Image created by ISHR using Google Gemini.
A new comparative report prepared by Oxford Pro Bono Publico for ISHR shows that the UN and regional human rights systems are increasingly recognising and naming transnational repression. Yet States still lack clear, binding obligations to prevent and address these cross‑border attacks against human rights defenders.
Credit: This update is based on a research report prepared for ISHR by Oxford Pro Bono Publico, under the supervision of Professor Nazila Ghanea and coordination of Isabella Ruiz dos Santos Miguel, at the University of Oxford, to which ISHR expresses its sincere thanks.
ISHR’s commissioned report, prepared by Oxford Pro Bono Publico at the University of Oxford, analyses how regional and international human rights systems address transnational repression (TNR), focusing on existing legal frameworks at the UN and regional levels and identifying critical gaps that undermine effective prevention and accountability.
TNR refers to actions by a State or its proxies, within its territory or extraterritorially, aimed at silencing, punishing, or deterring individuals engaged in dissent and human rights advocacy in relation to that State from abroad. This includes practices such as extrajudicial violence, unlawful repatriation, digital surveillance, legal harassment, threats to family members, and denial of consular support. Particularly at risk are diaspora activists, exiled dissidents, and human rights defenders (HRDs).
The United Nations (UN) has developed the most detailed body of work on TNR. Its engagement has shifted from ad hoc responses to a more systematic approach, including the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) brief on TNR, references to TNR in Human Rights Council resolutions related to human rights defenders and the safety of journalists, and extensive documentation through Special Procedures reports and Treaty Body concluding observations.
The European system has adopted explicit TNR terminology in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE)’s 2023 resolution, outlining four main tactics: direct attacks, co‑opting foreign States, mobility restrictions and remote threats. The European Union (EU) has also made a commitment to addressing TNR in its 2024 Council Conclusions on EU Priorities in UN Human Rights Fora and published a study on TNR of human rights defenders, describing global trends of TNR and its impacts on civic space and human rights.
The Inter‑American and African systems have traditionally addressed TNR through related concepts such as extraterritorial jurisdiction, cross‑border repression and reprisals against diaspora communities. In the Americas, the main tools are precautionary measures and thematic and country reports drawing on standards such as Velásquez Rodríguez v Honduras, while in Africa recognition is emerging through initiatives like the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) resolution mandating a study on HRDs in exile, though dedicated documentation remains more limited.
All four systems offer legal frameworks protecting human rights defenders from TNR, with the UN system providing the strongest overall normative framework. In this regard, international human rights law and refugee law protect many of the rights most frequently violated in TNR cases.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) set out core protections that are directly implicated in many acts of TNR, including the rights to life, freedom from torture and other ill‑treatment, liberty and security of person, freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention or exile, fair trial, privacy, freedom of movement, the right to seek and enjoy asylum, and freedoms of opinion, expression, association and assembly.
Both instruments establish these as standards that all States must respect for everyone within their jurisdiction, and UN bodies interpret that notion of jurisdiction, in some circumstances, to extend beyond territory to persons under a State’s effective control or directly affected by its actions, including across borders.
Other instruments, in particular the Convention against Torture, the Convention on Enforced Disappearance and the 1951 Refugee Convention, are also relevant to many forms of TNR against human rights defenders. Together, they reinforce obligations to prevent torture and enforced disappearance, protect refugees from refoulement and safeguard those who speak out in exile.
Despite these frameworks, the report identifies a range of common protection gaps:
This results in inadequate protection for families and indirect victims. ISHR therefore urges States to build on this emerging recognition by developing and adopting explicit norms and guidance on TNR, grounded in international human rights law and standards. This includes clarifying positive obligations to prevent acts of TNR, protect direct and indirect victims, and hold perpetrators accountable. This also includes adopting a human rights-based approach in regulating the role of technologies and private actors, and victim-centred policies that ensure that defenders and their families can access effective protection and redress wherever they are targeted.
Building on this report, ISHR co-convened and moderated a side event at the 61st session of the Human Rights Council, on 9 March 2026, titled ‘Tackling the protection gap: Host States’ responsibility to prevent and respond to transnational repression’.
The event brought together defenders and UN experts from the Human Rights Committee, Special Procedures and the OHCHR, to discuss the positive obligations of host States under international human rights law in respect of TNR against individuals and groups within their territory. The event also discussed strengthening international standards, and gaps arising from shortcomings in their implementation domestically. See a replay of the event here:
Relevantly, based on international law obligations and good practice, experts and HRDs recommended that host States should:
ISHR, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Advocates for Human Rights, the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee and Human Rights First delivered a joint statement at the Human Rights Council on the United States' refusal to cooperate with the Universal Periodic Review.
Saharawi woman human rights defender Fatima Moulay delivered a joint statement on behalf of ISHR, Front Line Defenders, and the Working group on human rights in occupied Western Sahara during the 61st session of the Human Rights Council, General Debate Item 4.
ISHR and Cepaz delivered a statement during the Interactive Dialogue with the Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela at the 61st session of the UN Human Rights Council, calling for guarantees of justice, truth and the restoration of rights.
