By the Human Rights Watch
The 29-page report documents increased restrictions and state interference with the press under Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s government.
The Human Rights Watch, February 13, 2024, 29 pages
By the Human Rights Watch
The 52-page report documents barriers faced by pregnant and parenting adolescent girls in Mozambique in continuing their education, including lack of services and stigma.
The Human Rights Watch, February 13, 2024, 52 pages
By the Human Rights Watch
The 67-page report documents the significant policy gaps that remain in Nepal’s implementation of legal gender recognition despite being a global leader in third-gender acknowledgment.
The Human Rights Watch, February 15, 2024, 67 pages
By the Human Rights Watch
The 46-page report, “‘We Will Find You,’” is a rights-centered analysis of how governments are targeting dissidents, activists, and political opponents abroad, through surveillance, abductions, and digital attacks.
The Human Rights Watch, February 22, 2024, 46 page
By the Human Rights Watch
The 118-page report, “Carbon Offsetting’s Casualties,” concerns a project carried out by the Cambodian Ministry of Environment and the conservation group Wildlife Alliance, operating without consent from the Chong people, who face forced evictions and criminal charges.
The Human Rights Watch, February 28, 2024, 118 pages
By the Human Rights Watch
The 74-page report, “Everything is by the Power of the Weapon: Abuses and Impunity in Turkish-Occupied Northern Syria,” documents abductions, arbitrary arrests, unlawful detention, sexual violence, and torture by the various factions of a loose coalition of armed groups, as well as Turkish forces.
The Human Rights Watch, February 29, 2024, 74 pages
By the Human Rights Watch
The 40-page report, “‘My Marriage was Mistake after Mistake’: The Impact of Unregistered Marriages on Women’s and Children’s Rights in Iraq,” documents the impacts of unregistered marriages on women and girls who enter them, and the downstream effects on their children.
The Human Rights Watch, March 3, 2024, 40 pages
By the Human Rights Watch
The 50-page report, “Breaking Barriers to Justice: Nepal’s Long Struggle for Accountability, Truth and Reparations,” describes the decades-long struggle for justice by survivors and victims. Human Rights Watch and Advocacy Forum analyzed the proposed law and reviewed some emblematic cases that faced obstruction by the authorities.
The Human Rights Watch, March 5, 2024, 50 pages
By the Human Rights Watch
The 60-page report, “‘We Can’t See the Sun’: Malaysia’s Arbitrary Detention of Migrants and Refugees,” documents Malaysian authorities’ punitive and abusive treatment of migrants and refugees in 20 immigration detention centers across the country. Immigration detainees can spend months or years in overcrowded, unhygienic conditions, subject to harassment and violence by guards, without domestic or international monitoring.
The Human Rights Watch, March 5, 2024, 60 pages
By the Human Rights Watch
The 60-page report, “‘I Just Want to Contribute to Society’: The Need for Legal Gender Recognition in Tabasco, Mexico,” documents the pervasive socioeconomic disadvantages that trans people experience due to a mismatch between their gender and their identity documents. A lack of accurate documents, often in combination with anti-trans bias, has led to discrimination, harassment, and violence for trans people.
The Human Rights Watch, March 6, 2024, 60 pages
By the Human Rights Watch
The 148-page report, “‘A Sense of Terror Stronger than a Bullet’: The Closing of North Korea 2018–2023,” documents the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s (DPRK or North Korea) overbroad, excessive, and unnecessary measures during the Covid-19 pandemic, including quarantines and new restrictions on economic activity and freedom of movement. The government’s new measures have severely affected food security and the availability of products needed by North Koreans to survive that previously entered the country via formal or informal trade routes from China.
The Human Rights Watch, March 7, 2024, 148 pages
By the Human Rights Watch
The 36-page report, “In Harm’s Way: How Michigan’s Forced Parental Consent for Abortion Law Hurts Young People” examines the impact of a Michigan law that requires people under age 18 seeking an abortion to have a parent or legal guardian’s written consent or get approval from a judge in a process known as “judicial bypass.”
The Human Rights Watch, March 28, 2024, 36 pages
By the Human Rights Watch
The 49-page report, “‘The Boot on My Neck’: Iranian Authorities’ Crime of Persecution Against Baha’is in Iran,” documents Iranian authorities’ systematic violation of the fundamental rights of members of the Baha’i community through discriminatory laws and policies that target them. Human Rights Watch found that Baha’is face a spectrum of abuses. Government agencies arrest and imprison Baha’is arbitrarily, confiscate their property, restrict their education and employment opportunities, and even deny them dignified burial.
The Human Rights Watch, April 1, 2024, 49 pages
By April Guevara Espinoza,
Given the past election season and craze about the “immigration crisis,” it is of paramount importance to reflect on how and why migrants, particularly Mexican migrants, are positioned as “less than” in our society. Immigration is more than a political platform issue; it concerns real people whose real lives are affected. Mexican migrants are used as political scapegoats for any and all issues in the United States whether it be increased crime rates, a lack of available jobs, or overall poor economic conditions. They are dangerously mischaracterized and stereotyped as “criminals” and “national security threats.” These labels are inextricably tied to racism and xenophobia, yet are cited as a rationale for restrictive, militarized, and criminalized immigration policies. This rhetoric perpetuated by our laws, leaders, and media serves to create a narrative about migrants and immigration that is entirely detached from humanity, divorcing the individual from society, and labeling them as “other.” Citizenship status should not be determinative of which civil and human rights are afforded to human beings. As a society, we must demand an interrogation of the relationship between racism, nationalism, and xenophobia, accompanied by a reckoning of the United States’ white supremacist roots, to alter the way we view and speak about all migrants, to demilitarize the border, and to decriminalize immigration policy. This Paper serves as a detailed account of the subjugation and subordination of Mexican migrants throughout history to argue Mexican migrants will never be humanized until white supremacy is confronted because white supremacy is everpresent in our laws, lives, and language. Most importantly, this Paper is a reminder to treat migrants as they are—human.
, 20 Nw. J. L. & Soc. Pol'y. 1 (2024), 35p.
By Al. Ujazdowskie
Armed forces are an integral part of a democratic state and society. By fulilling their defence and national-security functions, the armed forces play a key role in enabling a security environment that allows us to enjoy the inalienable rights and freedoms to which we are all entitled as human beings. As representatives of the state structure, armed forces personnel are bound to respect human rights and international humanitarian law in the exercise of their duties. But only when their rights are guaranteed within their own institu- tion will armed forces personnel be likely to uphold these in the discharge of their tasks — both when in the barracks and during operations.
OSCE Oice for Democratic Institutions and
Human Rights (ODIHR), 256p.
By Stevie Glaberson, Emerald Tse & Emily Tucker,
In every cell in your body, there resides a complete copy of your genetic code. As you moveabout the world, you shed cells without even realizing it, leaving your DNA, like a geneticcalling card, wherever you go. You probably don’t think about the trail you’re leaving. Itwouldn’t really matter if you did, because you can’t stop shedding cells, and you can’t leave your DNA at home.
But what if the government had access to a copy of your DNA and could track you based on thisinvoluntary, unstoppable trail without your consent? How would it change your behavior toknow that the government had a drop of your blood — or saliva — containing your “entiregenetic code, which will be kept indefinitely in a government-controlled refrigerator in awarehouse in Northern Virginia”?1 Would you feel free to seek out the medical or reproductivecare you needed? To attend protests and voice dissent? To gather together with the people ofyour choosing?This dystopia is fast becoming reality for millions of people, many of them already vulnerablebecause of over-policing, excessive surveillance, or economic insecurity. The federal governmentis amassing a huge trove of DNA, starting with a racialized, often traumatized, and politicallypowerless group: noncitizens. And it is using the federal agency that operates with the fewestpractical constraints and least oversight — the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — todo it. That’s what this report is about.In the waning days of the Trump administration, riding a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment andwith the resources of the immigrant rights movement depleted by four years of emergencyresponses, the Department of Justice made what it billed as a technical, boring rule change: Iteliminated an exemption in the government’s existing DNA-collection rule that previously hadallowed DHS to refrain from building out a labor-intensive and expensive DNA-collectionprogram.In so doing, it effectively set off a bomb that had lain dormant in federal law since2005.3 The 2005 DNA Fingerprint Act — which passed with little public scrutiny as anamendment to the reauthorization bill for the popular Violence Against Women Act — for thefirst time extended compulsory DNA collection to people outside of the criminal legal context:detained noncitizens.4 But because of the exceptions in the implementing regulations, andbecause previous administrations thought it was a good idea to use those exceptions to avoidescalating DNA collection from noncitizens, DHS never mounted a large-scale DNA collectionprogram. That is, until 2020.This report, which is based on publicly available records, as well as interviews with people whohave had their DNA taken by immigration authorities and legal service providers working withthem, is the first attempt to examine in-depth what happened after the 2020 rule change, and toexplain the legal and political implications of these developments.
Washington, DC, Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown Law (2024)., 108p.
By Matt Herbert
On 7 May 2025, reports emerged that the US was preparing to deport irregular migrants to Libya. While no deportations had occurred as of mid-May, and the US government has neither confirmed nor denied such plans, the potential for expulsions has raised urgent concerns among international observers, particularly regarding Libya’s fragility, human rights conditions, and entrenched criminal economies.
This publication explores the multifaceted risks associated with these possible transfers. Authored by Dr. Matt Herbert, the report presents a detailed analysis of how migrant expulsions could exacerbate instability in Libya and fuel smuggling and extortion networks.
The brief underscores that deportations would risk reinforcing cycles of violence and impunity, placing vulnerable individuals in harm’s way and undermining regional stability. Rather than viewing deportations through short-term political calculus, the US should assess the long-term risks to its broader interests in Libya and the region that such a policy would entail.
Geneva: Global Initiative AGainst Transnational Organized Crime, 2025. 17p.
By Nina Wang, Allison McDonald, Daniel Bateyko and Emily Tucker
When you think about government surveillance in the United States, you likely think of the National Security Agency or the FBI. You might even think of a powerful police agency, such as the New York Police Department. But unless you or someone you love has been targeted for deportation, you probably don’t immediately think of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This report argues that you should. Our twoyear investigation, including hundreds of Freedom of Information Act requests and a comprehensive review of ICE’s contracting and procurement records, reveals that ICE now operates as a domestic surveillance agency. Since its founding in 2003, ICE has not only been building its own capacity to use surveillance to carry out deportations but has also played a key role in the federal government’s larger push to amass as much information as possible about all of our lives. By reaching into the digital records of state and local governments and buying databases with billions of data points from private companies, ICE has created a surveillance infrastructure that enables it to pull detailed dossiers on nearly anyone, seemingly at any time. In its efforts to arrest and deport, ICE has—without any judicial, legislative or public oversight—reached into datasets containing personal information about the vast majority of people living in the U.S., whose records can end up in the hands of immigration enforcement simply because they apply for driver’s licenses; drive on the roads; or sign up with their local utilities to get access to heat, water and electricity. ICE has built its dragnet surveillance system by crossing legal and ethical lines, leveraging the trust that people place in state agencies and essential service providers, and exploiting the vulnerability of people who volunteer their information to reunite with their families. Despite the incredible scope and evident civil rights implications of ICE’s surveillance practices, the agency has managed to shroud those practices in near-total secrecy, evading enforcement of even the handful of laws and policies that could be invoked to impose limitations. Federal and state lawmakers, for the most part, have yet to confront this reality. This report synthesizes what is already known about ICE surveillance with new information from thousands of previously unseen and unanalyzed records, illustrating the on-theground impact of ICE surveillance through three case studies—ICE access to driver data, utility customer data and data collected about the families of unaccompanied children.
Washington, DC: Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown Law , 2025. 114p.
By Cecilia Schenetti, Valentina Mazzucato, Sally Wyatt, Djamila Schans
European states employ migration information campaigns (MICs) to discourage irregular migration to Europe by people from the Global South. Campaigns are justified by their initiators in various ways. On the one hand, campaigns are said to protect ‘potential migrants’ by helping them to make informed decisions (‘care’). On the other hand, campaigns respond to Europe's security objective of restricting migration flows (‘control’). Researchers have looked at various intermediaries involved in these campaigns. Yet, little attention has been given to individual European policy actors who decide on the funding and design of campaigns and how they navigate between campaigns' contradictory intentions to care for ‘potential migrants’ and to control borders. How do European campaign initiators justify the need for MICs? And what does this tell us about the migration imaginaries of those who develop migration governance measures? Based on interviews with European policymakers and campaign designers in the Netherlands and Senegal, this article examines their discursive acts of legitimation. It shows that in justifying their everyday work, they imagine themselves as humanitarian actors, and ‘potential migrants’ as depoliticized subjects in need of care. While initiators do sometimes examine campaigns critically, they build a worldview in which care is instrumental to border enforcement and in which compassion becomes a form of repressive ‘soft’ bordering.
International Migration, Volume63, Issue3 June 2025, 14p.
By Tadgh McMahon, Sukhmani Khorana, Ingrid Culos, Liam Magee, Emilie Baganz
COVID-19 resulted in global restrictions on migration, with pronounced consequences in Australia, where the resettlement of refugees was significantly curtailed from March 2020. This research, comprising a third phase in an ongoing study on refugee settlement and integration, seeks to understand the broader implications of these restrictions on family separation and reunion among resettled refugees in Australia. Employing a mixed-method approach of surveys and family interviews conducted in late 2021, we explored various themes that emerged from the pandemic's effects on family reunion, such as concerns about living difficulties, maintaining contact with family overseas, financial hardship, and reunion challenges specific to the pandemic. The findings reveal the negative impact of COVID-19 on refugees' ability to reunite with families, with evidence pointing to differences between gender, visa category, and language group/ethnicity. The research underscores the need for innovative approaches in resettlement to address the negative impacts of family separation and for governments to expedite family reunion pathways to alleviate isolation and uncertainty among resettled refugees.
International Migration, Volume63, Issue3, June 2025, 20p.