International System of Protection

Published by Tech Global Institute, this white paper s a result of 12 digital rights organizations convening in Kathmandu, Nepal, last year to share lessons in combating digital authoritarianism in South Asia. The paper analyzes the digital rights challenges in the region – state control, imposition of external regulatory models, among others – and focuses on Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. The authors stress the urgency of forming a South Asian digital rights coalition: “Such a coalition would facilitate regional collaboration, enabling civil society to collectively advocate for a more equitable, locally relevant approach to digital rights.”

The Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) published a thematic report on the digital age challenges to inclusion and public debate, focusing specifically on digital literacy and content moderation processes. Premised on the international human rights principles, the report offers normative guidance – in essence, a content governance framework – to states and other relevant actors “​​in promoting an internet that is truly accessible to all persons, without discrimination.” The report concludes with a list of recommendations, one of which urges states to adopt policies that tackle “hate speech or disinformation coming from public figures” but warns that “[s]uch policies should be aligned with international human rights standards, especially the three-part test of legality, legitimate aim, and necessity and proportionality.”

The report, published by the Digital Human Rights Monitor of the Movimiento Vinotinto Civil Association in December 2024, explains how Venezuela’s political and social crisis undermines the exercise of fundamental rights in digital environments. Written by Manuel Virguez and Yasmin Faneite of Movimiento Vinotinto, the study documents the state of digital rights in Venezuela over the past year by focusing on freedom of expression online, institutional cyberviolence, and access to information. The methods used to compile the report included a review of documents (laws, doctrines, and opinions of international organizations), surveys of Internet users, and in-depth interviews with human rights defenders, activists, and tech specialists who have been directly affected by the state’s digital repression.

In this segment of the MOOC 'Freedom of Expression in the Age of Globalization' created by Columbia Global Freedom of Expression, professor Dr. Dirk Voorhoof  from Ghent University, Belgium addresses how is freedom of speech, freedom of expression, guaranteed under the European human rights system

In this segment of the MOOC created by Columbia Global Freedom of Expression, Agnès Callamard focuses on a case from the European Court: Wegrzynowski and Smolczewski v. Poland

“The present report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, is being submitted to the Human Rights Council pursuant to Council resolution 34/18. In the report the Special Rapporteur registers alarm that some efforts to combat the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic may be failing to meet the standards of legality, necessity and proportionality. The Special Rapporteur highlights five areas of concern, showing that access to information, independent media and other free expression rights are critical to meeting the challenges of pandemic.”

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights' Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression (RELE) has released a report titled "Disinformation, pandemic and human rights". The report examines the impact of disinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic, the challenges of collective understanding, internet moderation practices, and the impacts of state measures on human rights. The RELE recommends States respect and guarantee human rights, including freedom of expression, and address the risks of violations during future health emergencies. The report emphasizes the importance of valuing public information and promoting digital debate during emergencies.

The East African Court of Justice (EACJ) offers a guide to the registry and court users - East Africans and everyone interested in the EACJ. Arranged in a Q&A format, the guide provides answers to more than forty questions, such as “Why is the East African Court of Justice needed?”, “Who may appear or be represented before the Court?”, and “What are the Form and Content of the Court’s Judgments, Rulings, Decisions, Decrees and Orders?”. The guide starts by explaining the Treaty that established the East African Community (EAC), the Treaty’s objectives, and principles. The guide then covers the EACJ’s structure, the scope of its jurisdiction, and the court’s access, trial, and appeal procedures. The guide concludes with a glossary of legal terms as per the meanings assigned to them by the EAC Treaty.

The ECtHR’s Press Service published an updated factsheet that includes the Court’s case law and pending cases grouped by themes on hate speech. The factsheet explains two approaches used by the Court in considering such cases: 1) “the approach of exclusion from the protection of the Convention,” based on Article 17; and 2) “the approach of setting restrictions on protection,” based on paragraph 2 of Article 10. The two approaches structure the first part of the cases’ list, which is not exhaustive; each case is marked by a narrower corresponding theme (“Threat to the democratic order,” “Racial hate,” “Incitement to violence or hatred against people because of their sexual orientation,” “Incitement to ethnic hatred,” and “Extremism” among many others). The factsheet’s second part contains two big groups of cases sorted as “Online hate speech” and “Hate speech and right of others to respect for private life.” The most recent cases highlighted in the factsheet include Lenis v. Greece and Rivadulla Duró v. Spain (both are decisions on admissibility), Ossewaarde v. Russia, Fragoso Dacosta v. Spain, Sanchez v. France, and Valaitis v. Lithuania. 

In this submission to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Egypt in January 2025, Amnesty International assesses the country’s human rights framework and its implementation of previous UPR’s recommendations. “Since Egypt’s third UPR in 2019, the country has remained in the throes of a protracted human rights and impunity crisis,” the group states. Evaluating the current state of freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly on the ground, Amnesty underscores that thousands of people – journalists, activists, and protesters among them – have been arrested arbitrarily and/or faced unjust persecution, while at least 600 websites, including news, politics, and human rights platforms, have been blocked since 2017. On the occasions of rare protests, Amnesty stresses, the Egyptian authorities have resorted to unlawful force in their crackdown and mass arrests.