Author: Human Rights Watch

(Berlin) – Last month a 29 year old man from Tajikistan, who had been living in central Germany since 2019, died under mysterious circumstances in prison in Tajikistan. Saidazam Rahmonov, who was married to a German woman, had travelled to Tajikistan in June to gather documents needed to extend his visa in Germany.

Tajikistan authorities claim that Rahmonov committed suicide in his cell, but according to media reports, Rahmonov’s relatives say his body showed signs of beatings and torture when it was returned by prison officials.

As with any death in custody, there is a strict obligation to ensure an effective investigation into Rahmonov’s death, which should also cover why and how Rahmonov was in prison in the first place.

Rahmonov’s is the latest in a series of cases involving Tajiks living in Germany who have faced severe human rights abuses – or worse – when they returned to Tajikistan.

President Emomali Rahmon has ruled Tajikistan, the mountainous Central Asian country with a population of 9.7m, for 33 years. His authoritarian government shuns fair elections, suppresses opposition and independent voices, and denies its citizens basic freedoms.

While Rahmonov’s return to Tajikistan was voluntary, that has not been the case for several Tajik men deported by Germany since 2023. They were immediately detained before being given long jail terms on dubious legal grounds.

These include Abdullohi Shamsiddin, who had lived in Dortmund since 2009 and was married with children. In January 2023 he was deported by Germany and subsequently jailed for seven years following a show trial. Dilmurod Ergashev was deported in November 2024 from Kleve and reportedly jailed for eight years. Both were activists opposed to the Tajik government; their conditions in jail are not known, but torture in Tajik prisons is common.

Neither man should have been deported because international law prohibits the deportation of someone to anywhere they risk facing torture.

Unfortunately, Germany is willing to flout its international obligations and is cooperating with Tajik authorities in fast track deportations, for instance by relying on assurances from the Tajik government that their human rights will be protected. In court cases this year in Gelsenkirchen and Muenster concerning the deportation of Tajik citizens, the German foreign office asserted to the judges that information provided by the Tajik government on human rights was credible. But when a country’s human rights record is terrible, such assurances alone do not satisfy international law.

Germany can absolutely apply its laws governing who can live in the country, but not to the point that they violate people’s rights and ignore international law.

Rahmonov’s case should be a wake-up call for Germany to review the role it has played in these cases and to rethink its relationship with the authoritarian government in Tajikistan. 

• Governments should act on recent political commitments to protect civilians from the bombing and shelling that devastates cities and towns around the world.
• Civilians make up the vast majority of casualties caused by the use of explosive weapons—such as aerial bombs, rockets, missiles, and artillery and mortar projectiles—in populated areas.
• Governments should maximize civilian protection in practice by adopting strong measures to implement their commitments. They should set humanitarian standards that influence not only other countries that have endorsed the commitments, but also parties to armed conflict that have yet to do so.

(San José, November 17, 2025) – Governments should act on recent political commitments to protect civilians from the bombing and shelling that devastates cities and towns around the world, Human Rights Watch said today in a report issued with Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic.

The 37-page report, “Strengthening Civilian Protection: Principles for Implementing the Declaration on Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas,” introduces seven guiding principles to help countries that have endorsed the Political Declaration on the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Area put their commitments into practice. Civilians make up the vast majority of casualties caused by the use of explosive weapons—such as aerial bombs, rockets, missiles, and artillery and mortar projectiles—in populated areas. Explosive weapons also turn urban areas into rubble, destroy infrastructure, and damage the environment and cultural heritage.

“Countries at war that use explosive weapons in populated areas kill, injure, and traumatize civilians, disrupt access to essential services, and cause mass displacement,” said Bonnie Docherty, senior arms adviser at Human Rights Watch; lecturer on law at the Harvard Human Rights Clinic; and lead author of the report. “The extensive harm recently documented in Ukraine, Gaza, Democratic Republic of Congo, and elsewhere shows that governments should intensify efforts to implement their expressed commitments to protect civilians from this method of warfare.”

The declaration, adopted in Dublin in 2022, is a nonbinding international instrument that seeks to prevent and remediate the devastating effects on civilians associated with using explosive weapons in cities, towns, and villages. Endorsing countries and other relevant stakeholders will meet in San José, Costa Rica, from November 18 to 20, 2025, for the declaration’s second international conference to encourage broader endorsement, review and strengthen implementation efforts, and outline next steps.

The declaration says that countries that endorse it should take a variety of steps to better protect civilians, including “restricting or refraining from” the use of explosive weapons in populated areas and assisting victims of harm that has already occurred. Endorsing countries should also gather and publicly share data about the use and effects of explosive weapons that can be analyzed to learn lessons that improve civilian protection in the future.

Human Rights Watch and the Harvard Human Rights Clinic urge governments to follow seven guiding principles to effectively implement the declaration’s commitments. These principles are applicable to all countries, no matter the structure of their government or size of their military.

Countries that have endorsed the declaration should (1) comprehensively address the humanitarian consequences of the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, and (2) develop progressive civilian protection standards that go beyond existing international humanitarian law, Human Rights Watch and the Harvard Human Rights Clinic say in the report. Countries should also (3) collaborate with a wide range of actors; (4) ensure that all decisions are informed by relevant data; and (5) be transparent in implementation efforts. Finally, they should (6) internalize their commitments as part of their national laws and policies and (7) promote the declaration and its norms beyond the endorsing countries. 

“Strengthening Civilian Protection” builds on the 2022 report “Safeguarding Civilians: A Humanitarian Interpretation of the Political Declaration on the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas,” co-published by Human Rights Watch and the Harvard Human Rights Clinic, which focuses on interpreting the declaration’s provisions. 

Human Rights Watch is a co-founder of the International Network on Explosive Weapons (INEW), the coalition of civil society groups that helped drive creation of the declaration. The network and two civil society partners—Fundación para la paz y la democracia (Foundation for Peace and Democracy or FUNPADEM) and Seguridad Humana en América Latina y el Caribe (Latin American Human Security Network or SEHLAC)—will host a Protection Forum, open to all delegates, on the first day of the San José conference.

“Governments that adopt strong measures based on shared principles can help maximize the declaration’s potential as a tool for protecting civilians,” Docherty said. “They can set standards that influence not only other countries that have endorsed the commitments, but also parties to armed conflict that have yet to do so.”

(Bangkok) – Foreign governments should reject the Myanmar junta’s plans to hold elections from late December 2025 through January 2026 because they will not be free, fair, or inclusive, Human Rights Watch said today. Since the February 2021 military coup, the junta has systematically dismantled the rule of law and the country’s nascent democratic systems, and ahead of the polls it has ramped up repression and violence.

The junta announced that the first two phases of the multistage elections will take place on December 28 and January 11. Since the coup, the junta has banned dozens of political parties and jailed an estimated 30,000 political prisoners, including nearly 100 people detained under a draconian election law passed in July. Sr. Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, the junta’s leader, has acknowledged that the elections will not be held in all townships, reflecting the widespread fighting with opposition armed groups characterized by the military’s war crimes.

“The Myanmar junta’s sham elections are a desperate bid for international legitimacy after nearly five years of brutal military repression,” said Elaine Pearson, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Governments lending any credibility to these polls would signal a complete lack of support for rights-respecting civilian democratic rule in Myanmar.”

On July 29, the junta enacted the Law on the Prevention of Obstruction, Disruption, and Sabotage of Multiparty Democratic General Election, which criminalizes criticism of the election by banning all speech, organizing, or protest that disrupts any part of the electoral process. Violators can face up to 20 years in prison and the death penalty.

Junta authorities have arrested 94 people under the new law since August—including at least 4 children—for social media activity, distributing stickers and leaflets, delivering speeches, and other alleged acts of election “interference” and “disruption.” On September 9, a man was sentenced to seven years with hard labor in Taunggyi, Shan State, for a Facebook post criticizing the junta. On October 29, the filmmakers Zambu Htun Thet Lwin and Aung Chan Lu were arrested for “liking” a Facebook post that criticized an election propaganda film.

The authorities have detained nearly 2,000 people since February 2022 for online activity supporting the opposition or criticizing the military, part of the junta’s gutting of freedoms of speech, the press, and assembly.

The military lacks sufficient territorial control to hold credible elections, with much of the country contested or held by the opposition, Human Rights Watch said. The nationwide census attempted in October 2024 to compile voter lists was held in only 145 of the country’s 330 townships, fewer than half. The Union Election Commission declared in September that voting would not take place in 56 townships deemed “not conducive,” while the two phases announced thus far cover only 202 townships.

Junta efforts to retake territory from the armed resistance ahead of the elections has involved repeated airstrikes on civilians and civilian infrastructure that amount to war crimes. China and Russia, the junta’s primary suppliers of aircraft and arms, are both backing the election. The two countries have long supported the junta while blocking international action on military atrocities at the United Nations Security Council.

Military abuses and spiraling conflict have internally displaced over 3.5 million people and left about 20 million in need of humanitarian assistance. Independent media and civil society groups have reported that junta authorities have pressured displaced people and prisoners to vote, as well as increasing checkpoints and digital surveillance.

The 2021 coup effectively ended the country’s halting and limited democratic transition under Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD). During general elections in November 2020, the NLD secured 82 percent of contested seats, roundly defeating the military proxy Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP). In response, the military alleged widespread voter fraud, an unfounded claim rejected by the Union Election Commission and international and domestic election observers.

Early on February 1, 2021, when the new parliament was to sit for the first time, the military detained President Win Myint, Aung San Suu Kyi, and scores of other NLD ministers, members of parliament, and regional administrators, thereby depriving Myanmar’s people of their right to choose their government as enshrined in international law.

In the months following the coup, the junta arrested at least 197 ministers and members of parliament and 154 Union Election Commission officials. Suu Kyi and Win Myint are serving prison sentences of 27 and 8 years, respectively, on a slew of fabricated charges.

In January 2023, the junta enacted a new Political Party Registration Law designed to disqualify senior NLD members from participating in elections, violating international standards on the rights of political parties to organize and for their candidates to run for election. In March that year, the junta announced the NLD was among 40 political parties and other groups dissolved for failing to register under the new law. The junta disbanded four additional parties in September 2025 for failing to meet the law’s requirements.

The junta had previously declared the opposition National Unity Government and its parliamentary body, the Committee Representing Pyidaungsu Hluttaw, as “terrorist organizations.” Opposition groups have made clear they oppose any election under the junta.

After the coup, the junta replaced the civilian Union Election Commission with a military-appointed body. The European Union has sanctioned the current chair, Than Soe, appointed on July 31, 2025, and other junta commission members for being “directly involved in actions undermining democracy and the rule of law in Myanmar.” Before the coup, Than Soe led the military bloc in parliament’s upper house. Under the 2008 Constitution, the military appoints 25 percent of parliamentary seats.

On July 31, in preparation for the elections, the junta announced the formation of the State Security and Peace Commission to replace the State Administration Council, in place since the coup. It also declared a new state of emergency and martial law orders for 63 townships in Chin, Kachin, Karen (Kayin), Karenni (Kayah), Rakhine, and Shan States, and Magway, Mandalay, and Sagaing Regions, which were extended for another 90 days on October 31. The orders, issued primarily for townships under opposition control, transfer the “powers and responsibilities of the said townships to the Commander-in-Chief.”

In November 2024, the International Criminal Court prosecutor requested an arrest warrant for Commander-in-Chief Min Aung Hlaing for alleged crimes against humanity committed in 2017.

The junta has sought to crush all political opposition, derail any possible establishment of democratic civilian rule, and obtain legitimacy for a military-controlled state, Human Rights Watch said. It has laid the groundwork for elections dominated by the military-backed USDP. While the official 60-day campaign period began on October 28, the military proxy party’s campaigning was already well underway. The junta has reportedly banned campaign processions.

At the October summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for a “a credible path back to civilian rule” in Myanmar, stating: “I don’t think anybody believes that those elections will be free and fair.” Volker Türk, the UN high commissioner for human rights, called holding the elections in December “unfathomable.”

While ASEAN highlighted that peace and political dialogue “must precede elections,” the regional body lacks the tools to preclude individual member states from providing technical assistance or support bilaterally.

“Malaysia, Japan, and other Asian governments that have made clear these elections are harmful to Myanmar’s people should urge their neighbors to do the same,” Pearson said. “Counterbalancing any support from China, Russia, and other countries backing the polls will require a clear, emphatic message that these illegitimate elections will only entrench Myanmar’s descent into violence, repression, and autocratic rule.”

(Berlin, November 11, 2025) – Lawmakers in Kazakhstan should reject a draft law with amendments that would ban “propaganda of non-traditional sexual orientation,” seven international human rights groups said today. The groups are Access Now, Civil Rights Defenders; Eurasian Coalition on Health, Rights, Gender and Sexual Diversity; Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights; Human Rights Watch; International Partnership for Human Rights; and Norwegian Helsinki Committee.

If adopted, the proposed amendments to a draft law on archival affairs would violate fundamental human rights and increase the vulnerability of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex, and other queer people (LGBTIQ+) in Kazakhstan. The lower house of parliament is expected to vote on the draft law and amendments as soon as November 12, 2025.

Adopting a “LGBT propaganda ban” would blatantly violate Kazakhstan’s international human rights commitments, including children’s rights to education, health, and information, the groups said. Discriminatory and rights-violating provisions like those being proposed have no place in any democratic society, which Kazakhstan aspires to be.

The proposed propaganda-related provisions are completely unrelated to archival affairs and were included after a first draft of the archival affairs bill had already been approved by the lower house in its first reading on September 17, 2025. The bill next goes for a second reading in the lower house, and if adopted, must pass another reading by the Senate and then be signed by the president. 

A group of members of the lower house of parliament proposed the amendments on October 28. On October 29, the group held another meeting under the auspices of the Ministry of Culture and Information, which invited selected civil society experts and journalists to attend. 

Activists who attended the meeting said the group provided details about the anti-LGBTIQ+ provisions. The changes, if adopted, will amend laws on the rights of the child, mass media, online platforms, advertising, communications, culture, and education, and enable authorities to suspend access to websites and digital content without a court order. 

The parliament members also informed the participants that the provisions make “propaganda of non-traditional sexual orientation” an administrative offense, punishable by detention of up to 10 days and fines under article 456, part 2 of the administrative code. The wording of the amendments closely resembles the “LGBT propaganda ban” that was introduced in the Russian Federation in 2013.

It is unclear how the anti-LGBTIQ+ provisions would be justified as part of the draft law amending the law on archival affairs, nor were the civil society representatives who had been invited to the meeting allowed to comment or make recommendations. 

On October 29, Elnur Beisenbayev, the moderator of the discussion and executive secretary of the ruling Amanat Party, said the text of the draft law would only be published once it has been adopted, activists who attended the meeting told the rights groups. The amendments were proposed by 15 deputies from several political parties and endorsed by the ministries of Culture and Information, Internal Affairs, Health, and Education, they said. The Cabinet of Ministers also supported the changes, the activists said. 

Civil society members who attended the October 29 meeting said that the parliament members are proposing to define propaganda as “the dissemination of information about non-traditional sexual orientation and adherence to it, conducted publicly or through mass media, telecommunication networks or online platforms, including in a deliberately distorted form, to an undefined circle of persons, with the aim of forming a positive image.” As such, publishing any information about LGBTIQ+ topics or expressing support for people identifying as LGBTIQ+ under the proposed amendments could potentially lead to administrative charges. 

This most recent effort by Kazakhstan to ban “LGBT propaganda” goes against calls by United Nations human rights bodies that have repeatedly raised concerns about rights violations affecting LGBTIQ+ people in Kazakhstan. Most recently, on September 3, the UN Human Rights Committee, which reviews states’ compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, said that Kazakhstan should “redouble its efforts to combat discrimination, stereotypes and prejudice against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons … and reinforce the legal framework to promote the equal rights of lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender persons.” 

In 2023, the UN Committee against Torture expressed concern about “violence against individuals on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity” in Kazakhstan and said that the authorities should end such violence.

Despite its international obligations, Kazakhstan does not include sexual orientation or gender identity as a ground for protection against discrimination in its laws, and the authorities have denied registration to nongovernmental organizations supporting the rights of LGBTIQ+ people. 

LGBTIQ+ people are targets of assaults, threats, blackmail, and extortion by law enforcement officers and nonstate actors, as well as discrimination. Police violence, threats, and degrading treatment toward LGBTIQ+ people have resulted in deep mistrust of law enforcement among people who support these rights. Those responsible frequently commit these crimes with impunity, the groups said. 

Kazakhstan’s international partners should publicly condemn Kazakhstan lawmakers’ efforts to sneak these discriminatory provisions into the draft bill. When the bill goes to a vote, lawmakers should withdraw this harmful proposal and work with human rights organizations and LGBTIQ+ activists to improve protections rather than eroding them, and to protect the right to freedom of expression.

Kazakhstan’s Constitution protects against discrimination and guarantees freedom of expression and the right to freely receive and disseminate information. It is not too late for authorities in Kazakhstan to do the right thing and ensure that these abusive amendments are scrapped, the groups said.

(Nairobi) – The authorities in Cameroon responded to widespread opposition-led protests following the October 12, 2025 elections with lethal force and mass arrests of protesters and other citizens, Human Rights Watch said today.

The Constitutional Council announced on October 27 that the incumbent President Paul Biya, 92, had won the election with 53.66 percent of the vote. His main challenger, Issa Tchiroma Bakary, the former transport and communication minister, had declared himself the winner on October 12, alleging electoral fraud. Biya, who has been president since 1982, was sworn in for an eighth term on November 6.

“The violent crackdown on protesters and ordinary citizens across Cameroon lays bare a deepening pattern of repression that casts a dark cloud over the election” said Ilaria Allegrozzi, senior Africa researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The authorities should immediately rein in, investigate, and prosecute responsible security forces, and all political leaders should call on their supporters to reject violence.”

Human Rights Watch spoke to 20 people, including relatives of people killed or injured during protests, as well as lawyers and political opposition members.

The protests broke out on October 26 and continued over several days in several cities. They were followed by a lockdown between November 4 and 7, after Tchiroma urged citizens to stay at home to protest the election results.

Since October 26, police and gendarmes have responded with tear gas and live ammunition to disperse crowds. International media citing United Nations sources said security forces killed 48 people during protests across Cameroon. Opposition sources who spoke to Human Rights Watch put the death toll at 55. On November 6, René-Emmanuel Sadi, Cameroon’s communication minister, said that several dozen people died during protests and that “investigations are ongoing” to determine the exact death toll.

Some protests were violent, as crowds assaulted the police and gendarmes, throwing rocks and other objects. In some areas, protesters built roadblocks and set on fire and ransacked public buildings, shops, and other private properties. Security forces responded with lethal force.

On November 9, Tchiroma issued a 48-hour ultimatum to Cameroonian authorities, demanding the immediate release of all people detained since the elections and saying that “otherwise, the people will find themselves in a situation of self-defense.”

One man said gendarmes shot his 35-year-old brother, a trader, who was protesting in Douala’s New Bell neighborhood on October 28. He said he went to Laquintinie hospital, where “doctors told me he had been shot in the genitals … he died the following day.”

Another man said that police killed his is younger brother, a 34-year-old medical student, with gunfire during the protests in Douala on October 27. After seeing images of his brother’s body circulating on social media, he searched in various hospitals across the city, including a military hospital, to no avail.

On October 27, a 44-year-old plumber in Douala was shot in the stomach while the police were dispersing protesters with live ammunition in the Ari neighborhood. “He died on his way to the hospital,” his brother said.

A man said he rescued his 15-year-old nephew who was shot outside his home in Bafoussam’s Famleg neighborhood, where security forces were firing tear gas and live bullets at protesters on October 28. “Police and gendarmes were shooting randomly,” he said. “A bullet pierced his back and went out from his stomach.”

The authorities have also detained people. On November 6, the communication minister said “several hundred” were detained. According to a pool of 149 lawyers formed to provide pro-bono assistance to those held during and after protests, security forces detained up to 2,000 people, including several minors. Authorities have provided details about 105 people detained on October 26 in Douala.

Human Rights Watch reviewed 5 lists compiled by pro-opposition lawyers with the names of 312 people detained since October 26, with 154 yet to be presented before a judge. Among those detained in Yaoundé, at least six are being held at the at the State Defense Secretariat, (Secrétariat d’Etat à la défense), a detention facility where Human Rights Watch has documented routine use of torture.

Lawyers told Human Rights Watch that the charges against those detained include “hostility against the homeland,” “revolution,” “rebellion,” and “insurrection.” They said the offenses have been applied indiscriminately and are unrelated to the actual acts of protest. Some of these crimes could be punishable with the death penalty.

Lawyers also reported only very limited access to their clients, as well as mistreatment of some of them upon arrest.

Kengne Fabien, a lawyer, said that one of his clients, a 63-year-old civil engineer, was beaten upon arrest on October 27 in Douala. “Gendarmes beat him, tore his clothes, and detained him without explanation,” Kengne said. “My client was not involved in any protest but was questioned over a voice message he had sent in a family WhatsApp group urging relatives to vote for Tchiroma.” The man, Kengne said, has been held in administrative detention since October 30, without charge.

President Biya, the world’s longest-serving head of state, has ruled Cameroon since 1982, scrapping presidential term limits in 2008 and systematically suppressing opposition and dissent. In the months preceding the election, authorities further closed civic space, imposing harsh restrictions on freedom of expression, assembly, and association.

Cameroon’s constitution protects the rights to life, physical integrity, humane treatment, and freedom of assembly and expression. Cameroon is also a party to several international human rights treaties, such as the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provide similar protections and guarantees.

International law, including as part of the obligations to respect the rights to life and physical integrity, prohibits excessive use of force by law enforcement officials and regulates when they can resort to lethal force. The UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms provide that law enforcement officials may use force only in proportion to the seriousness of the offense, and that the intentional use of lethal force is permitted only when strictly unavoidable to protect life.

“The Cameroonian authorities should immediately release all those held in connection with peaceful protests or for peaceful expression of opposition to the government,” Allegrozzi said. “Anyone committing violence should be appropriately charged with their due process rights fully respected, including their rights to bail and to a prompt and fair trial with an effective defense.”

The US government suspended funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for the first time on November 1, amid what became the longest-ever US government shutdown. While Congress has voted to reopen the government and restore SNAP funding, those who rely on the program have faced fear and uncertainty.

Continued failures by the US government to adequately fund food assistance forced families into difficult decisions to make ends meet and posed serious threats to the human rights of tens of millions of people in the Unites States.

The harms caused by these cuts were disproportionately borne by children, Black families, and adults with disabilities. In fiscal year 2023, 39 percent of SNAP recipients were children under 18. Families of color—including Black, Indigenous, and Latino households—are twice as likely to participate in SNAP as white households. Adults with disabilities are similarly overrepresented. Participation in SNAP reduces both racial and geographic disparities in food insecurity.

Jataya Greathouse is a single mother of four young children who is currently unable to work while battling breast cancer. Greathouse, who is Black, told Human Rights Watch she relies on SNAP to help feed her family and that she has resorted to “stretching” meals with the groceries she obtains. “Some people cannot work … so by cutting [benefits], it hurts us.”

Yet even at their previous levels, SNAP benefits were often insufficient to allow families to access enough food. In 2021, when funding was at an all-time high, over a quarter of beneficiaries were still skipping meals and eligibility criteria left millions of struggling people without benefits. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act further reduced federal funding for SNAP and other social protection programs, partly to help pay for tax cuts primarily benefiting the wealthy.

Absent adequate social protection programs, communities often rely on each other for support; Greathouse’s aunt connected her to her local food bank. “I’m relying on SNAP to help feed my family,” she said. “If I don’t get it, it puts a hard rock on my back because now I’m not only going through something with my health, but I also have to figure out how to feed my kids.”

As the shutdown ends, the US government should immediately restore SNAP funding in full and as quickly as possible. It should refrain from further cutting funds and imposing unnecessarily burdensome eligibility requirements that make it more difficult for families to put food on the table.

(Beirut) – A Tunisian Court on November 17, 2025, is scheduled to hear the appeal of 37 people unjustly sentenced to heavy prison terms in a politically motivated “Conspiracy Case” from April, Human Rights Watch said today. Four of those detained are on hunger strike, including one who, according to his lawyers, was subjected to physical violence in prison on November 11.

The defendants were charged under numerous articles of Tunisia’s Penal Code and the 2015 Counterterrorism Law with plotting to destabilize the country. Human Rights Watch reviewed judicial documents in the case and found the charges to be unfounded and not based on credible evidence. The court should immediately overturn the abusive convictions and release all detainees, Human Rights Watch said.

“This entire case has been a masquerade, from the baseless accusations to a judicial process devoid of fair trial guarantees,” said Bassam Khawaja, deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “The authorities should end this judicial farce, which is part of a wider crackdown on any form of criticism or dissent.”

On April 19, the Tunis Court of First Instance sentenced the 37 people, including opponents of President Kais Saied, activists, lawyers, and researchers, to prison terms ranging from 4 to 66 years for “conspiracy against state security,” and terrorism offenses. They were convicted after only three hearings without due process protections. Three more defendants have not yet been tried and are in proceedings before the Court of Cassation.

On October 24, defense lawyers learned that the first appeal hearing would be held remotely via videoconference on October 27. The detained defendants were only notified on the day of the hearing, and the other defendants did not receive a summons, a lawyer told Human Rights Watch. On October 27, the hearing was adjourned to November 17.

Jaouhar Ben Mbarek, a political activist sentenced in April to 18 years in prison, began a hunger strike on October 29 to protest his arbitrary detention. He has not received adequate medical care in detention, his lawyer and sister Dalila Msaddek said. The Tunisian League for Human Rights and several lawyers have raised concerns about his health, which prison authorities rejected. In a video posted on Facebook, Msaddek said that on November 11, her brother was taken to an area in Belli prison without surveillance cameras and violently beaten by six other inmates and five prison guards. He has bruises on his body and a broken rib, she said.

Politician Issam Chebbi and lawyer Ridha Belhaj, who were handed the same sentence as Ben Mbarek, began a hunger strike on November 7 and 8, respectively. Political activist Abdelhamid Jelassi, who was sentenced to 13 years in prison also started a hunger strike on November 10.

The April trial was held without the main defendants, depriving them of a real opportunity to present their defense. The Tunis Court of First Instance and the public prosecutor claimed “a real danger” and tried some defendants by videoconference. Most of the detained defendants refused to attend by video. 

Judicial authorities also plan to conduct the appeal by videoconference, said the defense committee. The practice of remote hearings is inherently abusive, as it violates the right of detainees to be physically present before a judge who can assess the legality and conditions of their detention as well as their health. International human rights law, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, states that everyone has the right to be present at their trial. 

Twelve defendants are in detention. Some remain at liberty in Tunisia, and others abroad have been sentenced in absentia. Many of those convicted were initially arrested in February 2023 and held in abusive pretrial detention for more than two years, well beyond the maximum 14 months allowed under Tunisian law. A majority were taken before an investigative judge only once during that time. 

The government has retaliated against defense lawyers in the case, further undermining defendants’ due process rights, Human Rights Watch said. On April 21, Ahmed Souad, a defense lawyer for some defendants, was arrested and charged with terrorism and “spreading false information” under the counterterrorism and cybercrime laws for questioning the independence of the judiciary following the trial. His trial was held without him, lasting just minutes, and the judge deliberated without hearing his lawyers’ pleadings. On October 31, he was sentenced to five years in prison and three years of administrative supervision. 

Msaddek is set to appear before a Tunis court on November 25 for having spoken in a radio interview in 2023 in defense of her clients. She is accused of spreading “false information” and processing personal data under the cybercrime and protection of personal data laws.

In May 2023, Ayachi Hammami, previously a defense lawyer in the case, was added as a defendant, and sentenced in April to eight years in prison.

Following President Saied’s takeover of Tunisia’s state institutions on July 25, 2021, the authorities have dramatically intensified their repression of dissent. 

Since early 2023, they have stepped up arbitrary arrests and detention of people across the political spectrum perceived as critical of the government. The authorities’ repeated attacks on the judiciary, including Saied’s dismantling of the High Judicial Council, have severely undermined its independence and jeopardized Tunisians’ right to a fair trial.

Tunisia is a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which guarantee the right to freedom of expression and assembly, to a fair trial, and to not be subject to arbitrary arrest or detention.

“Tunisia’s international partners should speak up against this flagrant injustice and assault on the rule of law,” Khawaja said. “They should urge Tunisian authorities to cease their crackdown, overturn these convictions, and guarantee fair trials.”

(Mexico City) – The care system bill submitted to lawmakers by the government of Mexico City fails to guarantee autonomy, equality, and protection from abuse for people with disabilities and older people, Human Rights Watch said today. 

The Mexico City Congress has formed a committee of experts to organize a public consultation on proposals for a new care and support system, which will include a proposal by Clara Brugada, head of the city government. The proposed Public System of Care seeks to address longstanding gender, age, and disability-related inequalities in caregiving. This is an important goal, because women, including women with disabilities and older women, have long disproportionately shouldered caregiving responsibilities, Human Rights Watch said. However, disability and older people’s rights groups and advocates said that the proposal contains serious omissions and inconsistencies that fail to guarantee the rights and autonomy of people with disabilities and older people.

“The draft law recognizes care as a right but omits essential elements to make that right effective,” said Carlos Ríos Espinosa, associate disability rights director at Human Rights Watch. “It does not clearly define what ‘support’ means, specify the types of services that would be provided—such as personal assistance, decision-making support, and other support essential for people with disabilities—or guarantee that users have control over their care and support arrangements.”

In a letter to lawmakers, advocates said that organizations representing people with disabilities and older people need to actively participate in designing, managing, and monitoring the care system. They warned that the current approach risks reproducing the fundamental flaws of charity-based models, in which people are treated as passive recipients rather than active participants in shaping their support.

Under international standards, support includes measures that enable people to make their own decisions, participate in their communities, and live independently. This may include personal assistance, communication and decision-making support, technology and accessibility services, and assistance for children and adolescents with disabilities as they transition to adulthood. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in its Advisory Opinion 31/2025, recognized support for independent living as an inherent component of the right to care.

A lack of adequate support systems can also leave people with disabilities at greater risk of violence and abuse within their homes. In its 2020 report “Better to Make Yourself Invisible,” Human Rights Watch documented cases in four Mexican states, including Mexico City, where people with disabilities experienced neglect and mistreatment by family members or caregivers, a problem often fueled in large part by the absence of independent living support.

A woman with a physical disability in Mexico City told Human Rights Watch that she has not left her home in years because her relatives do not allow her to go out alone. She said they often yell at her and scold her for wanting to be more independent.

“They tell me: ‘You can’t go out, you’ll get hurt, you don’t understand,’” she said. “They get angry when I insist. Sometimes I feel like I’m in prison.” Her situation illustrates how the absence of alternatives to family-provided support can create environments in which control, neglect, or abuse may occur, Human Rights Watch said.

“Without access to personal assistance or community-based support, many people with disabilities are forced to remain in family settings where they experience neglect, coercion, or abuse,” Ríos Espinosa said. “A comprehensive system of care and support should empower people to report violence and make their own choices about where and with whom to live.”

Human Rights Watch also noted that the proposal lacks clarity on the specific services to be provided—such as publicly funded personal assistance—and fails to establish a dedicated budget or framework that could expand and improve the system over time.

A strong and inclusive care and support system is urgently needed to promote equality, autonomy, and shared responsibility in caregiving, Human Rights Watch said. That system should fully align with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Inter-American Convention on Protecting the Human Rights of Older Persons, ensuring that care and support policies empower users rather than limit their independence. An inclusive care and support system could also advance gender equality by enabling women—including women with disabilities and older women—to exercise their rights and participate fully in education, work, and community life.

“The authorities should use this consultation process to strengthen the bill,” Ríos Espinosa said. “The law should reflect the lived experiences of those it is meant to serve—people with disabilities, older people, caregivers, and support providers—so that the right to care and support becomes a reality, not merely a promise.”

(New York) – Governments negotiating a new global treaty on gig work should strengthen the draft text to ensure fair wages and social security for these workers and protect them from exploitative management, Human Rights Watch said today, submitting a briefing with proposals for the treaty.

The International Labour Organization (ILO) is currently developing the first global rules for work organized through “digital platforms,” businesses like Uber, Lyft, or DoorDash. As part of the ILO process, governments, workers, and employers are submitting comments on the draft ahead of final negotiations in 2026.

“This is a historic opportunity to make sure technology and the economy work for workers, not against them,” said Lena Simet, senior economic justice researcher at Human Rights Watch. “At the ILO, governments, employers, and workers are writing the rules together, and those rules should protect the people doing the work, not the corporations that shift costs and risks onto their workers.”

The ILO estimates that platform work has nearly doubled in recent years, and the World Bank estimates that up to 400 million people now earn income through these businesses. 

These companies promise their workers freedom and flexibility, but in reality, undermine their rights. 

Around the world, platform companies misclassify workers as self-employed, evading legal obligations for minimum wages, safety, and social security. Algorithms determine who works, when, and at what rate, usually without transparency for workers or accountability for errors and injustices. Existing international law does not provide guidance on algorithmic management in the workplace, leaving a major gap in securing protections for workers’ rights. 

The Human Rights Watch briefing complements a joint submission with nine civil society organizations outlining concrete proposals to ensure the treaty delivers on its promise of decent work for all platform workers. Human Rights Watch’s recommendations build on findings from a report the organization released earlier in 2025, which documented that platform workers across the US are being denied their human rights, including with pay below the minimum wage, unsafe working conditions, and the use of opaque and unaccountable algorithms to evade employer responsibilities.

Human Rights Watch recommends that the treaty treat platform workers as employees unless a company can prove genuine independence, ensuring workers are not wrongly classified as self-employed and denied labor rights protections. At the same time, it should make clear that all individuals working for these companies, regardless of contractual status, are entitled to the treaty’s protections.

The treaty should guarantee workers’ rights to safe and healthy working conditions by requiring companies to mitigate work-related risks and algorithm-driven pressure that pushes workers to work faster or longer. It should also ensure fair wages for all working time, including waiting periods, and require companies to cover the work-related expenses and social security contributions that traditional employers pay.

Stronger safeguards are also needed for algorithmic management. The treaty should require transparency about how automated systems affect all aspects of work, including pay and access to jobs, and ensure meaningful human review and appeal for automated decisions. Finally, it should explicitly protect gig workers’ rights to organize and bargain collectively without retaliation or digital surveillance, ensuring that workers can safely join together to improve their conditions.

Governments should use this moment to champion a treaty that brings platform work in line with international human rights law, Human Rights Watch said.

“Gig workers have the same rights as everyone else,” Simet said. “They should not be paid poverty wages or abused through the use of blackbox and unfair algorithms. This ILO treaty can help correct the violations many gig workers face worldwide and show that human rights can be enforced in the digital age.”

• Increased cooperation between Thai and Vietnamese authorities is putting Vietnamese refugees and asylum seekers in Thailand at heightened risk of forcible return to Vietnam. Vietnam and Thailand are cooperating more closely and exchanging information about Vietnamese exiles, particularly since early 2024 when the two countries began negotiating an extradition treaty.
• Thai police should stop arresting Vietnamese refugees and asylum seekers. Thai authorities should stop cooperating with Vietnamese police seeking their return.
• Outside governments need to expedite resettlement of refugees in Thailand and urge Thailand to prevent Vietnam’s interference in Thai refugee cases.

(Bangkok) – Increased cooperation between Thai and Vietnamese authorities is putting Vietnamese refugees and asylum seekers in Thailand at heightened risk of forcible return to Vietnam, Human Rights Watch said today. By facilitating Vietnamese cross-border abuses, known as transnational repression, Thai authorities are violating international refugee law protections. 

Thai police have carried out several large-scale operations in 2025 detaining scores of Vietnamese nationals, many of whom are recognized by the United Nations as refugees and asylum seekers. Many of those arrested have reported encountering Vietnamese officials inside jails or immigration detention facilities and during check-in meetings with Thai immigration authorities. 

“Vietnamese exiles are facing increased insecurity in Thailand,” said John Sifton, Asia advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. “Thai authorities should immediately stop detaining refugees and stop cooperating with Vietnamese police seeking their return.”

Human Rights Watch interviewed 34 Vietnamese refugees and asylum seekers in Bangkok from July through October 2025, including 7 people previously involved in human rights activism in Vietnam, 3 relatives of current political prisoners, as well as over 20 ethnic Montagnards and Hmong facing persecution in Vietnam for their religious beliefs or involvement in protests. Nearly all have been recognized as refugees by the UN refugee agency (UNHCR) or are registered with the UN as asylum seekers and are awaiting interviews to determine their status. 

Most of the exiled Vietnamese interviewed said fears of arrest, abduction, or extradition to Vietnam have grown in the past two years due to increased visits by Vietnamese authorities to Thai immigration detention centers. They also cited the April 2023 abduction of dissident journalist Duong Van Thai, 42, a UNHCR-registered refugee who had fled Vietnam in 2019 and was awaiting resettlement to a third country. Unidentified men forcibly took him to Vietnam, and in late October 2024, after a closed one-day trial, a Vietnamese court sentenced him to 12 years in prison for publishing information “aimed at opposing the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.” Exiles’ apprehension increased further after Thai authorities, assisted by Vietnamese security personnel, arrested the dissident Y Quynh Bdap in June 2024. The Vietnamese government has labeled Bdap’s human rights group, Montagnards Stand for Justice, as a “terrorist” group.

In 2025, Thai police have carried out multiple operations targeting Vietnamese exiles, including in February, March, April, July, and October. Many of those arrested are ethnic Montagnards or Hmong from Vietnam’s Central Highlands, most of whom are recognized by UNHCR as refugees or asylum seekers with applications in process. Several Montagnards and Hmong detained in February through April gave consistent accounts after their release of Vietnamese police in Thai facilities pressing them to agree to return to Vietnam and later harassing them during check-in sessions with Thai immigration authorities.

Many refugees said Vietnamese police had visited their relatives in Vietnam in the last year, telling them that the police had located their relatives in Thailand and were arranging to have them returned.

Several human rights groups in Thailand have interviewed detainees and released exiles who corroborate these findings and have sent private reports to UN officials with allegations about cases of abuse.

Thai police regularly detain UNHCR-recognized refugees—including from Vietnam, Cambodia, and Myanmar—and hold them until they pay a bail bond, which most refugees and immigration advocates consider to be bribes. Human Rights Watch reported in July that Thai police routinely arrest and solicit bribes from Myanmar asylum seekers and migrants. Another Human Rights Watch report documented Thai authorities assisting foreign governments to target refugees.

The Thai government is obligated to respect the international law principle of nonrefoulement, or non-return, which prohibits countries from returning anyone to a place where they would face a real risk of persecution, torture or other serious ill-treatment, a threat to life, or other comparable serious human rights violations. Refoulement is prohibited by the UN Convention Against Torture, to which Thailand is a party, as well as customary international law. The prohibition on refoulement is incorporated in Thailand’s 2023 Act on Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearances.

Vietnam and Thailand appear to have agreed to cooperate more closely and exchange information about Vietnamese refugees, especially those in detention, since early 2024 when the two countries began negotiating an extradition treaty. In May 2025, Vietnamese Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh and Thailand’s then-Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra signed a Comprehensive Agreement in which they “agreed to enhance legislative and judicial cooperation and committed to effectively implementing signed agreements between the two countries on preventing and combating crime, transferring sentenced persons, and cooperating in the enforcement of penal sentences.”

In July, several UN human rights experts sent letters to the governments of Vietnam and Thailand requesting information about many of these cases. The UN experts stated that “[t]here are concerns that the Government of Viet Nam may be exchanging information with the Government of Thailand to identify Vietnamese Montagnard refugees in Thailand for their possible forced repatriation to Viet Nam, including those recognized as refugees by the UNHCR and being considered for resettlement in third countries.”

The experts also expressed alarm about the reported incidents of “reprisals and intimidation” against exile human rights defenders in Thailand and “the undue restrictions” imposed on diaspora organizations, which they determined were “designed to further discourage cooperation with the United Nations” and prevent people from providing information to the UN.

Countries that have previously resettled Vietnamese refugees, such as Australia, Canada, Germany, and other European states, should consider increasing their resettlement of those at serious risk, Human Rights Watch said. The US has all but suspended refugee resettlement programs, including for refugees in Thailand.

“Thailand is now cooperating and is complicit in Vietnam’s transnational repression of exiles in Thailand,” Sifton said. “Outside governments need to expedite resettlement of refugees at risk in Thailand and urge the government to prevent Vietnam’s interference in refugee cases.”

Thailand-Vietnam Cooperation, Pressure on Refugees

Immigration Raids

Thai authorities for years have carried out sweeps to detain migrants and immigrants, many of them refugees or asylum seekers from Myanmar, Vietnam, and elsewhere in the region. Those arrested are typically charged for entering Thailand illegally or working without a valid visa. Asylum seekers and refugees registered with UNHCR are generally not authorized to work under Thai law. 

Those arrested are usually held short term in Thai jails. Some obtain release after paying what authorities call fines, ranging from 1,000 to 5,000 Thai baht (US$30 to $150) each. Detainees unable to pay or otherwise obtain release from jail are then usually transferred to immigration detention centers, where they are held until they can post a bond, typically 50,000 baht (US$1,500), and demonstrate that they have obtained a Thai guarantor. In some other cases, they are deported or later resettled as refugees to third countries.

On February 23, 2025, in Nonthaburi province, just outside Bangkok, Thai police detained over 60 Montagnard people, including several UNHCR-recognized refugees, according to witnesses and UN reporting. Most were convicted of “illegal entry and stay” and sent to jail. Detainees subsequently were placed in immigration detention centers, women with children were transferred to an immigration detention center in Bang Khen in Bangkok, while others were sent to the Suan Phlu center. Police in May also detained several other Montagnard refugees and asylum seekers in and around Bangkok. 

In other raids in March, April, and July, Thai police arrested dozens of Hmong refugees and asylum seekers. Some were able to pay fines or post bail to be released, but many Hmong people detained from early 2025 remained in detention as of early November.

In a more recent operation in Nonthaburi on October 29, Thai police detained 70 Montagnards in an early morning raid. According to local sources, those detained included 42 people whom UNHCR had determined were refugees or who were awaiting processing of their asylum claims. Several had been detained in the earlier raids.

The authorities soon released 20 of them, who had previously been released on bail, and took the rest to the Suan Phlu immigration detention facility. A member of the Montagnard community in Nonthaburi said that the next day, the Thai authorities fined the remaining detainees 5,000 Thai baht (US$150) each, indicating that they would be released on payment of the fine.

Threats to Families in Vietnam 

Human Rights Watch interviewed over a dozen men and two women in Thailand from the Montagnard community in Bangkok who had fled Vietnam at various times from 2015 to 2023. Several said that government officials had regularly visited the exiles’ relatives in their home districts in Vietnam’s Central Highlands in recent months and urged them to tell their exiled family members to return. A Montagnard man in his 30s said police went to his village in February and told his parents that they knew where her son was and that they should tell him to come home, saying that if he returned, “there will be less trouble.”

Some refugees said that relatives arrested during the immigration raid in Nonthaburi province in April and May told them by telephone that Thai authorities had allowed two Vietnamese police officials to interrogate them in detention soon after their arrest. The police, their relatives said, threatened several of them with forced repatriation, demanding that they sign documents in which they would agree to be returned. Some said that while they were detained, Vietnamese police visited their families in Vietnam and attempted to coerce them to convince their relatives to return.

Several Hmong refugees reported similar incidents and trends. A Hmong woman, whose husband was a leader of an unregistered Christian church and who had fled with him and the rest of their family in 2022, said the police now regularly visit her parents and parents-in-law in Vietnam.

“They came on August 1 [2025] and told them, ‘We have an agreement with the Thai police to bring him back,’” referring to her husband, who had been in Thai immigration detention. They told them, “We’re going to put him in jail for his anti-state activities.” The woman said she believed the police were suggesting that if his parents and parents-in-law helped convince her husband to return voluntarily, he would be rewarded with some leniency. 

Nguyen Viet Dung, a former political prisoner convicted in 2018 for conducting “propaganda against the state,” who fled Vietnam after his release in late 2024, said that his relatives in Vietnam had faced growing intimidation. He provided multiple examples of Vietnamese police visiting his parents and sister in 2025. He expressed concern that Vietnamese authorities would seek his arrest in Thailand because he was on still on parole from his 2018 conviction when he fled Vietnam, making his departure illegal. 

An asylum seeker who fled in 2023, Hoang Hao, whose brother Hoang Duc Binh is a political prisoner in Vietnam, said the authorities have frequently harassed his sister in Vietnam. He said they press her to speak with him by telephone and urge him to return, while suggesting that they will otherwise compel Thailand to have him returned. Two other Vietnamese refugees gave similar accounts.

Vietnamese Authorities Harassing Refugees in Thailand

Several Hmong and Montagnard refugees who were held in Thai immigration detention in February through May, as well as refugees who spoke with detainees held there through August, said that Thai authorities allow Vietnamese police to visit detainees. With the involvement of Thai officials, they have repeatedly sought to convince or compel detainees to sign documents agreeing to return to Vietnam, which detainees have refused. And in March 2024, several Montagnards said Vietnamese police visited their community near Bangkok accompanied by Thai police, pressured them to return to Vietnam, and questioned them about other Montagnards who they said were wanted for arrest in Vietnam.

Several Montagnards described their interactions with Vietnamese police in detention or during check ins. “First they say they’ll be more lenient if you agree to return,” one said. “Of course we don’t believe them. They have been harassing our community for a long time.” Another said a Vietnamese police officer pulled him aside from the others when he had his monthly check-in with Thai immigration officials: “‘You’ve been here [in Thailand] for a long time, and still not been resettled to the United States. When are you ever going to get to go?’ They said, ‘If you stay here and the government here makes problems for you, then you can call us, and we’ll help you.’ The meaning to me was a threat. They’ll tell the Thai police to arrest us.”

In April, Vietnamese police pulled aside some Montagnard men during their check-in sessions with Thai immigration authorities. “They took some of us aside and yelled at us,” said a Montagnard Christian. He said that the police officer threatened them: “All Montagnards here are terrorists. We’ll tell them [Thai police] that you’re terrorists, and if you worship together [in church], the Thai police are to arrest you.”

After the arrests of scores of Montagnards in February, immigration lawyers successfully posted bail for most detainees, but Thai authorities rejected bail for two of them, Y Phuong Enuol and Y Duong Bkrong, reportedly because of warrants for their arrest in Vietnam, said advocates familiar with their case. UN rights experts noted in their July letter to the Thai government that Vietnamese officials in March visited these detainees, who, the experts said, “have expressed a fear of persecution by the Vietnamese authorities.”

Separately, Thai authorities in February through April arrested over a dozen Hmong men registered as refugees with UNHCR. Family members and rights advocates said most were affiliated with the Hmong Human Rights Coalition, a civil society group that monitors and reports on human rights violations against Hmong people in Vietnam. Vietnamese officials visited these detainees on multiple occasions in late April and early May at the Suan Phlu immigration detention center. They encouraged detainees to voluntarily return to Vietnam and to sign forms to facilitate their repatriation. None agreed. Most of the men remain in detention as of November 2025.

Thai authorities have detained Giang A Au, a Hmong Christian pastor who fled Vietnam with his family 10 years ago, with his wife and daughters several times, including as recently as April. His son, Giang A Nanh, 25, told Human Rights Watch in August that his father called him from immigration detention in early May and told him that he had been visited by a Vietnamese official, who identified himself as “Mr. Hung,” who had the father’s Vietnamese passport and national ID card, confiscated by Thai authorities during his arrest.

Giang A Nanh said that Hung told his father: “You and your family have been in Thailand for nearly 10 years. Vietnam has changed a lot. The United States has also closed its doors to refugees. There is no place left for you to go. Now you must return to Vietnam.” Giang A Au refused, and Hung said: “Remember, you have children waiting for you outside. You also have relatives in Vietnam, we know them all.” Hung then said that even if Giang A Au obtained bail, Thai police would rearrest him and that he would not be able to work in Thailand. If he tried to work, Hung said, Thai police would arrest him again. 

Human Rights Watch learned in November that Thai authorities in late September had arrested the son, Giang A Nanh, and sent him to a Thai jail. After a month, the authorities transferred him to Thai immigration detention, where he has been held with his father and mother along with other Vietnamese detainees. His younger sisters, 18 and 21, are now the only adult caregivers of his younger brothers, ages 11 and 14.

The wives of five other detained Hmong activists said that their husbands had told them by telephone in April through July that Vietnamese security officials had visited them in detention and attempted to compel them to sign papers agreeing to be repatriated to Vietnam. The men refused, aware that the government considers them to be dissidents who have broken the law.

Vietnam state-run media have repeatedly broadcast reports that Hmong dissidents who left Vietnam without permission and criticized the government were criminals. A June 2024 broadcast on the government ANTV State Security Television featured a report on some of the 13 Hmong men arrested in March 2025, including Ma Seo Chang, Ma A Dinh, and Ma A Sinh.

The report said they had “illegally emigrated” to Thailand and claimed that the men were “defaming the policies of the [Communist] Party and Vietnamese State, fabricating false accusations about democracy, human rights, or religious freedom is the way these expatriates make a living.” Ma A Dinh and Ma A Sinh, who later obtained bail, said that the government considers them and other Hmong men arrested in March “enemies of the state.” ANTV again focused on the three men in April 2025, just after their arrest in Thailand, and in July 2025, and mocked their views. 

Another Hmong activist, Lu A Da, a coordinator with the Hmong Human Rights Coalition in Thailand who fled Vietnam in 2020, said that he also encountered Vietnamese authorities twice after he was arrested and placed in Thai immigration detention in December 2023. His arrest had occurred just two weeks after he had spoken virtually on a UN human rights panel addressing discrimination against Indigenous groups in Vietnam. 

Lu A Da said a Vietnam police official visited him in detention and that the official’s attempts to pressure him suggested to him that the Vietnamese government had sought his arrest. The official attempted to convince him to return to Vietnam, saying he would quickly process paperwork before the upcoming Lunar New Year. Lu A Da said, “When I refused his offer, he threatened me, warning, ‘You may do whatever you want in Thailand, but think about your family in Vietnam,’ This was intended to intimidate me into stopping my human rights work.”

Immigration Detention as Possible Vietnamese Proxy Detention 

Several refugees and immigration and human rights advocates in Bangkok expressed concern that the Vietnamese authorities effectively made use of Thailand’s immigration detention system to incarcerate and punish prominent Montagnard and Hmong exiles, as well as to exert pressure on them and their communities to return to Vietnam. 

Some former detainees said that during visits to Thai detention, Vietnamese officials said that they had requested that Thai immigration authorities continue their detention until they agreed to return to Vietnam.

In at least one case, the Thai authorities rebuffed a Vietnamese government request after the UN intervened. Lu A Da, of the Hmong Human Rights Coalition in Thailand, said that Vietnamese authorities, after pressing him to return when he was in Thai detention in late 2023, were subsequently unable to have his detention extended, after the UN officials secured his release. The Vietnamese government then ramped up their public campaign against him and other Hmong exiles, labeling them criminals.