International Day of Democracy - 2026

                Last Tuesday, 15th of September all the world reinforced the importance of democracy, and this year the theme was the importance of human rights to democracy. The importance of broader participation and inclusion. The importance of support journalists and human rights defenders who fight for make institutions more inclusive, fairer and trustful. For many years I've heard that people doesn't care about injustice, now we all know that this is a lie. Once again I'd like to thank everyone participating in this huge and resilient worldwide movement for justice and my political rights. Unfortunately this year again I was blocked to be a candidate and to make matters worse inexpicably I lost the custody of my only son.      Fighting for democracy, justice, human rights, development and political participation must be a duty for all of us. I have a YouTube channel, here is the link.   https://www.youtube.com/@lucianofietto4773/videos. Since the creation of this channel its visualization counter doesn't work, the same has been happening with the counter of this blog since its creation in 2010. Never a human rights defender has had so many rights violated for so long time      I really appreciate the support I see every day on internet.   This post is a summary of the article published at https://www.gicj.org/international-days-en/4532-international-day-of-democracy-september-15th

                 International Day of Democracy 2026 arrives with a sharper question than the one asked a year ago: not simply who is represented in democratic institutions, but whether those represented can exercise their rights, influence decisions and hold power accountable. The Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) has chosen, "Bring Human Rights Into Focus" as the 2026's theme. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) remains one of democracy's clearest foundations. Its principles of equality, freedom of expression and participation in government establish rights can't be separated from legitimate democratic governance. The U.N. has reinforced this message. In his 15 September, 2026 message for Day of Democracy, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that the world is facing deepening division, multiplying conflicts, declining trust and a weakening social contract between citizens and governments. He stressed that democracy is more than elections, describing it as a daily practice of protecting human rights, the rule of law and meaningful participation across civic and political life. He also highlighted democratic processes as a means of bringing people from different parts of society into decision-making and strengthening peaceful, inclusive and resilient societies. The relationship between democracy, human rights and public participation has received renewed attention. Yet the distance between formal commitmens and lived experience remains considerable. Political violence, discrimination, restrictions on civic spaces continue to prevent many citizens from exercising democratic rights on equal terms. Technology adds another dimension to this debate. Digital platforms can broaden political participation, and connect citizens with insitutions. They can also accelerate misinformation, online harassment and the misuse of A.I. The democratic tasks is to ensure that technology expands participation without weakening privacy, freedom of expression, equality or public trust. The international community has therefore moved from broad declaration towards a more demanding implementation. The question is whether these commitments are reaching citizens worldwide. Democracy becomes credible when laws are applied fairly, institutions can be challenged, elections are trusted, journalists and civil society can operate safely and citizens can see a connection between their voice and public decisions. Democratic progress should be visible in greater representation of historically excluded citizens, stronger protection from political violence, wider civic participation, better access to justice, more accountable institutions and safer spaces for democratic expressions. International Day of Democracy should therefore be understood not merely as an annual celebration, but as an annual audit of democratic performance. Geneva International Center for Justice therefore calls the attention of states, parliaments, NGOs and other stakeholders to the continuing barriers faced by journalists and human rights defenders, including discrimination, harassment and the misuse of technology to undermine public participation.

50th Birthday of Alexei Navalny

                  A little more than three months ago, precisely on 4th of June, the Russian activist Alexei Navalny would complete 50 years-old, so this post is a tribute to him. He bravely fought against the dictatorship in Russia. Fighting for democracy, justice, human rights, development and political participation must be a duty for all of us. I have a YouTube channel, here is the link.   https://www.youtube.com/@lucianofietto4773/videos. Since the creation of this channel its visualization counter doesn't work, the same has been happening with the counter of this blog since its creation in 2010. Never a human rights defender has had so many rights violated for so long time.This post is a summary of two articles. The first was published at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Navalny. The second was published at https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/nov/03/alexei-navalny-patriot-russia-books

                  Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny was a Russian opposition leader, anti-corruption activist and political prisoner. He founded the Anti-Corruption Foundation in 2011. He was recognised by Amnesty International as a prisoner of conscience and was awarded the Sakharov Prize for his work on human rights. Through his social media accounts, Navalny and his team published material about the corruption in Russia, organised political demonstrations and promoted his campaigns. He published investigations detailing alleged corruption by high-ranking Russian officials and their associates. Navalny twice received a suspended sentence for embezzlement, in 2013 and 2014. Both criminal cases have been considered political motivated and intended to bar him from running in future elections. He ran in the 2013 Moscow mayoral election and came in second with 27%, but he was barred from running in the 2018 presidential election. In August 2020, Navalny was hospitalised after being poisoned. He was medically evacuated to Berlin and discharged a month later. He accused President Vladimir Putin of being responsible for his poisoning, and an investigation implicated Russian Federal agents. In January 2021, Navalny returned to Russia and was detained on accusations of violating parole conditions while hospitalised in Germany. Following his arrest, mass protests were held across Russia. The next month, Navalny's suspended sentence was replaced of over 2 and half years's detention, and his organisations were later liquidated. In March 2022, he was sentenced to an additional nine years in prison after being found guilty of embezzlement. Following the rejection of his appeal, Navalny was transferred to a high-security prison in June. In August 2023, he received another sentence of 19 years on extremism charges. In December 2023, Navalny went missing from prison for almost three weeks. He re-emerged in an Artic corrective colony. In 2024, the Russian prison service reported that Navalny had died.

Alexei Navalny, Russia's leading dissident, died last February, imprisoned in the Article Circle. His posthumously published memoir is an exhilarating read. With an eye on pending tragedy, he lovingly writes of family, doubles down on faith and celebrates the quotidian. Navalny founded the Anti-Corruption Foundation in 2011 and he took his opposition to Putin mainstream two years later, running for mayor of Moscow. In 2016, Navalny announced a run for president, challenging Putin directly, only to see his candidacy barred in 2018. In 2020, he was poisoned. After hospitalization in Germany, he returned to Russia, immediately he was arrested and sent to exile to a penal colony in the Artic. He died there at the age of 47. On the page, from the grave, Navalny lambasts the war on Ukraine. "Because of Putin, tens of thousands, of Ukrainians and Russians citizens will die. Yes, he'll stop Ukraine from developing, he'll drag it into the swamp, but Russia too will pay a high price." Navalny's scorn is stringent:"We have everything for massive 21st-century development, but we'll again squander the historic opportunity of leading a rich, healthy life as a nation, in exchange for war, filth, lies, and a palace with golden eagles." The Russian government blamed natural causes for Navalny's death. To his supporters, it was an execution ordered from on high. Navalny himself was uncertain that autocracies are destined to fail. China, Cuba and North Korea have outlasted their critics. "We underestimate how resilient authocracies are in the modern world," Navalny writes, "protected as they are from external invasion by the U.N., by the rights of sovereignty. Beyond that, Russia is additionally protected by its membership in the U.N. security council and its nuclear weapons."

90th Anniversary of the Ford Foundation

                    Almost nine months ago, precisely on 15th of January the Ford Foundation complete 90 years old. So this post is a tribute to this important organisation. It would be good if the billionaries of nowadays can be inspire from Henry Ford and make something to help the human rights, democracy, justice and economic and political inclusion  This post is a summary of two articles. The first was published at https://www.fordfoundation.org/news-and-stories/stories/a-living-legacy-of-social-justice-at-a-global-scale/. The second was published athttps://www.fordfoundation.org/about/about-the-ford-foundation/a-history-of-social-justice/ford-foundation-at-90/. The third was published at https://www.fordfoundation.org/our-work-around-the-world/brazil/

                     In 1936, the Ford Foundation began as a modest. local endeavor in Detroit. This year, as mark our 90th anniversary, we look back on a journey that has seen a family trust evolve into a global catalyst for change. In 1949, the Ford Foundation was on the brink of a radical evolution. The bequests of Henry Ford and his son, Edsel Ford, had transformed the foundation into the largest in the world. Harnessing the potential of that endowment meant Ford would have to transition from a Detroit-focused charity to a large international philanthropy. To focus its giving, the foundation commissioned a blue-ribbon panel to determine how best to achieve its mission of advancing human welfare. "Basic to human welfare...is a belief in the inherent worth of the individual, in the intrinsic value of human life," they wrote. Only by advancing human dignity, the panel advised, could Ford fulfill s global vision of social justice. It began in the 1950s, when many countries around the world had won their independence and require a new generation of leadership to guide their democracies. In 1952, we established our first non-U.S. office in India, before rapidly expanding to Indonesia, Nigeria, Egypt, Brazil, Kenya, and Mexico. Building state capacity meant more than effective public administration. True dignity required a nation to be self-sufficient when it came to feeding its population, so Ford funded agricultural development programs and research institutions across the world. This work, in partnership with the Rockfeller Foundation and the U.S. government, spurred the Green Revolution, helping strengthen global food security. By the 1970s, we realized that supporting institutions was necessary but not sufficient. To keep justice moving, we knew we needed to invest in individuals who can shape insitutions for the better. These initiatives were paired with targeted support for individuals on the frontlines of specific crises. In Bangladesh, this meant supporting Yunus and the establishment of the Grameen Bank, Nobel prize-winning work in offering small loans to low-income households. And across Latin America, we funded the documentation of human rights abuses and fostered inquiry during periods of dictatorship. This work signaled a new era in Ford's international work in the 1980s and 1990s: the strengthening of civil society. This included nurturing the emergent field of international human rights, including grants to groups like Human Rights First and Human Rights Watch. It included investing in local civil society. By investing in these groups, we were investing in the defenders of democracy, empowering individuals to hold their own institutions accountable. As Ford celebrates its 90th anniversary this year, our long legacy of international work proves that durable progress begins on the ground. Yet a new era heralds new challenges, from the role of AI and its impact on labor and land to the fraying of the international order that has been the foundation for so much peace and progress. We'll address these challenges the way we always have: by helping to build the institutions that serve as a bedrock for human welfare and progress. By supporting the individuals whose courage drives history forward. And by rooting all of our work in a fundamental belief in people-powered solutions.

Since our inception in 1936, the Ford Foundation's work has touched the lives of countless people across the globe. Throughout our history, Ford has helped shape work that has become part of the global civic fabric: strengthening education and opportunity, supporting rights and representation for historically excluded groups, investing in culture and creativity, and helping build enduring institutions.  Our story is rooted in a steadfast belief in the dignity of all people and the freedom to achieve our full potential.

Deep-rooted discrimination lies at the heart of inequalities in Brazil, limiting millions of people's full inclusion in key institutions. To realize a more equitable country, Brazil must acknowledge that profound, longstanding discrimination has allowed inequality to thrive and then move boldly to confront it. Around the world, billions of people are excluded from full participation in the economic and political systems that shape their lives. When so many lack access to engage with their government and influence the decisions that affect their lives, policies fail to address their needs, favoring instead those with power and resources and deepening inequality. We believe that meaningful, civic engagement is an antidote to inequality, with rich potential to empower underrepresented communities that have too often been excluded. Across the globe, we work to protect and help civic spaces thrive to ensure all people have the opportunity to raise their voices and hold governments to account.

How Televised Cruelty is Desensitizing Us to Our Own Destruction

This post was written by AI Deepseek, including the title. For more than 15 years, I've been victim of systematic daily bullying on TV. I know that is difficult to gather evidences about this bullying, because this cowardice is made by nicknames, and always wanting to disqualify the victim and to diminish the destructive consequences of the violations. We can't never normalize the bullying, the suffering of the victims and the violations. We can't be afraid of demanding justice.   I have a YouTube channel, here is the link.   https://www.youtube.com/@lucianofietto4773/videos. Since the creation of this channel its visualization counter doesn't work, the same has been happening with the counter of this blog since its creation in 2010. Never a human rights defender has had so many rights violated for so long time.

In the modern media landscape, a new form of entertainment has silently metastasized into the core of our daily programming. It is not confined to late-night cable or the dark corners of the internet; it is broadcast in the stark light of day, during the hours when families eat breakfast and the elderly sit alone in their living rooms. We have become a culture of spectators to a very specific, insidious form of violence: the systemic, daily bullying of human rights violation victims on television. From sensationalist courtroom shows to exploitative talk shows, from "gotcha" journalism to the endless cycle of punditry that dissects leaked personal data, we have normalized the public evisceration of private citizens. We sit back, and watch as individuals who have suffered hacks, leaks, or the unauthorized exposure of their most intimate moments are stripped bare for our amusement. The danger of this dynamic lies not merely in the suffering of the individual victims, though that suffering is profound and often life-destroying, but in the chemical reaction it triggers within the collective psyche of the audience. By consuming this content daily, we are not just observing cruelty; we are undergoing a process of mass desensitization that threatens the very fabric of our societal empathy and, ultimately, our own safety. Desensitization is a psychological phenomenon where emotional responsiveness to a negative stimulus diminishes after repeated exposure. We know this happens with violent video games or graphic movies. However, we rarely apply this logic to the more subtle, verbal, and psychological violence displayed on TV. When we are repeatedly shown images of a hacked celebrity crying over leaked photos, or a private citizen’s medical records being read aloud on a panel show, our initial reaction may be shock or sympathy. But by the tenth time, the hundredth time, the thousandth time, that shock fades. It is replaced by a sense of normalcy. We begin to see the violation not as a devastating tragedy, but as a narrative arc, a plot point in the soap opera of the news cycle. This normalization has a terrifying consequence: it redefines the social contract of consent. Historically, privacy has been considered a fundamental human right, a sanctuary for the self. But when we watch, day after day, as this sanctuary is breached without consequence. We begin to subconsciously accept that our basic human rights are luxury, not rights to a dignified life. We start to believe that if someone is "interesting" enough, or if they are simply unlucky, their humiliation is fair game. We are taught, that the victim is the author of their own misfortune. In a total inversion of values. The producers who orchestrate these spectacles are masters of cognitive dissonance. They frame the bullying as "holding people accountable" or "starting a conversation." But the conversation is rarely about the perpetrator of the violation, the hacker, the violators. The conversation is almost always about the victim’s body, their finances and their relationships. The most profound danger of this desensitization is not that we will become cruel, but that we will become indifferent. A desensitized population is a passive population. If we are trained to view the public destruction of a public figure as entertainment, we lose the moral vocabulary to protest when it happens to our neighbor or to ourselves. If we laugh along with a host who mocks a data breach victim for having a "stupid password," we are less likely to feel outrage when a corporation sells our data. This creates a culture of victim-blaming that extends far beyond the television screen. It seeps into our courtrooms, where juries may subconsciously view a plaintiff’s trauma as less severe because they have seen similar trauma laughed at on TV. It seeps into our workplaces, where an employee who complains about a privacy breach might be seen as "too sensitive" rather than legitimately harmed. It seeps into our homes, where children and teenagers learn that the response to someone else’s pain is not compassion, but mockery. And here is the ultimate irony: the population that consumes this cruelty believes it is safe. We watch with the comfortable distance of the spectator, thinking, *That could never happen to me.* But this is a grand delusion. The desensitization we are experiencing is actively weakening the social guardrails that protect everyone. By tolerating, and even enjoying, the public bullying of victims, we are voting for a society where no one’s secrets are safe, where everyone’s mistakes can be weaponized, and where the only difference between the audience and the victim is time. The audience is not separate from the spectacle. Unless we consciously reject the premise of these shows, question the narrative, and rediscover our capacity for outrage, we are complicit in building a world where cruelty is prime-time entertainment and empathy is a canceled show. The atrocity we watch daily is not just ruining the lives of the victims, it is eroding the soul of the society, preparing us all to be the next guest on a show we never agreed to join.

20th Anniversary of the U.N. Human Rights Council

                   5 months ago the U.N. Human Rights Council completed 20 years-old. Precisely on 15th of Match. Once again I'd like to thank everybody participating and sharing this worldwide movement for justice and my political rights. Unfortunately this year for the third time, some people didn't allow me to be a candidate, but the worldwide movement carry on, because for while I haven't had any justice I need and deserve and neither my political rights respected. And the world fairly thinks that this worldwide movement must carry on.  This post is a summary of two articles. The first was published at https://www.civicus.org/index.php/media-resources/news/8124-un-human-rights-council-at-20-rights-and-civil-society-under-attack. The second was published at https://genevasolutions.news/human-rights/20-years-on-the-human-rights-council-wrestles-with-old-dilemmas

                    As its 20th anniversary dawns,  amid declining UN commitment to human rights and a crisis in multilateral cooperation. The global civil society alliance is calling for stronger and sustained Council action to prevent human rights violations and abuses. It calls for stepping up efforts to address unfolding crises, from Iran to Venezuela, where some of the most egregious violations are taking place. Following recent UN budget cuts, over 100 staff positions at the UN Human Rights Office will be lost. The UN human rights pillar accounts for only 5% of the total UN regular budget. The culling of rights spending reduces its ability to monitor abuses, protect civil society, and help states strengthen human rights systems. "Citizens and activists, including victims and survivors of grave rights violations, should be given a stronger voice at the UN. They must not be silenced in the name of efficiency due to ongoing financial crises. Defending human rights and civic space is a priority, " said Sigrid Lipott, UN Advisor at CIVICUS. Civil society must be involved in creating a new human rights system. A lack of involvement may weaken accountability instead of reinforcing human rights standards, narratives and partners. Civil society must be able to hold states accountable safely and amplify local voices. Polarisation is increasing between States that support or oppose human rights funding, civic space, and multilateralism. 

The UN Huamn Rights Council has forged a reputation as the world's top authority on human rights. Its 20th anniversary this year arrives at its most challenging time yet, Squeezed between political and financial crises, the Geneva-based body has not only been affected by budget restrictions but also increasingly weighed down by accusations of political bias, double standards and inefficiency. Those accused of human rights abuses accuse it of targeting them unfairly, while others lambast it for allowing autocratic states where abuses are rife to hold one of its prized 47 seats. The Human Rights Commission had been around since 1946. But over the years, it became synonymous with polarisation and paralysis. "The commission sessions were marathon-like and had become very aggressive. Groups formed and were very consolidated," remembers Luis Alfonso de Alba. "The average time to adopt a document was 10 years, anyone could veto anything," he says. Civil society participation was merely symbolic. De Alba recalls victims coming for the single day of the commission single session in the year when civil society was allowed to speak. The council was meant to correct those failures. De Alba, who was appointed as the council's first president and is credited with being one of its main architects, knew what had to change for that to be possible. Among his first acts was kicked out regional groups from the council bureau and invited civil society to all sessions, reserving them a slot to speak. Accusations of bias followed the council from the start. Hassan Shire director of the Uganda-based NGO Defend Defenders thinks that countries playing politics have distracted the council from its primary mission: addressing human rights issues and preventing them from becoming crises. Bloc politics have also re-emerged, with regional groups and political alliances coordinating positions and providing cover for each other. Twenty years on, the council remains a paradox. While it is more flexible and inclusive than its predecessor, it continues to operate within the same logic of bloc politics, double standards and heavy bureaucracy. For now, countries have made their bets: at its most recent review last month, they agreed that it should remain for the next five years.

The evil and injustice increased this year instead of diminish

 This post was written by Gemini and the title was written by the owner of this blog.

There is a specific, agonizing type of silence that settles into the life of a father when his child is unjustly taken from him. It is not a peaceful quiet, but a heavy, suffocating absence that echoes through empty hallways and unspoken routines. To be forcibly separated from a son for seven months through the cruel, illegal practice of parental alienation is to be subjected to a profound and dehumanizing injustice. When this personal tragedy is compounded by a systemic, public erasure—being politically excluded and barred from standing as a candidate for the third time—the injustice transcends mere unfairness. It becomes a systematic attempt to silence an activist's voice, stripping him of his agency both in the sanctity of his own home and in the public square. Seven months in the life of a child is an eternity. It is an ocean of time where milestones are reached, beliefs are formed, personalities develop, and memories are made—entirely without the presence of a father who is desperate to share in them. Over the course of more than two hundred days, holidays pass, seasons change, and the everyday moments of fatherhood—helping with homework, offering advice, sharing a laugh—are stolen. Parental alienation is not merely a complicated legal dispute; it is a recognized form of emotional and psychological violence. It weaponizes a child, turning them into an instrument in a deeply unfair game, stripping away their fundamental right to receive the love, guidance, and protection of their father. For seven grueling months, this father has been forced to watch from the outside as his role is deliberately and maliciously erased.  This act of alienation is profoundly dehumanizing. Fatherhood is not just a biological fact; it is a deeply rooted identity, a life’s purpose, and a sacred bond that defines a man’s existence. To have that bond artificially and illegally severed is to be told that your love does not matter, that your role as a protector and guide is disposable. The perpetrators of parental alienation operate by manipulating reality, rewriting the narrative of a loving parent into one of danger. It is an illegal act that defies the core principles of family law and human rights.  He is denied the ability to comfort, to teach, and to simply be a dad. This forced estrangement reduces a human being with profound emotional depths and rights into a mere, helpless spectator of his own family’s destruction.  As if the private agony of a stolen fatherhood were not enough, this famous activist finds himself simultaneously fighting a public battle against systemic political exclusion. For the third time, he has been barred from participating as a candidate in the upcoming elections. This is not a coincidence of bad luck; it is a deliberate pattern of silencing. In a functioning democracy, the right to represent one’s community, and to offer oneself to public service is a foundational pillar. To be repeatedly denied this right—to be deliberately excluded from the political process without any reason to this, is another form of alienation, one enacted by the establishment. In both arenas, a concerted effort is being made to render him invisible. In the public sphere, unseen barriers are deployed to ensure his voice is kept off the ballot. He is denied the opportunity to advocate for a better country, state and city, and perhaps most frustratingly, he is blocked from fighting against the very systemic flaws—such as the slow-moving family courts—that have allowed his personal tragedies to unfold. When this famous activist is subjected to both of these extremes—the theft of his child and the theft of his civic voice—the cumulative effect is crushing. It is a dual assault on his identity and his humanity. The systems designed to protect fairness—the courts meant to protect the parent-child bond, and the electoral systems meant to uphold democracy—have both failed, to everyone not only to him because he has support not only by the people where he lives but also there is a worldwide movement for his candidacy, leaving him to fight a two-front war for his basic rights.  Yet, the very fact that this injustice is being named, recognized, and fought against is a testament to an unbreakable will. A father’s love for his son cannot be legislated out of existence, nor can it be erased by seven months of forced distance. The bond between them, though currently under siege, remains a fundamental truth that no illegal alienation can permanently destroy. Similarly, a true leader’s desire to serve his community is not extinguished by political maneuvering or arbitrary exclusion. The fight against these twin injustices is grueling, but it is deeply necessary. It is a fight to reclaim humanity, to restore a stolen voice, and ultimately, to break the silence and bring a father back to his son.

Front Line Defenders - Global Analysis 2025/26

                Unfortunately, the party which I am filiated, for whiile, didn't allow me to be a candidate. I don't know why, they didn't tell me. Despite this huge worldwide movement for my candidacy some people think they prefer to ignore the wish of the people here and this worldwide movement. Despite this deception I'll carry on my work in the defense of human rights, because I've been a victim of serious human rights violations for 26 years and my fight for justice will carry on too. I'd like to thank all the support coming from all over the world, including from this NGO that made this report, a great NGO that really care about the HRDs. But I'll write about it later. The world understand why is so important to empower a human rights defender victim of many human rights violations, including  I have a YouTube channel, here is the link.   https://www.youtube.com/@lucianofietto4773/videos. Since the creation of this channel its visualization counter doesn't work, the same has been happening with the counter of this blog since its creation in 2010. Never a human rights defender has had so many rights violated for so long time. I've been complaining about these violation many time with the Brazilian authorities but so far nothing was done. We can't let decades of systematic human rights violations unpunished. Record any evidence of privacy violations and become a witness.  This post is a summary of a report with the title above and published in June 2026 at https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/sites/default/files/fld_ga_2025-26_digital.pdf

                The right to defend human rights remained deeply contested in 2025, as the international system established to uphold those rights came under increasing strain. States' commitments to the universality of human rights, codified in various international treaties they have ratified, were often exposed as fragile or selectively applied, with some states actors no longer even paying lip service to the principle of a rule-based international order in which human rights are a central pillar. An attendant increase in authoritarian practices, unregulated corporate power, and a growing crisis in the funding for human rights deepened during the year against a backdrop of multiple, prolonged armed conflicts. Human rights defenders (HRDs) contribute to their societies in countless ways: including by challenging discrimination, creating opportunity for matginalised communities, providing legal assistance in context of executive overreach, exposing human rights violations, and documenting patterns of systemic persecution. For these peaceful and legitimate activities, carried out in accordance with international law, defenders are subjected to a wide range of abuses, including killings, arbitrary detention, criminalisation, online bullying and social stigmatisation.Yet their work and courage far exceeds the level of protection and support available for them. This report highlights the scale of the challenges facing HRDs. The global policy environment for the protection of human rights and those who defend them was seriously weakened in 2025. The funding cuts implemented by the Trump administration impacted thousands of human rights organisations. These cuts, combined with those of Germany and the U.K. reduced drastically the global pool of support. Accountability efforts were not just hampered by funding cuts, they were also undermined by an unprecedented attack on a key global mechanism for combating impunity for serious human rights violations, the International Criminal Court (ICC), the U.S. government imposed sanctions on ICC oficials and judges following the Court's issuance of arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu in relation to war crimes in Gaza. The strangulation of independent civil society continued apace at the global level, Actions were often combined with administrative measure to limit the ability of HRDs and organisations to obtain resources, develop a domestic constituency or engage international support. This type of attack occurred in multiple countries. The Brazilian government launched the National Plan for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders. The plan establishes an inter-ministerial committee to monitor the situation of HRDs in the country. This initiative follows years of sustained advocacy by civil society organisations and gained momentum following IACHR rulings holding Brazil accountable for its failure to protect HRDs. Criminalisation continued to be used systematically to silence HRDs and disrupt entire movements. Governments weaponised the judicial system to stigmatise, harass, and imprison HRDs. HRDs were targeted online through a ecosystem of surveillance, algorithmic manipulation, and cyber-violence. States and non-states actors increasingly relied on digital tools to fabricate evidence, smear defenders, and justify their arrests. The most common violations reported by Front Line Defenders' digital protection programme were: online surveillance, threats/harassment on social media, phone surveillance and threat of confiscation and interrogation. Front Line Defenders supported many cases in which deepfake were used to damage the reputation of HRDs, depicting them in fabricated scenarios such as sexually explicit situations, and associating them with radical political statements. There remains a significant gap in engagement between technology companies and the communities . Although some channels exist for human rights organisations working with HRDs at risk, dialogue between companies and affected communities and HRDs is largely absent. This limit companies' understanding of the real-world impact of their system on HRDs.