Take action Donate

ISHR works to support human rights defenders to strengthen their national legal recognition and protection, providing legal and technical guidance to Civil Society Organisations and States developing and implementing laws, policies and mechanisms that protect human rights defenders. Find further analysis from ISHR on legislative protection.

Below map shows developments in national legal instruments for human rights defenders. It intends to complement existing resources on human rights defender protection, and provide a short summarised comparison of each instrument to the Model Law for the recognition and protection of human rights defenders.

Show countries where instruments are:

Burkina Faso

Adopted in 2017, the law contains several rights in the Model Law, albeit in a simpler form. There are obligations on the State, but not all in the Model Law. It includes criminal sanctions for crimes committed against HRDs. While the law itself doesn’t create a protection mechanism, one was established through the law establishing the NHRI.

Côte d’Ivoire

The Law, when complemented by the Decree, is comprehensive and contains almost all provisions of the Model Law, albeit in a simplified form. However, obligations of human rights defenders in the Decree are broad (i.e. ‘not spreading troubling information and presenting annual activity reports) and could be used to restrict their rights. The protection mechanism’s functions are broad and lack specific protection measures.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo

There are five instruments relevant to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 1. Senate draft law initially drafted by civil society and modified by the Senate. It is simple and does not create a protection mechanism; 2. National Assembly draft law initially prepared by civil society and amended by the National Assembly. While it recognises rights in the Model Law, it also contains many restrictive provisions. 3. NHRI draft law is comprehensive and practically analogous to the Model Law 4. South Kivu Provincial Edict is short and missing many rights from the Model Law 5. North Kivu Provincial Edict is short and contains only some rights from the Model Law.

Mali

The Law (adopted 2018) and Decree contain several substantive rights from the Model Law, albeit in undetailed language. Regretfully, the Implementation Decree and Decision limit the law’s application to a small subset of human rights defenders.

Guinea

The law, prepared by civil society, is comprehensive and contains almost all rights and obligations enshrined in the Model Law, albeit not in as much detail. A positive aspect is that Chapter IV establishes that nothing in the law can affect any more favourable provisions for the recognition and protection of human rights defenders contained in other national or international instruments.

Sierra Leone

Draft is simple and comprehensive, containing most of human rights defenders’ rights and state obligations enshrined in the Model Law. Protection Mechanism is broadly established with clear purposes.

Togo

Short and comprehensive draft containing most rights and obligations of the Model Law, albeit simply listed.

Benin

The Draft contains most rights and obligations in the Model Law, but is undetailed. Currently on hold, Civil Society Organisations restarting the process.

The Central African Republic

The Draft contains most rights and obligations in the Model Law, however, most rights are explicitly listed within only a few articles and not adequately detailed.

Madagascar

Draft is comprehensive, containing all rights and obligations in the Model Law, with similar text. The articles related to the Protection Mechanism are less comprehensive, with several aspects in the Model Law absent or incomplete.

Niger

Draft contains almost all rights and obligations in the Model Law. Articles establishing a Protection Mechanism are scant and with few substantive provisions.

Uganda

Draft still being prepared, current draft includes important rights contained in the Model Law, others not properly developed. State obligations in a similar state. Protection Mechanism not yet properly developed.

United Republic of Tanzania

The Tanzania Human Rights Defenders Coalition (Thuman rights defenderC) was developing a National Policy for human rights defenders and lobbied for the inclusion of an article for the protection of human rights defenders in the new Constitution, drafted in 2013. This initiative was dropped when elected members who supported the proposal left the National Assembly. In mid-2021, after the change of government, conversations resumed, with no recent developments.

Senegal

Draft contains most rights in the Model Law, but State obligations are lacking.

Zambia

A draft law has been developed collaboratively by the Zambia Law Development Commission, the National Human Rights Commission and a diverse group of civil society representatives. The process included consultations in 2019 and 2021 with civil society and HRDs, and its content has been guided by the Model Law. Next steps in the process include consultations outside of the capital, and then the country to consider best practices.

Brazil

Decree 6044 establishes a short national policy containing elements for human rights defender protection. It is one of few analysed policies that calls for campaigns to recognise the value of human rights defenders. It is complemented by Decree 9937, which elaborates on protection measures and adds an appeal process. Both decrees lack detail in protection measures.

Colombia

Colombia has two protection mechanisms. One under the Ministry of Interior (MININ) and one under the ‘National Protection Unit’ (NPU). While the NPU is under the MININ and their protection mechanisms complement each other, some legal bases differ. Both establish a collective protection mechanism to protect communities and organisations.

Honduras

The Law,adopted in 2015 and its’ Bylaw adopted 2016, is fairly comprehensive as compared to the Model Law, with some rights missing.

Mexico

There are two instruments relevant to Mexico.

  1. The 2012 Law establishes a comprehensive protection mechanism, aligning mostly with the Model Law.
  2. The current draft law seeks to add substantive elements to the existing protection mechanism established in the 2012 Law, with elements related to the protection mechanism almost identical to the 2012 law.

Peru

Relatively short as compared to the Model Law, however, it establishes a decently comprehensive Protection Mechanism. Its adoption in 2019 by a Ministry means it contains no explicit State obligations.

Paraguay

Relatively short and essentially a series of recommendations journalists should follow if harassed or attacked; and procedures for police to protect threatened journalists.

El Salvador

Prepared by civil society, the law is comprehensive and aligns with all elements in the Model Law, going further in some cases. The protection mechanism is comprehensive. It never left the parliament floor nor was properly discussed.

Nicaragua

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Acosta et al. v. Nicaragua (25 March 2017) recommended that the Nicaraguan government create a protection mechanism for human rights defenders. The Nicaraguan government has taken no steps towards compliance.

Ecuador

Functions include receiving and submitting petitions on action against human rights defenders, risk assessments for human rights defenders; visiting persons deprived of liberty; monitoring due process; carrying out investigations; generating precautionary measures; establishing measures of obligatory and immediate compliance, public actions, and activation of international mechanisms.

Mongolia

A draft was Initially prepared by civil society and based on the Model Law, but was then revised by a Parliamentary Working Group in a process that had few opportunities for civil society input. The Bill that was adopted shortly afterwards in 2021, became the first human rights defenders law in Asia, however, it contains some articles which could limit human rights defenders’ rights. The Bill states that the NHRI must create the protection mechanism.

Philippines

1. Draft presented to the Senate in February 2018. It is an almost verbatim transcript of the Model Law;
2. Draft refiled to House of Representatives on 4 July 2022. Almost verbatim transcript of Model Law, sometimes going further. Protection Mechanism established is comprehensive. A reconciliation of lower and upper house’s bills would ultimately become law.

Kazakhstan

A draft law is currently being developed by civil society based on the Model Law, following human rights defender seminars in 2016 and 2021. The concept was presented to the Government in January 2022,  with the crackdown on protests in January 2022 providing further impetus in the need for a human rights defender protection law.

Afghanistan

A Presidential Decree was enacted in 2020 to protect human rights defenders, and a Joint Commission for the Protection of Human Rights was established. The Decree aims to provide protection of human rights issues and human rights defenders. The Commission’s goals include outlining the mechanism for protecting human rights defenders and addressing the recommendations, plans and complaints of human rights defenders. However, the Joint Commission for the Protection of human rights defenders has yet to be operationalized.

Nepal

The first draft human rights defender law was developed around 10 years ago. In 2019 following a national level workshop, human rights defenders and civil society in the country agreed that the best way forward was to draft a revised human rights defender protection law to ensure a more comprehensive draft, it is intended that it will be based on the Model Law.

Canada

  • Human rights defender guidelines adopted

‘Voices at Risk: Canada’s Guidelines on Supporting Human Rights Defenders’ (2017, revised in 2019) are guidelines that outline Canada’s approach and offer practical advice for officials at Canadian missions abroad and at Headquarters to promote respect for and support human rights defenders.

The United States of America

  • Human rights defender guidelines adopted

The ‘Guidelines for U.S. Diplomatic Mission Support to Civil Society and Human Rights Defenders’ (2021) provide guidance to US missions in third countries to support civil society and human rights defenders to continue their work without hindrance or undue restriction.

Finland

  • Human rights defender guidelines adopted

The ‘Public Guidelines of the Foreign Ministry of Finland on the implementation of the European Union Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders’ (2014)  are based on the EU Guidelines and Finland’s Human Rights Strategy of the Foreign Service. They encourage Finnish diplomatic missions to take an active role in promoting, protecting and supporting human rights defenders in third countries.  

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

  • Human rights defender guidelines adopted

The ‘UK Support for Human Rights Defenders’ (2019) outlines the importance of human rights defenders to the UK and how the government can support them.

Switzerland

  • Human rights defender guidelines adopted

The ‘Swiss Guidelines on human rights defenders’ (2013, revised in 2019) aim to raise awareness among mission and head office staff on problems faced by human rights defenders, encourage a consolidated bilateral and multilateral approach to improving the protection of human rights defenders and set out specific action to provide efficient and consistent support to them.

Norway

  • Human rights defender guidelines adopted

‘Norway’s efforts to support human rights defenders. Guide for the foreign service’ (2010) are guidelines to help the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the missions in third countries to systematise measures and intensify efforts to support human rights defenders and their work.

Ireland

  • Human rights defender guidelines adopted

Guidelines for Irish Embassies and Missions on Human Rights Defenders (2010) publicise the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders and take action to support human rights defenders at risk.

Belgium

  • Human rights defender EU guidelines adopted
The EU Guidelines (2008) are a tool for missions of EU Member States and contain recommendations on supporting human rights defenders in non-EU countries, as well as in multilateral fora. They apply to the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.
Some EU countries, like Finland, have also adopted their own country-specific guidelines that complement these regional ones.

Austria

  • Human rights defender EU guidelines adopted
The EU Guidelines (2008) are a tool for missions of EU Member States and contain recommendations on supporting human rights defenders in non-EU countries, as well as in multilateral fora. They apply to the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.
Some EU countries, like Finland, have also adopted their own country-specific guidelines that complement these regional ones.

Bulgaria

  • Human rights defender EU guidelines adopted
The EU Guidelines (2008) are a tool for missions of EU Member States and contain recommendations on supporting human rights defenders in non-EU countries, as well as in multilateral fora. They apply to the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.
Some EU countries, like Finland, have also adopted their own country-specific guidelines that complement these regional ones.

Czechia

  • Human rights defender EU guidelines adopted

Denmark

  • Human rights defender EU guidelines adopted

Estonia

  • Human rights defender EU guidelines adopted

France

  • Human rights defender EU guidelines adopted

Germany

  • Human rights defender EU guidelines adopted

Greece

  • Human rights defender EU guidelines adopted

Hungary

  • Human rights defender EU guidelines adopted

Italy

  • Human rights defender EU guidelines adopted

Lithuania

  • Human rights defender EU guidelines adopted

Luxembourg

  • Human rights defender EU guidelines adopted

Malta

  • Human rights defender EU guidelines adopted

The Netherlands

  • Human rights defender EU guidelines adopted

Poland

  • Human rights defender EU guidelines adopted

Portugal

  • Human rights defender EU guidelines adopted

Romania

  • Human rights defender EU guidelines adopted

Slovakia

  • Human rights defender EU guidelines adopted

Slovenia

  • Human rights defender EU guidelines adopted

Spain

  • Human rights defender EU guidelines adopted

Sweden

  • Human rights defender EU guidelines adopted

Latvia

  • Human rights defender EU guidelines adopted

Cyprus

  • Human rights defender EU guidelines adopted

Croatia

  • Human rights defender EU guidelines adopted