Protection is often placed at the centre of responding to the repression of HRDs. It is a necessary but insufficient paradigm. It must be complemented by efforts to prevent repression, including by seeking accountability, and to offer various forms of support, including emergency responses such as relocation. Where possible, the objective must be to enable HRDs to remain in the contexts where they work, which also means building their resilience for the longer-term. However, as transnational repression worsens there is also a growing need to support HRDs in exile, and even in transit to other countries.
Public statements of support are an important way to protect HRDs at imminent risk, and the more often they are repeated, the better. Beyond this, protection needs and context vary widely from one country to another, even within countries, and flexibility is therefore important. It encompasses addressing a wide range of needs, including physical equipment, communications infrastructure, and training.
In the longer-term, building resilience is the priority. This is about recognising the impact of the pressures on HRDs and strengthening their ability to withstand those pressures. HRDs may experience isolation, paranoia, and anxiety, and resort to self-censorship. Their family members may also be at risk, including those who remain behind when HRDs go into exile. Punitive forms of repression, such as the denial of healthcare, may also leave HRDs at physical risk. In addition to protection and attention to physical security, HRDs may also need psychosocial and mental health support and opportunities to rest and replenish their energy.
There are also important online aspects to protecting HRDs and building their resilience. The threats they face include surveillance, hacking, and disinformation campaigns. Encryption services are crucial to protect HRDs’ communications, but they are involved a continual game of cat-and-mouse – VPNs are required to access encrypted mail in some places, but the VPNs themselves can be blocked.
Proposals for action:
- States should set up national protection systems for HRDs that are adequately resourced and provide a first point of contact when they experience threats. This should draw on best practice and resources such as the Esperanza Protocol, which provides guidance on how to respond to threats against HRDs.
- Supportive governments should set up flexible protocols for responding to HRD protection needs in a context-specific way. They should aim to respond swiftly and avoid delaying even in cases where HRDs are deemed “too political”. They should also persist with the demand that states cease and desist from repressive action, and ensure they do not take repressive action themselves or acquiesce with the repressive actions of others.
- Funding entities should consider establishing a network of centres around the world for rest and replenishment, enabling HRDs to step out of the immediate pressures and take time to re-energise and strategise. These could draw on plentiful best practice from existing models and add much-needed capacity to support more HRDs.
- Technology companies should play an active role in addressing online repression, including by supporting HRDs with digital hygiene to protect them from surveillance, spyware, and hacking. They should also consider providing encrypted data services to HRDs as well as pro bono training and support to withstand attacks. More broadly, they should reverse the trend against content moderation and take responsibility for addressing hate speech on their platforms.
- States should desist from pursuing decryption, recognising that encrypted communications are an essential condition for human rights protection – and there is no such thing as selective encryption.
- Governments and civil society in countries hosting exiled HRDs should systematically foster communities of support for them, building connections with local HRDs and providing psychosocial support where necessary.