternative, Kharkiv

Kosovo Center for Transparency, Accountability and Anti-Corruption – KUND 16, Prishtina

Kosova Rehabilitation Center for Torture Victims, Prishtina

Lawyers for Lawyers, Amsterdam

Lawyers for Liberty, Kuala Lumpur

League of Human Rights, Brno

Macedonian Helsinki Committee, Skopje

Masyarakat Pemantau Peradilan Indonesia (Mappi FH-UI), Depok

Moscow Helsinki Group, Moscow

National Coalition of Human Rights Defenders, Kampala

Netherlands Helsinki Committee, The Hague

Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM), Utrecht University, Utrecht

NGO “Aru ana”, Aktobe

Norwegian Helsinki Committee, Oslo

Pakistan Rural Workers Social Welfare Organization (PRWSWO), Bahawalpur

Pensamiento y Acción Social (PAS), Bogotá

Pen International, London

People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD), Seoul

Philippine Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA), Manila

Promo-LEX Association, Chisinau

Protection International, Brussels

Protection Desk Colombia, alianza (OPI-PAS), Bogotá

Protection of Rights Without Borders, Yerevan

Public Association Dignity, Astana

Public Association “Our Right”, Kokshetau

Public Fund “Ar.Ruh.Hak”, Almaty

Public Fund “Ulagatty Zhanaya”, Almaty

Public Verdict Foundation, Moscow

Regional Center for Strategic Studies, Baku/ Tbilisi

Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), Lagos

Stefan Batory Foundation, Warsaw

Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM), Petaling Jaya

Swiss Helsinki Association, Lenzburg

Transparency International Anti-corruption Center, Yerevan

Transparency International Austrian chapter, Vienna

Transparency International Česká republika, Prague

Transparency International Deutschland, Berlin

Transparency International EU Office, Brussels

Transparency International France, Paris

Transparency International Greece, Athens

Transparency International Greenland, Nuuk

Transparency International Hungary, Budapest

Transparency International Ireland, Dublin

Transparency International Italia, Milan

Transparency International Moldova, Chisinau

Transparency International Nederland, Amsterdam

Transparency International Norway, Oslo

Transparency International Portugal, Lisbon

Transparency International Romania, Bucharest

Transparency International Secretariat, Berlin

Transparency International Slovenia, Ljubljana

Transparency International España, Madrid

Transparency International Sweden, Stockholm

Transparency International Switzerland, Bern

Transparency International UK, London

UNITED for Intercultural Action the European network against nationalism, racism, fascism and in support of migrants, refugees and minorities, Budapest

United Nations Convention against Corruption Civil Society Coalition

Villa Decius Association, Krakow

Vietnam’s Defend the Defenders, Hanoi

Vietnamese Women for Human Rights, Saigon

World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)

Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, Harare[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1504604895654-8e1a8132-5a81-8″ taxonomies=”8883″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

SUPPORT INDEX'S WORK