In this session, Lisa Heemann from ODIHR looked at how NHRIs can go about mainstreaming gender in their work. The session explored several key terms: gender, gender equality and gender mainstreaming. It then addressed specific challenges for women HRDs. Finally, the session set out why gender mainstreaming is important for NHRIs, both in terms of their internal and external work, while linking this to the protection of HRDs. 

In this introductory session, NHRI Academy 2025 trainer Kersty McCourt, a lawyer and human rights professional, explained the definition and essential criteria of an HRD, using the definition of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. She also explored some of the patterns and trends in the protection of HRDs. She ended her presentation by discussing some of the primary legal frameworks and mechanisms for the protection of HRDs, as well as the key related rights and articles in the international treaties and conventions.   

After that, Aleksandar Sekulić, human rights adviser at ODIHR, presented ODIHR’s “Guidelines on the Protection of Human Rights Defenders”. These Guidelines provide recommendations based on existing standards in international and regional law, as well as standards of practices. He explained that the Guidelines address topics such as the physical integrity, liberty, security and dignity of HRDs, as well as other aspects of a safe and enabling environment. Moreover, the Guidelines contain a framework for implementation. Finally, he noted that in the second edition of the Guidelines, new topics, including HRDs in exile, SLAPPS and foreign agent legislation will be covered.  

The session ended with a discussion in which the participants were asked to think about how their NHRIs identify and support HRDs.  

In this session, Kersty McCourt discussed the trajectory of attacks against HRDs and how to identify threats and early warning signs. She started by highlighting some threats that HRDs face, including smear campaigns, changes in policy and practice, legal changes and criminalisation. She also highlighted that many restrictions are ultimately intended to have a chilling effect.  

Next, she used some practical examples from different countries to illustrate what early warning signs are and how patterns of restrictions across different countries are often similar. She, for example, discussed the trajectory in Hungary that has created an increasingly difficult environment for HRDs. This included attacks against the independence of the judiciary, restrictions on the media, smear campaigns, and restrictions on foreign funding. She explained that in other countries, including Slovakia, there are similar trends and parallels in behaviour and actions by the government.  

The session included many more practical examples of attacks against HRDs, including the stigmatisation of climate activists in Switzerland, the use of facial recognitions and surveillance in Ireland and the criminalisation and stigmatisation of LGBTQIA+ HRDs in Greece.  

In this session, Anete Erdmane, a human rights adviser at ODIHR, and Nadeeka Rajaratnam, a legislative support officer at ODIHR, discussed the legislative frameworks of freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association. 

Anete Erdmane presented the definition of freedom of assembly, the difference between unlawful and violent assemblies and the conditions under which assemblies can be restricted. Moreover, she introduced the underlying principles of human rights complaint policing of assemblies: knowledge, facilitation, communication, and differentiation.  

Next, Nadeeka Rajaratnam presented the international standards on freedom of association, and addressed different types of foreign agent legislation in Bulgaria, Slovakia and Georgia. She discussed the human right implications of such legislation, such as a chilling effect and stigmatisation of NGOs. She ended by explaining what NHRIs can do to protect civil society and human rights defenders. This includes monitoring laws, advising lawmakers and supporting civil society.  

In this session, Kersty McCourt discussed how the legal system can be used to target HRDs. She started the session by explaining the terms criminalisation and lawfare and provided examples of legal actions that can restrict the work of HRDs. She also discussed the proliferation of security measures, which can be used to restrict civic space and are particularly employed in the context of HRDs supporting migrants. Moreover, she focused on environmental HRDs, who face challenges such as a narrative of eco-terrorism, restrictions of protests and disproportionate sentences.   

The next part of the session focused on SLAPPs. Kersty McCourt explained the key indicators for identifying SLAPP cases and discussed the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive and the Council of Europe Recommendation on countering the use of SLAPPs. Participants discussed the relevant legislation, the key legal issues and possible actions they could take as NHRIs.  

Louise Savri from the French NHRI, CNCDH, presented her NHRI’s work on combatting SLAPPs, which included an Opinion with recommendations on SLAPPs. She provided a case example from France, and explained CNCDH’s main recommendations on fighting SLAPPs, which included defining and broadening the legal framework, guaranteeing financial protection for victims and training the judiciary.  

This session covered challenges faced by particular groups of HRDs. The participants were divided into four different groups, working on different topics, including (1) migration, (2) artists, journalists and academics, (3) LGBTQIA+, minorities and people with disabilities and (4) conflict and hard to reach/ HRDs in exile. The groups were asked to discuss the particular challenges these groups face, how these challenges have evolved over the last year, how their NHRIs have responded, and what they would describe as the main gaps and opportunities.  

Group 1, on migration, discussed the intersectional approach, the EU Pact on Asylum and Migration and the large amount of legislation on the topic. Group 2, on artists, journalists and academics discussed the difficulty in conceptualising and defining this group and finding ways to better protect them. Group 3 on LGBTQIA+, minorities and people with disabilities identified multiple challenges, such as financing issues, hate speech and attacks, but also good practices such as workshops, roundtables and third-party interventions. Finally, the fourth group on conflict and hard to reach/ HRDs in exile, identified isolation and lack of legal support as challenges, and noted that there is an important role for NHRIs in raising awareness and advocating for the protection of these groups.  

Wojtek Bogusz, head of digital protection at Front Line Defenders, started the session by explaining what digital information and communication risks are, and what digital risks HRDs face in particular. These include, for example, loss of devices, digital surveillance, disinformation and leaking of information.  

For the next part, participants were encouraged to think of their own digital risks. Participants underlined issues such as leaking of information to big tech, hacking, misinformation, a lack of understanding of technological developments and instances of censorship and self-censorship.   

The second part of the session covered ways to protect digital security, from preventative to responsive actions. Wojtek, for example, explained how a loss of devices can be mitigated by physical management of devices, basic digital hygiene and having a secure backup. He explained that to prevent or mitigate disinformation and smear campaigns, it is important to consider visibility on social media, to consider what communication form to use and to protect accounts using 2-factor authentication.  

This session explored how to assess the environment for HRDs and ways to link monitoring and protection. It started off with two presentations, one by Charlotte Baarda, of the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights and the other by Tobias Rahm, of the Swedish Institute for Human Rights.  

Charlotte Baarda discussed her NHRI’s upcoming report on civic space in the Netherlands. She discussed the analysis and preliminary findings of the report, including results from a survey of over 100 civil society organisations, conclusions on restrictions of freedom of assembly and findings on the stigmatisation of HRDs and a lack of consultation on migration laws.  

Tobias Rahm’s presentation concerned the ongoing HRD-survey by the Swedish NHRI. He explained the approach and methodology taken and discussed some preliminary findings.

The session finished with a presentation by Aleksandar Sekulić of ODIHR.  He discussed some of the main monitoring principles, as well as ODIHR’s monitoring work on individual cases of HRDs at risk. He concluded the session by highlighting some key topics of monitoring work, including examples of challenges that HRDs face and issues related to gender and HRDs in exile. 

This session revolved around the protection of HRDs. Three HRDs, from Poland and Belarus, shared their personal experiences with the group. The HRDs were Justyna Wydrzynska (an abortion activist), Maria Poszytek from the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights Poland and Tatsiana Ziniakova from Human Constanta in Belarus.  

The three HRDs covered several topics. They, for example, discussed the practicalities of working in exile. Moreover, they explained how the challenges for HRDs in Poland have changed over the past years. They also addressed what they consider necessary in the support of their work, both on a regional and international level. Finally, they explained in what ways NHRIs can support their work, emphasizing the importance of reaching out to HRDs in exile and to speak out through statements and public opinions.  

The session ended with a presentation by Oonagh Brown, from the Scottish Human Rights Commission, who discussed their Participation Strategy. This Strategy is based on the idea that human rights protection must start from the ground up and is built on the key participation principles of personal leadership, inclusive planning, payment and responsibility, and accessibility. In her presentation, Oonagh explained that these principles have led to key actions, including engagement opportunities, engagement with members of the Commission and putting co-design and delivery in the spotlight on their work.

The final session of the Academy revolved around the protection architecture of HRDs at risk. Kersty McCourt provided more information on the protection of HRDs, explaining that protection of HRDs is one part of the work to support thriving civic space. She emphasised the importance of holistic support and networks, rapid response when HRDs are under threat and making risk assessments.  

She then turned to what is missing in the protection landscape in Europe. She explained that there is currently no regional protection mechanism for HRDs and CSOs, that there is no hub or focal point for information and that there is no connection between reporting and action.  

The day ended with a presentation by Iris Elliot from the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. In her presentation, she discussed the negotiation set for HRDs. This is a common document for the institution that outlines the purpose of their negotiation efforts, and of what they are trying to achieve with them. The idea of the set is to have a coherent message and have consistency in communications. The set contains elements such as alignment of the tone, the plan, and a common understanding on how to build relationships.