top of page

Human Rights Barometer for G20 Members - Part 4



3.4.10   Italy's Human Rights Barometer Analysis

 

3.4.10.1   Freedom of Assembly and Association

 

In Italy, freedom of assembly and association is constitutionally protected under Article 17 and Article 18 of the Italian Constitution. These rights allow citizens to gather peacefully and form associations without government interference, as long as the activities do not violate public safety or morals. Italy is also bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, which further guarantees these freedoms.

 

In practice, freedom of assembly is generally respected in Italy, and public demonstrations are a common way for citizens to express dissent or demand political and social change. However, protests are occasionally met with restrictions or intervention by law enforcement, especially in cases where demonstrations are seen as a threat to public order. The use of excessive force by police during protests has been reported, particularly during protests against economic austerity, labour rights, and environmental issues.

 

Freedom of association is also respected in Italy, with a vibrant civil society made up of political parties, trade unions, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). However, organisations working on sensitive issues, such as immigration and anti-corruption, sometimes face pressure from political groups or state authorities.

 

In summary, while Italy upholds strong legal protections for freedom of assembly and association, there are occasional challenges in the practical application of these rights, particularly around law enforcement responses to public demonstrations.

 

Score: 4/5 – “Legal protections exist, but with some restrictions (e.g., permits required for large gatherings). Civil society organisations operate mostly freely, though there may be occasional government scrutiny.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.10.2   Right to a Fair Trial and Due Process

 

In Italy, the right to a fair trial and due process is guaranteed by the Constitution and reinforced by the country's membership in international human rights treaties, such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Italy’s judicial system operates under principles of impartiality, the presumption of innocence, and the right to a defence, as outlined in Article 111 of the Constitution.

 

While these rights are protected in law, the Italian justice system faces significant challenges in practice. One of the main concerns is the length of judicial proceedings, which are often subject to delays. Italy has repeatedly been criticised by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) for its prolonged pretrial detention periods and the excessive duration of both civil and criminal cases, which undermine the principle of a timely trial.

 

Corruption and political influence in certain high-profile cases also raise concerns about the full impartiality of the judiciary. Despite these issues, Italy has made efforts to reform its judicial system, particularly through measures aimed at reducing case backlogs and improving the efficiency of court proceedings.

 

In conclusion, while Italy upholds the right to a fair trial and due process, the country's legal system continues to face structural challenges that affect its ability to provide timely justice for all citizens.

 

Score: 3/5 – “Judicial independence is inconsistent. Some cases, especially political ones, may experience government interference. Arbitrary detention or extended pretrial detention is reported, but not widespread.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.10.3   Political Participation and Democratic Governance

 

Italy is a well-established democracy, with political participation and democratic governance guaranteed under the Constitution. The country operates a parliamentary system, with free and fair elections held regularly for both the national Parliament and local governments. The President of the Republic serves as the head of state, while the Prime Minister leads the government. Elections are generally considered to be transparent, and the political system allows for broad participation by various political parties.

 

Italy has a vibrant civil society and political landscape, featuring a wide range of political parties, from centre-left to right-wing populist groups. In recent years, populist parties such as the Five Star Movement and the League have gained prominence, reflecting broader European trends. While Italy's political system is open, challenges include political fragmentation, which often leads to unstable coalitions and frequent changes in government.

 

Corruption remains a concern in Italian politics, with several high-profile cases involving politicians and public officials. Transparency International has highlighted the need for reforms to combat corruption and improve the accountability of elected officials. Nonetheless, Italy has strong institutions in place, including an independent judiciary and a free press, both of which play a critical role in maintaining democratic governance and holding political leaders accountable. The International IDEA notes Italy's strong commitment to democratic governance.

 

In conclusion, Italy’s democratic system allows for widespread political participation, but challenges related to corruption and political instability continue to impact the effectiveness of governance.

 

Score: 5/5 – “The country guarantees free and fair elections, and all individuals have the right to participate in government. Political opposition is allowed and respected, and there is a transparent process for democratic governance.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.10.4   Freedom from Discrimination

 

In Italy, freedom from discrimination is constitutionally guaranteed under Article 3 of the Italian Constitution, which states that all citizens have equal social dignity and are equal before the law, regardless of sex, race, language, religion, political opinions, or personal and social conditions. Additionally, Italy has enacted a variety of anti-discrimination laws, such as the Law on Racial Discrimination (1993) and the Equal Opportunities Code (2006), which further strengthen protections against discrimination.

 

Despite these legal frameworks, issues of discrimination persist, particularly against minority groups such as immigrants, Roma, and LGBTQ+ individuals. Reports from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch highlight continued racial and ethnic discrimination, especially against migrants and refugees, who often face challenges in accessing housing, employment, and social services. The Roma community, in particular, remains marginalised, frequently living in segregated camps with limited access to basic services.

 

Gender discrimination is another ongoing issue in Italy. While significant progress has been made in advancing women’s rights, including increased female representation in politics, the gender wage gap and underrepresentation of women in senior leadership positions remain problematic. Gender-based violence, including domestic violence and femicide, is a significant concern, despite legal protections like the Code on Violence Against Women (2013).

 

Discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals, although illegal, persists, with cases of social exclusion and violence being reported. Italy has made some strides, such as recognising same-sex civil unions in 2016, but full legal equality, particularly in areas like marriage and adoption, has not yet been achieved.

 

In summary, while Italy has strong legal protections against discrimination, challenges remain in fully realising equality for all citizens, particularly for minority and marginalised groups.

 

Score: 3/5 – “Anti-discrimination laws exist but are weakly enforced or selectively applied. Significant disparities exist for certain minority groups, though the state does take some action to address these issues.”

References:

 

  

3.4.10.5   Freedom from Torture and Inhuman Treatment

 

In Italy, freedom from torture and inhuman treatment is protected by the Constitution and reinforced by Italy’s ratification of international treaties, such as the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Torture was formally criminalised in Italy with the passage of a specific law in 2017, following years of pressure from human rights organisations. Prior to this, Italy faced criticism for not having a specific criminal provision against torture, despite its international commitments.

 

Despite these legal protections, concerns about the treatment of detainees, especially in police custody, remain. Human rights organisations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have documented cases of excessive use of force by law enforcement during arrests and detentions. Italy has also faced scrutiny over the treatment of migrants and refugees in detention centres, where overcrowding and poor living conditions have been reported.

 

Italy's handling of protests has also been a focal point for human rights concerns. Instances of police brutality during protests, such as the 2001 G8 summit in Genoa, remain infamous for the excessive use of force by law enforcement. Although Italy has made strides in addressing these issues through legal reforms, the enforcement of these laws and accountability for violations continue to be areas of concern.

 

In conclusion, while Italy has made significant progress in addressing torture and inhuman treatment through legislation, challenges in the consistent enforcement of these protections remain, particularly concerning the treatment of detainees and migrants.

 

Score: 3/5 – “Torture and inhuman treatment are prohibited by law but reports of abuse by law enforcement or security forces are not uncommon. Accountability for violators is inconsistent.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.10.6   Protection of Human Rights Defenders

 

In Italy, human rights defenders operate within a generally safe legal framework that guarantees freedoms of speech, assembly, and association. However, those working on sensitive issues, such as migrants’ rights, environmental protection, and anti-corruption efforts, face various challenges. While the Italian Constitution and international commitments, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, protect the activities of human rights defenders, concerns remain about state responses to activism, especially when protests or campaigns challenge state policies or corporate interests.

 

Italy has mechanisms in place to protect human rights defenders, but the enforcement of these protections can be inconsistent, particularly when defenders challenge powerful political or economic interests. Advocacy groups continue to call for stronger legal safeguards and better enforcement to ensure that defenders can carry out their work without fear of retaliation.

 

Score: 4/5 – “Human rights defenders generally operate freely, but there may be occasional instances of harassment or government pressure. Legal protections exist, though they may not always be fully enforced.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.10.7   Freedom of Expression

 

In Italy, Freedom of Expression is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Italian Constitution, which protects the right to freely express opinions through speech, writing, and other forms of communication. Italy is also bound by international human rights treaties, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, that uphold this fundamental freedom. The country has a vibrant media landscape, with a wide range of political and social commentary available in newspapers, television, and online platforms.

 

However, concerns persist regarding media ownership and political influence. Freedom House and Reporters Without Borders have pointed out that media pluralism in Italy is often undermined by the concentration of media ownership in the hands of a few powerful families and political interests. Former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's control over much of the media through his family’s ownership of the Mediaset group has been cited as a long-standing issue. This has led to concerns about the independence of media outlets and the potential for censorship or self-censorship.

 

Additionally, defamation laws in Italy have been used to target journalists and critics. Criminal defamation charges can result in prison sentences, and although reforms have been discussed, the laws continue to pose a threat to Freedom of Expression. Journalists, particularly those investigating organised crime, corruption, or political misconduct, have faced harassment, legal challenges, and, in some cases, physical threats.

 

Italy’s blasphemy laws, though rarely enforced, also remain a concern for Freedom of Expression. These laws have been criticised by international human rights organisations for limiting speech related to religious criticism.

 

In conclusion, while Italy provides strong constitutional protections for Freedom of Expression, challenges such as media concentration, defamation laws, and political influence continue to affect the full realisation of this right.

 

Score: 4/5 – “Freedom of Expression is generally protected, though some restrictions apply, particularly on sensitive topics (e.g., national security). The press operates freely, but there may be occasional government pressure.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.10.8   Freedom of Religion or Belief

 

In Italy, freedom of religion or belief is constitutionally protected under Article 19 of the Italian Constitution, which guarantees the right of individuals to freely practice their religion or belief. The state upholds a secular approach, allowing citizens to practice any religion or none at all. Italy is also a signatory to international human rights agreements such as the European Convention on Human Rights, which further supports religious freedom.

 

The majority of Italians identify as Roman Catholic, and the Catholic Church historically has had a significant influence on Italian society and politics. However, the state is officially secular, and there is no official religion. Italy recognises other religions through agreements known as intese, which provide certain legal rights and privileges to recognised religious groups. These include Protestant, Jewish, Islamic, and other religious communities.

 

Despite these legal protections, challenges remain, particularly for minority religious groups. Islam is the second-largest religion in Italy, but Muslim communities have faced difficulties in gaining formal recognition and securing permits to build mosques. There have been incidents of Islamophobia, and some political figures have called for stricter controls on Islamic practices. Additionally, there have been cases of anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim incidents, reflecting broader societal prejudices.

 

Religious discrimination in the workplace and public sphere continues to be a concern for some minority faith communities. However, Italy's legal framework provides avenues for addressing such discrimination, with protections against religious intolerance.

 

In summary, while freedom of religion or belief is largely respected in Italy, challenges remain, particularly for minority religions, in securing equal treatment and combating societal prejudices.

 

Score: 4/5 – “Freedom of religion or belief is largely protected, though there may be some legal or social restrictions (e.g., certain public expressions of faith). Minority religious communities may face occasional challenges.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.10.9   Right to Privacy

 

Italy has strong privacy protections under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), as part of its commitment to European Union standards. However, concerns persist regarding government surveillance, particularly in the context of anti-terrorism measures. Italy has enacted laws, such as the 2015 Anti-Terrorism Decree, which allow for extended data retention and the blocking of websites suspected of terrorism-related activities. These measures, while aimed at combating terrorism, have sparked criticism due to the potential for overreach and insufficient judicial oversight.

 

Civil liberties groups and the Italian Data Protection Authority have raised alarms about provisions that allow law enforcement to remotely access private communications and metadata without adequate checks and balances. For example, data retention periods for internet traffic metadata have been extended to 24 months, raising concerns about compliance with European Court of Justice rulings that limit such practices.

 

In addition, Italy's involvement in intelligence sharing, both within the EU and with other nations, has raised privacy concerns. The use of intrusive surveillance tools, such as remote hacking software (Trojans), further complicates the balance between security and privacy, with critics arguing that such tools threaten fundamental rights under both Italian law and international human rights frameworks.

 

Score: 4/5 – “Legal protections for privacy exist, but some government surveillance or data collection occurs, particularly in national security matters. Personal data protections are mostly effective.”

 

References:

 

 

 

3.4.10.10   Right to Life and Security of Person

 

Italy has comprehensive legal protections in place for the right to life and security. However, there are persistent concerns about police violence, particularly toward migrants and minority groups. Amnesty International has reported cases of excessive force by law enforcement, particularly in migrant detention centres and during public protests. These instances include the use of electric shocks, beatings, and other forms of physical abuse during the fingerprinting of migrants.

 

Further, the conditions in detention centres have been criticised as punitive and falling below international standards, with detainees often experiencing worse conditions than in prisons. These facilities are highly restrictive, lack adequate health and safety provisions, and severely limit the autonomy of detainees.

 

The lack of accountability remains a significant issue, with very few officers facing disciplinary action for their actions, which raises concerns about the effectiveness of oversight mechanisms to address police violence.

 

Score: 3/5 – “The right to life is legally recognised, but certain populations face systemic violence or abuse (e.g., due to race, gender, or political views). Law enforcement often operates with impunity.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.10.11   Overall Score for Italy – 3.7/5

 

While Italy has a robust legal framework for protecting human rights, there are notable areas of concern, particularly in terms of law enforcement accountability, discrimination, and access to justice. The country shows commitment to human rights protection but faces challenges in fully enforcing its legal frameworks, particularly for marginalised groups.

 

 

3.4.11   Japan's Human Rights Barometer Analysis

 

3.4.11.1   Freedom of Assembly and Association

 

Japan guarantees freedom of assembly and association under its Constitution, and in practice, peaceful protests are generally allowed. Civil society organisations can operate with minimal interference.

 

However, certain demonstrations, particularly those concerning politically sensitive issues, such as the US military bases in Okinawa, have faced significant restrictions and heavy policing. These measures, though relatively rare in Japan, underscore the challenges faced by civil society groups when addressing politically contentious topics.

 

Furthermore, the construction of a new US military base in Henoko has been met with widespread protest, with the Japanese and US governments largely disregarding the opposition expressed by Okinawans. This heavy presence of military facilities and the ensuing protests have raised ongoing concerns about the freedom of peaceful assembly in Okinawa.

 

Score: 3/5 – “Legal protections are inconsistent or weak. Protests are often subject to heavy policing or restrictions. Civil society groups face bureaucratic hurdles or occasional harassment.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.11.2   Right to a Fair Trial and Due Process

 

Japan’s legal system guarantees a fair trial and due process under the Constitution, but there are significant concerns regarding the treatment of detainees, particularly in pretrial detention, and the use of confessions obtained under duress.

 

The practice of "hostage justice" in Japan involves detaining suspects for extended periods under the daiyo kangoku or substitute prison system, during which detainees have very limited access to legal representation. Amnesty International has highlighted the harsh conditions faced by detainees, including beatings, sleep deprivation, and the prohibition of lawyers during interrogations. These methods are often used to extract confessions, which are then heavily relied upon in criminal proceedings.

 

Human Rights Watch has also reported that the Japanese criminal justice system frequently relies on prolonged pretrial detention and coercive interrogation practices to extract confessions. In many cases, suspects are rearrested multiple times on different charges related to the same incident to circumvent the legal 23-day detention limit, pressuring them to confess.

 

Both organisations have called for significant reforms to bring Japan's criminal justice system in line with international standards, including the right to legal representation during interrogations and an end to coercive methods of obtaining confessions.

 

Score: 2/5 – “The judiciary is compromised by political or executive influence. Arbitrary detention is frequent, and trials are often delayed or unfair. Legal representation may be limited for many individuals.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.11.3   Political Participation and Democratic Governance

 

Japan holds free and fair elections with generally high voter turnout, and political opposition is permitted.

 

The Global State of Democracy Report from International IDEA highlights that Japan scores in the mid-range for political participation compared to other countries, with issues such as gender equality and inclusive suffrage still lagging behind other top-performing nations. The report also notes that although Japan performs well in general democratic metrics like representation, rights, and rule of law, its youth engagement remains limited, partly due to political disillusionment and the dominance of established parties like the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP).

 

Score: 4/5 – “Elections are generally free and fair, though there may be some political interference. Political opposition is allowed but faces certain challenges or limitations.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.11.4   Freedom from Discrimination

 

Japan does not have comprehensive legal protections against discrimination. Minority groups, including ethnic Koreans, the Ainu indigenous people, and LGBTQ+ individuals, continue to face discrimination.

 

Amnesty International highlights that societal discrimination remains a significant barrier to achieving equality. For example, despite the passage of laws meant to protect LGBTQ+ rights, such as legislation passed in 2023 to create a “plan” to safeguard against unjust discrimination, these measures often lack clear definitions or enforcement mechanisms, leaving vulnerable communities without sufficient legal recourse.

 

Human Rights Watch reports that Japan does not have laws prohibiting racial, ethnic, or religious discrimination, or discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Human Rights Watch also notes that Japan’s 2023 law on sexual orientation and gender identity, aiming to "promote understanding" and prevent "unfair discrimination", falls short of comprehensive non-discrimination legislation.

 

Score: 2/5 – “Discrimination is prevalent, and legal protections are either weak or non-existent. Marginalised groups face systemic inequality, and the state does little to address these disparities.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.11.5   Freedom from Torture and Inhuman Treatment

 

Japan is a signatory to the Convention against Torture (CAT), and while legal measures are in place to prevent torture, serious concerns persist about the treatment of detainees, particularly death row inmates. Both Amnesty International and the United Nations Committee Against Torture have raised issues with Japan's practice of prolonged solitary confinement, which is considered a form of cruel and inhumane treatment. Death row prisoners are frequently kept in strict isolation for years, with limited access to medical care, which has been linked to the deterioration of their mental health.

 

Reports highlight that prisoners are only notified of their execution mere hours beforehand, further exacerbating psychological stress. Amnesty International has criticised Japan for failing to provide necessary mental health care to those with psychological disorders on death row, arguing that the conditions in these facilities violate Japan's obligations under international law.

 

The United Nations Committee Against Torture has similarly noted Japan’s failure to adequately address these issues, particularly regarding the harsh conditions faced by death row inmates. The Committee has urged Japan to reform its detention practices to meet international standards, emphasising the need for better medical care and the abolition of prolonged solitary confinement.

 

These concerns suggest that while Japan has taken steps to align with the CAT, more comprehensive reforms are required to ensure humane treatment of detainees.

 

Score: 3/5 – “Torture and inhuman treatment are prohibited by law but reports of abuse by law enforcement or security forces are not uncommon. Accountability for violators is inconsistent.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.11.6   Protection of Human Rights Defenders

 

Human rights defenders in Japan generally operate in a free environment, but there are notable concerns regarding how activists involved in politically sensitive issues are treated. For instance, activists protesting against US military bases in Okinawa, such as Hiroji Yamashiro, have faced arbitrary arrests and prolonged detention. Yamashiro, who led peaceful protests, was detained for five months and was reportedly pressured to confess, highlighting issues of arbitrary detention and suppression of peaceful activism in Japan.

 

Additionally, the UN Human Rights Committee has raised concerns about restrictive laws in Japan that limit press freedom and the right to protest. The Committee specifically noted the excessive use of force during protests and surveillance of demonstrators, especially during protests in Okinawa. This indicates that, while Japan offers constitutional protections for Freedom of Expression and assembly, these rights are sometimes undermined, particularly in cases involving protests against state policies.

 

Score: 4/5 – “Human rights defenders generally operate freely, but there may be occasional instances of harassment or government pressure. Legal protections exist, though they may not always be fully enforced.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.11.7   Freedom of Expression

 

Freedom of Expression is guaranteed by Japan’s Constitution, but concerns exist over media independence and government influence. Reporters Without Borders has documented cases of self-censorship among journalists, particularly in relation to criticism of the government or coverage of sensitive issues like the Fukushima disaster. There are also concerns about the use of defamation laws to limit criticism of public officials.

 

Score: 3/5 – “Legal protections exist but are weak. Some journalists and activists face censorship or legal repercussions for their work. Independent media faces bureaucratic or financial challenges.”

 

References:

 

  • Reporters Without Borders. 2023. Japan: RSF. [Online] Available at: https://rsf.org/en/japan [Accessed: 19 October 2024].

  

3.4.11.8   Freedom of Religion or Belief

 

Japan guarantees freedom of religion, and individuals are generally free to practice their faith without interference. However, certain minority religious groups face social stigma. The Pew Research Center notes that Japan has low restrictions on religious practices.

 

Additionally, Jehovah’s Witnesses have experienced challenges, including a rise in hate crimes and societal discrimination. This has included incidents of physical attacks, harassment, and damage to property, highlighting the ongoing social stigma against the group.

 

Score: 4/5 – “Freedom of religion or belief is largely protected, though there may be some legal or social restrictions (e.g., certain public expressions of faith). Minority religious communities may face occasional challenges.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.11.9   Right to Privacy

 

Japan has legal protections for privacy under the Act on the Protection of Personal Information (APPI), which regulates the handling of personal data. However, concerns have been raised about government surveillance, especially in the context of national security. Recent developments, such as amendments allowing for broader surveillance powers, have sparked debate about the balance between privacy and security. Civil liberties organisations have criticised the government's increasing ability to monitor online communications without sufficient oversight, raising fears of potential abuse under anti-terrorism laws.

 

The 2013 State Secrecy Law further allows the government to classify information as secret, limiting transparency around its surveillance practices. While Japan does not have the same level of surveillance as some other nations, the growing use of surveillance technologies and the absence of robust oversight mechanisms are significant concerns.

 

Score: 3/5 – “Privacy rights are legally recognised, but government surveillance is more common, and protections for personal data are inconsistent. Individuals have limited recourse for violations.”

 

References:

 

 

3.4.11.10   Right to Life and Security of Person

 

Japan’s legal system provides protections for the right to life, but there are significant concerns about police brutality and the treatment of detainees, especially those on death row. Human rights organisations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have documented instances of excessive force used by law enforcement during detentions, as well as the harsh conditions faced by death row inmates. In particular, detainees on death row are often held in prolonged solitary confinement, with little to no advance notice of their execution date, leaving them in constant fear of execution.

 

Amnesty International has highlighted cases where prisoners live under severe psychological distress, as they are informed of their execution only hours before it takes place. In some cases, prisoners may not be notified at all, exacerbating concerns about the treatment of these individuals. Additionally, reports indicate that some detainees experience ill-treatment, including the use of force during interrogations, which in some cases leads to coerced confessions.

 

Score: 3/5 – “The right to life is legally recognised, but certain populations face systemic violence or abuse (e.g., due to race, gender, or political views). Law enforcement often operates with impunity.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.11.11   Overall Score for Japan – 3.1/5

 

Japan has a robust legal framework for human rights protection but faces challenges in fully enforcing these protections, particularly regarding privacy, discrimination, and access to justice. The country continues to face scrutiny over its treatment of marginalised communities and detainees, its use of the death penalty and lack of clear anti-discrimination laws.

 


3.4.12   Mexico's Human Rights Barometer Analysis

 

3.4.12.1   Freedom of Assembly and Association

 

Mexico provides constitutional protections for the rights to peaceful assembly and association. However, these rights are often inconsistently enforced, particularly in situations involving protests related to government corruption, organised crime, or human rights abuses. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented numerous cases where security forces used excessive force against protesters, including instances of arbitrary arrests and violence. These abuses are most common during demonstrations that challenge state or federal authorities.

 

Activists and journalists in Mexico face significant risks, often encountering harassment and violence, especially when reporting on or protesting issues related to human rights violations or organised crime. Mexico remains one of the most dangerous countries in the world for human rights defenders and journalists, with very little accountability for perpetrators. Investigations into attacks are often insufficient, and the justice system has failed to adequately protect those targeted.

 

Score: 2/5 – “Freedom of assembly and association are restricted. Protests and demonstrations are often banned or dispersed violently. Civil society organisations are heavily regulated, and activists face repression.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.12.2   Right to a Fair Trial and Due Process

 

In Mexico, the right to a fair trial and due process is constitutionally guaranteed under Article 14 and Article 16 of the Mexican Constitution, which protect individuals from arbitrary detention and ensure legal rights during criminal proceedings. Mexico is also a party to several international human rights treaties, including the American Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), both of which reinforce these guarantees.

 

Despite these legal protections, Mexico faces significant challenges in upholding the right to a fair trial. One of the major concerns is the widespread issue of pretrial detention, or "prisión preventiva", which often sees individuals held for extended periods before their cases go to trial. Many detainees are held without formal charges, and some are denied prompt access to legal representation, violating due process rights. The pretrial detention system disproportionately affects marginalised and low-income individuals, exacerbating inequalities in the criminal justice system.

 

Corruption within the judiciary and law enforcement also undermines the right to a fair trial. Reports from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International highlight that police often rely on coerced confessions obtained through torture, which are later used in court. This practice violates the fundamental principles of due process and undermines the integrity of the legal system.

 

Furthermore, the National Code of Criminal Procedures (CNPP), which was introduced to reform Mexico’s justice system and transition from an inquisitorial system to an adversarial one, has had mixed success. While it has led to some improvements, such as greater transparency in legal proceedings, the system continues to face challenges in ensuring timely trials, addressing judicial inefficiency, and curbing impunity.

 

In summary, although Mexico has a legal framework that guarantees the right to a fair trial and due process, systemic issues such as prolonged pretrial detention, coerced confessions, and judicial inefficiency continue to undermine these rights.

 

Score: 2/5 – “The judiciary is compromised by political or executive influence. Arbitrary detention is frequent, and trials are often delayed or unfair. Legal representation may be limited for many individuals.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.12.3   Political Participation and Democratic Governance

 

Mexico holds regular elections and allows for political opposition, with electoral processes generally being respected. However, significant concerns exist regarding corruption, vote-buying, and political violence, especially at the local level. Transparency International highlights that corruption remains pervasive, undermining public trust in elections and democratic institutions. The Corruption Perceptions Index ranks Mexico low in terms of public sector transparency, particularly in handling political processes and governance.

 

Violence targeting political candidates and activists is a grave issue. In the 2024 election cycle alone, Mexico witnessed the highest number of political assassinations in its modern history, with 63 political figures killed between June 2023 and June 2024.

 

This violence, often linked to organised crime, poses a serious threat to electoral integrity, particularly in regions controlled by criminal groups. The risks extend beyond candidates, as journalists and human rights defenders also face frequent threats and violence.

 

Score: 3/5 – “Elections occur, but there are significant constraints, such as voter suppression, lack of transparency, or barriers to political opposition.”

 

References: 

 

  

3.4.12.4   Freedom from Discrimination

 

In Mexico, freedom from discrimination is legally protected under Article 1 of the Mexican Constitution, which prohibits discrimination based on ethnic origin, gender, age, disabilities, social conditions, health conditions, religion, opinions, sexual preferences, marital status, or any other characteristic that violates human dignity. Mexico is also a party to several international treaties aimed at eliminating discrimination, including the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD).

 

Despite these legal protections, discrimination remains a significant issue in Mexico. Indigenous communities, women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and Afro-Mexicans continue to face systemic and institutional discrimination in various sectors, including employment, education, and healthcare. Indigenous peoples, in particular, experience higher rates of poverty, lower access to healthcare, and limited political representation. While the Mexican government has made efforts to promote Indigenous rights, many communities remain marginalised.

 

Gender discrimination is another pressing issue. Although Mexico has laws in place to promote gender equality, such as the General Law on Women's Access to a Life Free of Violence and the Federal Labour Law, gender-based violence remains pervasive. Femicide and violence against women are particularly high, with limited enforcement of legal protections. Women also face discrimination in the workplace, where the gender pay gap and limited career advancement opportunities are widespread.

 

Discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community is also prevalent, despite legal progress in recognising same-sex marriages in some states and providing gender identity protections. LGBTQ+ individuals frequently face violence, harassment, and exclusion, particularly in rural areas where conservative social attitudes remain strong.

 

In summary, while Mexico has a robust legal framework to protect against discrimination, significant challenges remain in fully realising equality for Indigenous peoples, women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and other marginalised groups.

 

Score: 3/5 – “Anti-discrimination laws exist but are weakly enforced or selectively applied. Significant disparities exist for certain minority groups, though the state does take some action to address these issues.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.12.5   Freedom from Torture and Inhuman Treatment

 

In Mexico, freedom from torture and inhuman treatment is protected under Article 22 of the Mexican Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Mexico is also a signatory to international treaties such as the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), which further commits the country to prevent, investigate, and punish acts of torture.

 

Despite these legal protections, torture and ill-treatment, particularly by law enforcement and military personnel, remain widespread issues. Reports from organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch highlight systemic problems within Mexico's justice and law enforcement systems, where torture is often used to extract confessions. This is particularly prevalent in cases involving organised crime and drug trafficking, where coerced confessions are frequently used in prosecutions, leading to serious concerns about the integrity of the legal system.

 

Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) has also documented numerous cases of torture, particularly in police custody. Methods of torture reported include beatings, electric shocks, and asphyxiation. Victims are often held incommunicado, without access to legal representation, exacerbating their vulnerability to abuse.

 

Efforts to combat torture have been made, including the passage of the General Law on Torture in 2017, which aimed to address impunity and improve investigations into torture allegations. However, implementation of this law has been slow, and accountability for those who commit acts of torture remains limited. Human rights organisations continue to call for stronger enforcement mechanisms and greater protection for victims.

 

In summary, while Mexico has legal frameworks in place to protect individuals from torture and inhuman treatment, these practices remain a significant problem, particularly in the context of law enforcement and organised crime investigations.

 

Score: 2/5 – “Torture and inhuman treatment are reported frequently, and legal protections are weak or rarely enforced. Law enforcement and security forces often act with impunity.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.12.6   Protection of Human Rights Defenders

 

In Mexico, human rights defenders face significant challenges, despite legal protections. Human rights defenders (HRDs) work to promote and protect the rights of marginalised communities, including Indigenous peoples, environmental activists, journalists, and those advocating for women’s rights. However, they frequently encounter threats, harassment, and violence, particularly in regions affected by organised crime and corruption.

 

According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, HRDs in Mexico are often subject to intimidation, surveillance, and physical attacks, with many cases going unpunished. Journalists and activists who expose corruption or challenge powerful economic and political interests are especially vulnerable. Mexico remains one of the most dangerous countries in the world for journalists, with many killed or disappearing while investigating organised crime, government corruption, or human rights abuses.

 

Environmental and land rights defenders also face substantial risks. Activists working to protect Indigenous territories from large-scale infrastructure or mining projects are frequently targeted. Global Witness has documented numerous cases where environmental defenders have been threatened, attacked, or killed for opposing projects that threaten their communities and land.

 

Despite the Protection Mechanism for Human Rights Defenders and Journalists, which was established in 2012 to provide protection for those at risk, its effectiveness has been questioned due to inadequate funding, poor implementation, and the ongoing impunity for perpetrators of violence against HRDs. Human rights organisations continue to call for more robust protections and greater accountability for those who threaten or harm human rights defenders in Mexico.

 

Score: 2/5 – “Human rights defenders are frequently persecuted, harassed, or jailed for their work. Legal protections are minimal, and the state often seeks to suppress their activities.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.12.7   Freedom of Expression

 

In Mexico, Freedom of Expression is constitutionally guaranteed under Article 6 and Article 7 of the Mexican Constitution, which protect the right to free speech and freedom of the press. Mexico is also bound by international treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights, that reinforce these protections.

 

Despite these legal safeguards, Mexico remains one of the most dangerous countries for journalists and those exercising their right to free expression, particularly when reporting on sensitive topics like corruption, drug trafficking, and organised crime. Human rights organisations such as Reporters Without Borders and Human Rights Watch have repeatedly raised concerns about the high levels of violence and impunity faced by journalists. Many journalists are subject to threats, harassment, and, in the worst cases, assassination, with little accountability for those responsible. Mexico has consistently ranked among the most dangerous countries for journalists due to these risks.

 

The Protection Mechanism for Human Rights Defenders and Journalists was established in 2012 to offer protective measures for those at risk. However, its implementation has been inconsistent, and many defenders and journalists continue to face violence. In some cases, state and local officials are implicated in attacks against journalists, further complicating efforts to safeguard Freedom of Expression.

 

In addition to physical violence, legal harassment is also used to silence critics. Defamation lawsuits and legal threats are often employed by powerful actors to intimidate journalists and human rights defenders. While defamation was decriminalised at the federal level in 2007, it remains a criminal offence in several Mexican states, continuing to pose a threat to free expression.

 

In summary, while Mexico has a legal framework that protects Freedom of Expression, the environment for journalists and activists remains hostile due to violence, impunity, and legal intimidation.

 

Score: 2/5 – “Freedom of Expression is heavily restricted. The press and media are frequently censored, and individuals face legal consequences or violence for expressing dissent.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.12.8   Freedom of Religion or Belief

 

In Mexico, freedom of religion or belief is constitutionally protected under Article 24 of the Mexican Constitution, which ensures that all individuals are free to practice the religion of their choice or none at all. The state is secular, as established by the Constitution and reinforced by the Law on Religious Associations and Public Worship of 1992. This law guarantees the separation of church and state and prohibits religious discrimination.

 

Mexico is a religiously diverse country, with the majority of the population identifying as Roman Catholic, though other faiths such as Protestantism, Evangelical Christianity, and Islamism are also present. Despite legal protections, minority religious groups sometimes face social discrimination and challenges in securing equal treatment in public services, education, and political representation.

 

While freedom of religion is generally respected, reports from organisations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have highlighted occasional tensions, particularly in Indigenous communities. In some Indigenous regions, local customs and practices can clash with religious freedoms, leading to tensions between converts to non-traditional religions and the broader community. This has led to cases where individuals are pressured or even expelled from their communities for practicing a different faith.

 

Discrimination based on religious beliefs also persists in some rural areas, especially among Indigenous communities where religious minorities may face social exclusion. Evangelicals and other non-Catholic groups have reported forced displacement in areas where Catholicism dominates the local culture. In one case, evangelical families in Chiapas were forced to leave their homes for not participating in local religious festivals.

In summary, Mexico provides robust legal protections for religious freedom, but societal challenges, particularly in rural areas and Indigenous communities, still pose barriers to the full realisation of this right.

 

Score: 3/5 – “Legal protections exist but are inconsistently enforced. Religious minorities may face discrimination, and the state may impose limitations on religious practices.”

References:

 

  

3.4.12.9   Right to Privacy

 

In Mexico, the right to privacy is constitutionally protected under Article 16 of the Mexican Constitution, which guarantees the inviolability of private communications and the protection of personal data. Mexico is also subject to the Federal Law on the Protection of Personal Data Held by Private Parties (LFPDPPP), which provides comprehensive regulations on how personal data should be collected, processed, and stored by private entities. The law establishes the rights of individuals to access, rectify, cancel, and oppose the processing of their personal data (known as ARCO rights).

 

Additionally, the National Institute for Transparency, Access to Information, and Personal Data Protection (INAI) is responsible for overseeing the protection of personal data and ensuring compliance with data privacy laws. The INAI plays a crucial role in enforcing regulations and responding to complaints related to data breaches or unlawful data processing.

 

However, concerns about privacy rights have arisen due to the government's use of surveillance technology, particularly in the context of national security. Reports by Amnesty International and Citizen Lab have revealed that the Mexican government has used spyware, such as the controversial Pegasus software, to monitor journalists, human rights defenders, and political opponents. These revelations have raised significant concerns about state overreach and the potential abuse of surveillance powers.

 

In summary, while Mexico has a strong legal framework for protecting privacy, issues related to government surveillance and data protection remain areas of concern, especially regarding the use of invasive technologies against activists and journalists.

 

Score: 3/5 – “Privacy rights are legally recognised, but government surveillance is more common, and protections for personal data are inconsistent. Individuals have limited recourse for violations.”

 

References:

 


3.4.12.10   Right to Life and Security of Person

 

Mexico’s right to life and security of person is enshrined in its legal framework, but ongoing violence and systemic issues remain significant concerns. Human rights organisations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have documented high rates of violence and impunity in Mexico, especially related to organised crime and abuses by security forces. Military and police forces have been involved in numerous incidents of extrajudicial executions, and excessive use of force is a recurring issue, particularly during public security operations.

 

One of the most alarming aspects is the persistent use of excessive force by military personnel and the National Guard, with cases of unlawful killings and impunity for these actions. For example, in 2023, five young men were allegedly killed by soldiers in Nuevo Laredo, an incident that sparked widespread criticism and led to an investigation by the National Human Rights Commission.

 

Enforced disappearances are another grave issue. Thousands of people go missing each year, often involving collusion between criminal organisations and state actors. Families searching for disappeared loved ones face extreme risks, including threats, violence, and even murder. The Mexican government's responses have been criticised as inadequate, with only minimal progress in solving these cases.

 

Score: 2/5 – “The right to life is not consistently protected. Arbitrary killings, state violence, or widespread abuses by security forces are common, and accountability mechanisms are weak.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.12.11   Overall Score for Mexico – 2.4/5

 

Mexico has a solid legal framework for protecting human rights, but systemic issues like impunity, violence, and corruption hinder the effective enforcement of these rights. Marginalised communities, including women and Indigenous peoples, are disproportionately affected by these challenges.

 

 

3.4.13   Russia's Human Rights Barometer Analysis

 

3.4.13.1   Freedom of Assembly and Association

 

In Russia, the right to freedom of assembly and association is heavily restricted despite constitutional protections. Over the past decade, authorities have passed repressive legislation that severely limits public demonstrations, particularly those critical of the government. Under current laws, spontaneous protests are prohibited, and any public assembly requires prior authorisation from the state. The police regularly use excessive force to disperse unauthorised protests, and demonstrators, particularly those opposing government policies, often face arrest and prosecution.

 

During 2023, anti-war protests related to Russia's invasion of Ukraine saw mass detentions, with over 15,000 individuals arrested in the first month alone. Protesters in ethnic minority regions, like Dagestan, were particularly affected, facing harsh crackdowns and criminal charges. Laws criminalising repeated participation in unauthorised protests further curtail freedom of assembly, with penalties that can include several years in prison.

 

Freedom of association is also under threat, with civil society organisations, particularly human rights groups, being targeted under "foreign agent" and "undesirable organisation" laws. These laws allow authorities to shut down organisations critical of the government, restrict their activities, and prosecute individuals affiliated with them. In 2023, several prominent human rights organisations were dissolved, including the Moscow Helsinki Group and Memorial, under these repressive measures.

 

Score: 2/5 – “Freedom of assembly and association are restricted. Protests and demonstrations are often banned or dispersed violently. Civil society organisations are heavily regulated, and activists face repression.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.13.2   Right to a Fair Trial and Due Process

 

In Russia, the right to a fair trial and due process, while formally enshrined in the Constitution, is routinely compromised. Amnesty International has reported systemic bias within the judiciary, particularly in cases involving political dissidents and human rights defenders. These cases often see a lack of impartiality, with courts favouring the prosecution, and confessions obtained under torture or ill-treatment being admitted as evidence. This undermines both the fairness of the trials and the integrity of the judicial process.

 

Additionally, Human Rights Watch has highlighted the frequent use of politically motivated charges to silence opposition figures and activists. For example, trials are often closed to the public, and defence lawyers representing opposition figures face intimidation, harassment, and in some cases, arrest. The case of Alexei Navalny and his legal team, many of whom were detained on charges related to extremism, exemplifies this trend.

 

The situation worsened after Russia’s 2022 withdrawal from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which effectively closed a critical avenue for Russian citizens seeking redress for human rights violations. This move further diminished access to fair trials and due process, leaving citizens without recourse to independent international justice mechanisms.

 

Score: 2/5 – “The judiciary is compromised by political or executive influence. Arbitrary detention is frequent, and trials are often delayed or unfair. Legal representation may be limited for many individuals.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.13.3   Political Participation and Democratic Governance

 

Political participation and democratic governance in Russia are severely restricted despite constitutional guarantees. Over the years, the government has enacted laws and policies that undermine genuine political competition, hinder the formation of opposition movements, and limit the public’s ability to participate freely in the political process. Key opposition figures, such as Alexei Navalny, have been repeatedly targeted with politically motivated charges, arrests, and restrictions that prevent them from running for office or engaging in public life.

 

Elections in Russia are widely criticised for not meeting international standards of fairness and transparency. Independent political parties face significant obstacles, with authorities often rejecting their registration or preventing them from fielding candidates. Electoral fraud, including ballot-stuffing and manipulation of results, has been reported in various elections, contributing to an environment where political power remains concentrated in the hands of President Vladimir Putin and his United Russia party.

 

Furthermore, the media landscape in Russia is largely controlled by the state or pro-government actors, severely limiting the diversity of political opinions. This lack of media freedom compounds the difficulties for opposition groups and civil society organisations to reach the public and effectively participate in the democratic process. International observers and civil rights groups have expressed concern about the lack of democratic governance in Russia, citing the government’s efforts to suppress dissent and control political discourse.

 

Amendments to the Constitution in 2020, which allow President Putin to potentially remain in power until 2036, have further entrenched authoritarian governance. These changes were passed through a referendum marred by irregularities, including pressure on voters and a lack of independent oversight, undermining the legitimacy of the political system.

 

Score: 2/5 – “Elections are either heavily manipulated or restricted to one-party rule. Political opposition is limited or banned, and democratic processes are consistently undermined by the state.”


References:

 

  

3.4.13.4   Freedom from Discrimination

 

In Russia, freedom from discrimination remains a significant challenge, with various groups, including ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals, and migrants, facing systemic inequalities. The government has been criticised for promoting xenophobia, especially in relation to migrants from Central Asia and the Caucasus. Police regularly subject these groups to racial profiling, arbitrary detentions, and ill-treatment. Reports from Human Rights Watch highlight how police conduct ID checks and raids in areas where non-Slavic individuals are concentrated, often resulting in prolonged detentions under inhumane conditions.

 

LGBTQ+ individuals face severe discrimination as well. In 2023, the Russian government intensified its crackdown on LGBTQ+ rights, banning any public expression or promotion of LGBTQ+ identities, labelling the LGBTQ+ movement as extremist, and implementing laws that prohibit gender-affirming surgeries and the recognition of gender identity in legal documents. These legal developments have led to increased social stigma and violence against LGBTQ+ people, and the state’s stance has been condemned by numerous human rights organisations.

 

Ethnic minorities and Indigenous populations in Russia also experience discrimination, particularly in regions with significant non-Russian ethnic groups, such as the North Caucasus. These communities often lack access to social services and face restrictions on their cultural and political rights, exacerbating their marginalisation.

 

Score: 2/5 – “Discrimination is prevalent, and legal protections are either weak or non-existent. Marginalised groups face systemic inequality, and the state does little to address these disparities.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.13.5   Freedom from Torture and Inhuman Treatment

 

In Russia, the right to freedom from torture and inhuman treatment is constitutionally guaranteed, but the practice remains widespread and largely unpunished. Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented systemic abuses, particularly in detention centres and prisons. These include beatings, electric shocks, and waterboarding, with many victims reporting degrading and inhuman treatment during their detainment. Detainees, especially those involved in political protests or opposition movements, are particularly vulnerable to such treatment, with law enforcement officers often using excessive force to extract confessions or intimidate critics of the government.

 

Torture is also prevalent in cases involving individuals accused of extremism or terrorism, where police frequently use severe methods of interrogation. Although Russia has ratified international agreements against torture, such as the UN Convention Against Torture, the lack of accountability for state actors means that perpetrators are rarely prosecuted, contributing to a culture of impunity. The government’s increasing repression of civil society, particularly in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine, has only exacerbated the risks of torture and ill-treatment, as demonstrated by numerous reports of abuse targeting anti-war protesters.

 

Score: 2/5 – “Torture and inhuman treatment are reported frequently, and legal protections are weak or rarely enforced. Law enforcement and security forces often act with impunity.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.13.6   Protection of Human Rights Defenders

 

In Russia, human rights defenders face increasing levels of harassment, intimidation, and legal persecution. Despite their crucial role in advocating for fundamental rights, the state has systematically targeted these individuals under repressive laws. The “foreign agents” and “undesirable organisations” laws, first enacted in 2012 and later expanded, allow authorities to label NGOs and individuals critical of the government as foreign agents, exposing them to criminal charges, administrative fines, and public stigmatisation.

 

Human rights defenders, such as those working on anti-corruption initiatives or defending environmental and Indigenous rights, have faced numerous attacks and legal harassment. For example, Ilya Shumanov, a prominent human rights defender, has been criminally charged under the “foreign agents” law for failing to label his work on social media accordingly, leading to administrative penalties and possible imprisonment. Such cases demonstrate how these laws are used to silence critical voices and restrict civic space in Russia.

 

The situation has deteriorated significantly since 2022, with the government further expanding its crackdown on civil society amid the ongoing war in Ukraine. Human rights defenders working on politically sensitive issues, including opposition to the war, are particularly vulnerable, facing criminal charges, threats, and physical violence with impunity.

 

Score: 2/5 – “Human rights defenders are frequently persecuted, harassed, or jailed for their work. Legal protections are minimal, and the state often seeks to suppress their activities.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.13.7   Freedom of Expression

 

In Russia, Freedom of Expression is constitutionally protected, but these protections have been significantly eroded in practice, especially under President Vladimir Putin’s regime. Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented a marked increase in restrictions on freedom of speech, particularly concerning dissent against the government and criticism of Russia’s military actions. Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, authorities introduced even more repressive laws, criminalising the dissemination of "false information" about the Russian military. These laws have been used to target critics of the government, with many opposition figures and activists facing harsh prison sentences.

 

The Russian government also employs extensive media censorship, effectively silencing independent journalism. Many media outlets that were critical of the government have been forced to shut down, and those still operating face constant pressure and threats. Journalists who attempt to report on politically sensitive topics, such as corruption or human rights abuses, are subject to harassment, legal charges, or even physical violence. The government’s control over major news outlets further limits the scope of public discourse, fostering an environment where self-censorship is prevalent among journalists.

 

Additionally, the Russian government has employed digital censorship and surveillance, blocking numerous websites and social media platforms that host critical content. The authorities also use advanced surveillance technologies to monitor online communications, particularly among activists and dissidents, contributing to an atmosphere of fear and repression for those who dare to speak out.

 

Score: 2/5 – “Freedom of Expression is heavily restricted. The press and media are frequently censored, and individuals face legal consequences or violence for expressing dissent.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.13.8   Freedom of Religion or Belief

 

Freedom of religion or belief in Russia is constitutionally guaranteed; however, in practice, the government has increasingly imposed restrictions, particularly on religious minorities. The 1997 Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations remains a primary instrument through which the state controls religious activities, often discriminating against groups that are not part of the Russian Orthodox Church, which enjoys privileged status. Various religious groups, including Jehovah’s Witnesses, have been targeted for alleged “extremism”, despite their peaceful beliefs. The Russian government banned Jehovah's Witnesses in 2017, designating them as an extremist organisation, a decision that has been widely condemned by international human rights bodies.

 

Authorities have increased their use of anti-extremism laws to limit religious freedom, often applying these laws to criminalise religious practices and beliefs. Muslims, particularly those adhering to non-state-sanctioned interpretations of Islam, have also faced heightened scrutiny, arrests, and criminal charges. Followers of certain Islamic sects, such as Hizb ut-Tahrir, are often prosecuted under terrorism laws, even when there is no evidence of violent intent or actions. This has led to a climate of fear among religious minorities, who face continuous harassment and surveillance by law enforcement agencies.

 

In addition to legal harassment, state actions include the monitoring and raiding of religious institutions. Religious literature deemed to be "extremist" is frequently banned, and individuals found in possession of such materials can face serious penalties. The government’s alignment with the Russian Orthodox Church extends beyond favouritism, creating an environment where any perceived deviation from the state-approved religious narrative is met with severe repression. This undermines the fundamental principles of religious freedom, contributing to an atmosphere of intolerance and discrimination.

 

Score: 2/5 – “Freedom of religion is restricted, with certain religious groups facing persecution or being banned. State religion or dominant faith is heavily privileged.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.13.9   Right to Privacy

 

In Russia, the right to privacy is constitutionally protected, but the government has increasingly violated this right through widespread surveillance and data collection practices. Several laws have been enacted to enable mass surveillance, particularly targeting political activists, opposition figures, and journalists. The System for Operative Search Measures (SORM) allows security agencies to intercept telephone and internet communications without adequate judicial oversight. This system has significantly increased the government’s ability to collect data on individuals, thereby infringing on the right to privacy.

 

The Yarovaya Law, passed in 2016, further undermines privacy protections by obligating telecommunications providers to store users' data for up to six months and granting authorities access to that data without requiring strong legal justification. This law, along with others, has facilitated mass data collection and heightened concerns about online privacy for Russian citizens (BBC News, 2019). These surveillance measures are often used to monitor and intimidate those critical of the government, including journalists and human rights defenders, further eroding personal privacy.

 

The Russian government also employs censorship and surveillance techniques to control the digital sphere. The Sovereign Internet Law, passed in 2019, grants authorities the power to isolate Russia from the global internet and block access to information deemed inappropriate or harmful by the state. This law significantly impacts both online privacy and Freedom of Expression, as users' activities on the internet are subject to increased state scrutiny.

 

Score: 2/5 – “Privacy rights are weak or frequently violated. Government surveillance and intrusion into personal data are widespread, and there is little accountability for breaches.”

References:

 

  

3.4.13.10   Right to Life and Security of Person

 

In Russia, the right to life and security of person is enshrined in the Constitution, but in practice, this right is frequently undermined, particularly for political opponents, activists, and vulnerable groups. Extrajudicial killings, torture, and the use of excessive force by law enforcement and security agencies have been documented, raising serious concerns about the state's commitment to upholding this right.

 

Political dissidents, journalists, and human rights defenders have frequently been targeted with violence, with some cases resulting in murder. The killing of opposition leader Boris Nemtsov in 2015 is one of the most notable examples of the dangers faced by those who criticise the government. Investigations into such murders are often opaque, with allegations of state involvement or, at the very least, state complicity failing to adequately prosecute the perpetrators.

 

Torture and ill-treatment in detention centres remain widespread, especially in cases involving individuals accused of political crimes or extremism. Human rights groups have reported numerous instances of detainees being subjected to physical abuse, including beatings and electric shocks, to extract confessions. These abuses often occur with impunity, as the judicial system rarely holds law enforcement officials accountable for their actions.

 

In addition to these concerns, the Russian government’s military actions, both domestically in the North Caucasus and abroad, particularly in Ukraine, have resulted in large-scale violations of the right to life. Civilians have been killed or injured in military operations, with reports of indiscriminate attacks and the use of prohibited weapons. The invasion of Ukraine in 2022, for example, has led to widespread civilian casualties, with human rights organisations documenting targeted attacks on civilian infrastructure in violation of international humanitarian law.

 

Score: 1/5 – “There is no effective protection for the right to life. State violence, extrajudicial killings, or systematic abuses are rampant, and there is no accountability for perpetrators.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.13.11   Overall Score for Russia – 1.9/5

 

While Russia has a legal framework for human rights, systemic violations, political repression, and widespread government abuses hinder the effective protection and enforcement of these rights.



3.4.14   Saudi Arabia's Human Rights Barometer Analysis

 

3.4.14.1   Freedom of Assembly and Association

 

In Saudi Arabia, the right to freedom of assembly and association is severely restricted. The government does not permit public protests, and those participating in unauthorised gatherings risk arrest, imprisonment, or harsher penalties under the country’s broad anti-terrorism laws. Nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) are required to obtain a government licence to operate, and the authorities closely monitor and regulate their activities. Independent unions and civil society organisations that advocate for human rights or political reform face heavy restrictions, often leading to harassment, shutdowns, and the arrest of activists.

 

Additionally, the government exerts tight control over political associations, prohibiting the formation of political parties. Any form of public dissent is quickly suppressed, and those advocating for reforms or greater freedoms face serious reprisals. International human rights organisations have repeatedly criticised Saudi Arabia for its failure to respect basic rights related to assembly and association, which stifles civil society and political participation.

Score: 1/5 – “There are no meaningful legal protections for freedom of assembly and association. Protests are banned, civil society organisations are disbanded or state-controlled, and activists are routinely imprisoned or persecuted.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.14.2   Right to a Fair Trial and Due Process

 

In Saudi Arabia, the right to a fair trial and due process is frequently compromised. The judiciary operates under the control of the king and is deeply influenced by Islamic law (Sharia), which leaves little room for the protection of rights typically associated with a fair trial in international human rights standards. Defendants, particularly in political and security-related cases, often face prolonged pretrial detention, lack access to legal representation, and are subjected to trials that do not meet basic procedural safeguards.

 

The criminal justice system frequently uses confessions as the primary form of evidence, often extracted under duress or torture. Trials are held in secrecy, especially those involving political dissidents or activists, and defendants are denied access to proper defence. Furthermore, the Public Prosecution, directly under the Ministry of Interior, exerts significant control over legal proceedings, limiting judicial independence.

 

Appeals and reviews of sentences are rare, and the death penalty is regularly applied in cases where fair trial standards are not met. This situation disproportionately affects foreign workers and individuals from marginalised communities, who often lack adequate legal resources and protection.

 

Score: 1/5 – “The judiciary is compromised by political or executive influence. Arbitrary detention is frequent, and trials are often delayed or unfair. Legal representation may be limited for many individuals.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.14.3   Political Participation and Democratic Governance

 

Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy, and political participation is extremely limited. The king holds ultimate authority, controlling both executive and legislative functions, with no national elections for key political positions. The Consultative (Shura) Council is appointed by the king and serves only an advisory role, lacking any legislative power. While municipal elections occur, they have minimal impact as elected officials hold limited authority, and the majority of council members are appointed.

 

Political parties are banned, and the formation of any political organisations is prohibited. Civil society participation in governance is tightly restricted, with the government exercising strict oversight over nongovernmental organisations (NGOs). NGOs face significant hurdles, including the need for government licensing and constant scrutiny, making it difficult for independent voices to influence policy or governance.

 

Public criticism of the ruling family, government policies, or the monarchy is met with severe reprisals, including imprisonment and intimidation. There is little tolerance for dissent, and activists and critics face significant restrictions, including travel bans and detention without trial. Furthermore, the political system lacks transparency, with no avenues for ordinary citizens to participate meaningfully in governance (Amnesty International, 2022).

 

Women’s participation in politics remains minimal, despite reforms allowing them to vote and run for office in limited municipal elections. Although women were allowed to participate in the 2015 municipal elections for the first time, their political influence remains marginal due to the overall restrictions on governance and political activity (Global Gender Gap Report, 2023).

 

Score: 1/5 – “There are no free or fair elections. The state is ruled by an authoritarian regime, and any political opposition is systematically crushed. Democratic governance is non-existent.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.14.4   Freedom from Discrimination

 

In Saudi Arabia, discrimination remains deeply entrenched in law and practice, particularly against women, religious minorities, and migrant workers. The legal system is heavily influenced by conservative interpretations of Islamic law (Sharia), which formalises gender-based discrimination. Women face significant legal restrictions, including the male guardianship system, which requires women to obtain permission from male relatives to marry, travel, or access certain government services. Despite recent reforms allowing women to drive and travel without male permission, these changes are limited, and women’s rights continue to be curtailed in many aspects of life.

 

Religious discrimination is also prevalent, particularly against the Shia Muslim minority, who face systemic marginalisation in employment, education, and religious practice. Shia Muslims are often excluded from senior positions in government and the military, and their religious practices are frequently restricted or monitored by the state. Non-Muslims are prohibited from openly practising their religion, and public displays of non-Islamic religious symbols or ceremonies are strictly forbidden.

 

Migrant workers, who make up a significant portion of the workforce, are also subject to widespread discrimination under the kafala (sponsorship) system. This system ties a migrant worker’s legal status to their employer, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation, abuse, and forced labour. Despite efforts to reform the kafala system, migrant workers continue to face harsh working conditions, lack of legal protection, and barriers to accessing justice.

 

Score: 1/5 – “There are no legal protections against discrimination, and the state actively promotes or tolerates discriminatory practices. Marginalised groups are heavily oppressed and face severe inequality.”

  

References:

 

  

3.4.14.5   Freedom from Torture and Inhuman Treatment

 

In Saudi Arabia, the right to freedom from torture and inhuman treatment is routinely violated, particularly in cases involving political dissidents, human rights activists, and individuals accused of terrorism-related offences. Detainees are frequently subjected to physical abuse, including beatings, electric shocks, and prolonged solitary confinement. Confessions extracted under torture are regularly used as primary evidence in trials, undermining the integrity of the judicial process.

 

The lack of independent oversight of detention facilities and limited access to legal representation for detainees exacerbate the problem. Political prisoners and those accused of state security crimes are particularly vulnerable to abuse. In many instances, detainees are held incommunicado for extended periods, during which they are denied medical care and legal counsel, increasing their susceptibility to torture and other forms of inhuman treatment.

 

International bodies, such as the United Nations Committee Against Torture, have raised concerns about Saudi Arabia’s continued failure to comply with international human rights standards, including those under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Despite these international obligations, Saudi Arabia has taken limited steps to address the widespread use of torture within its security apparatus. Moreover, human rights organisations have repeatedly called on Saudi Arabia to enact reforms that would ensure detainees' rights are protected and that allegations of torture are thoroughly investigated (MENA Rights Group, 2023; UN Committee Against Torture, 2021).

 

Score: 1/5 – “Torture and inhuman treatment are widespread and systematically used by the state. There are no legal protections, and security forces routinely act with impunity.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.14.6   Protection of Human Rights Defenders

 

Human rights defenders in Saudi Arabia face severe repression, harassment, and imprisonment for their activities. The government imposes strict laws that criminalise peaceful activism, particularly in areas related to political reform, women’s rights, and free speech. Many prominent human rights defenders have been arrested under broad anti-terrorism and cybercrime laws, which the authorities use to target those who criticise the government or call for reforms.

 

The Law on Combating Terrorism Crimes and its Financing has been frequently used to suppress human rights defenders, with vague definitions of terrorism enabling the authorities to detain activists on charges that are often politically motivated. Many are subjected to unfair trials, prolonged detention without trial, and, in some cases, torture or ill-treatment while in custody. The Saudi government has also been criticised for using travel bans, asset freezes, and threats against family members to silence human rights defenders, both domestically and internationally.

 

International human rights organisations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have repeatedly condemned Saudi Arabia’s treatment of human rights defenders. Despite some reforms in recent years, the kingdom continues to operate with little tolerance for dissent, and the risks for those advocating for human rights remain extremely high. Calls from the international community for Saudi Arabia to respect its obligations under international human rights law have largely gone unheeded, and the environment for human rights defenders remains perilous.

 

Score: 1/5 – “Human rights defenders are systematically targeted by the state. They face imprisonment, torture, or worse, and there are no legal protections for their work.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.14.7   Freedom of Expression

 

Freedom of Expression in Saudi Arabia is severely restricted. The government exercises tight control over the media and the internet, and public criticism of the government, royal family, or religion is heavily censored. The country’s laws, including the Anti-Cyber Crime Law and Counter-Terrorism Law, are frequently used to prosecute individuals for peaceful expression, particularly those who criticise the authorities, advocate for reform, or express dissenting views online. Journalists, bloggers, and activists are regularly targeted for their work, with many facing imprisonment, fines, or travel bans.

 

Social media platforms are closely monitored by authorities, and users who post content deemed politically sensitive or critical of the government face prosecution. The case of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was murdered in 2018 after criticising the Saudi government, highlighted the risks faced by those who challenge the state’s narrative. Freedom of the press is virtually non-existent, with media outlets heavily censored and subject to government control.

 

Although some reforms have been introduced in recent years, such as loosening restrictions on women’s participation in public life, the broader landscape of free expression remains tightly controlled. International organisations continue to call on Saudi Arabia to respect Freedom of Expression and cease the repression of those exercising their right to speak out.

 

Score: 1/5 – “There are no meaningful protections for Freedom of Expression. The state controls the media, and dissenting voices are silenced through imprisonment or violence.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.14.8   Freedom of Religion or Belief

 

Saudi Arabia imposes strict limitations on freedom of religion or belief, with the government enforcing a rigid interpretation of Sunni Islam. Public practice of any religion other than Islam is prohibited, and non-Muslim religious activities are restricted to private spaces. The government does not recognise the right to change one’s religion or belief, and apostasy is punishable by death under Islamic law (Sharia). Religious minorities, particularly Shia Muslims, face systematic discrimination, including restrictions on their religious practices and exclusion from senior government positions.

 

Religious police, known as the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (CPVPV), continue to monitor and enforce strict religious observance, despite reforms in recent years that have reduced their power. Shia Muslims in particular face restrictions on building mosques and holding public religious ceremonies, while non-Muslims are forbidden from displaying religious symbols or openly practising their faith.

 

International human rights organisations have repeatedly criticised Saudi Arabia for its severe restrictions on religious freedom, calling on the government to allow greater tolerance of religious diversity. Despite these calls, Saudi Arabia continues to maintain strict controls over religious expression and limits the freedoms of religious minorities and non-Muslims.

 

Score: 1/5 – “There is no freedom of religion or belief. The state enforces a particular belief system, and those who dissent face imprisonment, violence, or severe discrimination.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.14.9   Right to Privacy

 

The right to privacy is significantly curtailed in Saudi Arabia, where the government engages in widespread surveillance of its citizens and residents. The authorities routinely monitor internet activities, social media platforms, and private communications. Under the Anti-Cyber Crime Law, individuals can be prosecuted for content shared in private communications if it is deemed critical of the government, religious authorities, or public morality. The government has implemented advanced surveillance technologies to monitor and track individuals’ online activities, contributing to a climate of self-censorship.

 

Saudi Arabia’s Counter-Terrorism Law is also used to justify invasive surveillance practices. This law enables authorities to intercept communications and search individuals' homes without court orders in cases related to national security. Furthermore, women's privacy is particularly restricted under the guardianship system, which grants male relatives control over certain aspects of women’s lives, such as travel and access to personal documents, limiting their autonomy and privacy.

 

The government’s use of spyware to track dissidents has been widely reported, with allegations that the Saudi authorities have used tools like the Pegasus software to monitor and target activists and critics of the regime both inside and outside the country. This widespread breach of privacy extends beyond national borders, raising significant concerns about the Saudi government's reach in surveilling its citizens and critics globally.

 

Score: 2/5 – “Privacy rights are weak or frequently violated. Government surveillance and intrusion into personal data are widespread, and there is little accountability for breaches.”

 

References:

 

 

3.4.14.10   Right to Life and Security of Person

 

In Saudi Arabia, the right to life and security of person is frequently undermined by state practices, particularly in relation to the use of the death penalty, arbitrary detention, and extrajudicial killings. The country maintains one of the highest execution rates in the world, with the death penalty applied for a wide range of offences, including drug-related crimes and acts considered to be against the state, such as political dissent or terrorism. Trials leading to capital punishment are often criticised for not meeting international standards of fairness, with confessions sometimes extracted under torture.

 

Arbitrary detention is another concern, particularly for political activists, human rights defenders, and those accused of terrorism. Individuals are often held without charge for extended periods, denied access to legal representation, and subjected to ill-treatment while in custody. Many detainees report being tortured or otherwise mistreated, and in some cases, these abuses have resulted in death.

 

Security forces in Saudi Arabia, including the Ministry of Interior, have been implicated in numerous cases of abuse, particularly in suppressing political dissent or protests. International human rights organisations have raised concerns about the lack of accountability for these abuses, with security personnel rarely facing prosecution for violations of human rights.

 

Score: 1/5 – “There is no effective protection for the right to life. State violence, extrajudicial killings, or systematic abuses are rampant, and there is no accountability for perpetrators.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.14.11   Overall Score for Saudi Arabia – 1.1/5

 

Saudi Arabia's overall score reflects its significant shortcomings in upholding fundamental human rights. Despite some recent reforms, the country continues to impose severe restrictions on freedoms of expression, assembly, and association, while maintaining a justice system that lacks transparency and fairness. Systemic discrimination, the use of torture, and the persecution of human rights defenders remain pervasive. The low score highlights the ongoing repression and absence of meaningful legal protections for individuals, particularly in areas concerning civil and political rights. Substantial reforms are necessary to address these critical human rights issues.



 


 
 
 
bottom of page