Geneva International Centre for Justice - GICJ

𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐃𝐚𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐏𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞𝐤𝐞𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬, 𝟐𝟗 𝐌𝐚𝐲

𝐵𝑦 𝐾𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑛 𝐾𝑙𝑎𝑢𝑠 / 𝐺𝐼𝐶𝐽

𝐇𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐓𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐖𝐡𝐨 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐏𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞

Peacekeeping is often remembered through blue helmets, flags, and ceremonies, but its real measure lies in whether civilians are protected, communities can rebuild, and justice can take root after violence. Every year on 29 May, the international community marks the International Day of United Nations Peacekeepers to honour the women and men who have served, and continue to serve, in United Nations peacekeeping operations around the world.

The United Nations General Assembly established this international day through Resolution A/RES/57/129. The resolution designated 29 May as a day to pay tribute to all those who have served in UN peacekeeping operations for their professionalism, dedication, and courage, and to honour the memory of those who have lost their lives in the cause of peace.
The date carries special historical significance. On 29 May 1948, the Security Council authorised the first UN peacekeeping operation, the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization, UNTSO, in the Middle East. Since then, UN peacekeeping has become one of the most visible tools of the international community for responding to conflict, supporting ceasefires, protecting civilians, assisting political processes, and helping societies move from violence toward stability.
Today, more than 53,000 civilian, military, and police personnel serve in 11 UN peacekeeping missions. They operate in some of the most fragile and dangerous contexts in the world, often where political tensions remain unresolved, armed groups continue to threaten civilians, and humanitarian needs are severe. Their work is not only a matter of security. It is closely linked to human rights, international humanitarian law, accountability, and the dignity of affected communities.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐏𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞𝐤𝐞𝐞𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠

United Nations peacekeeping is built on the idea that the international community has a responsibility to help prevent conflict from escalating, protect those at risk, and support conditions for lasting peace. Peacekeepers are not only soldiers. They include police officers, civilian experts, human rights officers, electoral advisers, engineers, medical personnel, gender advisers, rule of law specialists, and many others whose work supports peace from different angles.

Peacekeeping missions may monitor ceasefires, support the implementation of peace agreements, protect civilians, assist disarmament and reintegration processes, support elections, strengthen justice and police institutions, and promote respect for human rights. In many situations, they are deployed where state institutions have been weakened by years of conflict and where communities urgently need protection and stability.

However, peacekeeping cannot replace political solutions. It can create space for dialogue, reduce violence, support the rule of law, and protect civilians, but it cannot succeed without the genuine political will of conflict parties and Member States. Peacekeeping works best when it forms part of a broader strategy that includes diplomacy, justice, development, humanitarian assistance, and accountability for violations.

The International Day of United Nations Peacekeepers therefore serves two purposes. It honours the service and sacrifice of peacekeepers, and it reminds the international community that peace requires continuous commitment. The day is not only commemorative. It is also a call to action.

𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐚 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 (𝐆𝐈𝐂𝐉) honours the courage, service, and sacrifice of United Nations peacekeepers who work in some of the world’s most dangerous environments. GICJ recognises the vital role that peacekeeping can play in protecting civilians, supporting political processes, strengthening the rule of law, and helping communities recover from conflict.

GICJ stresses that peacekeeping must always place the protection, dignity, and rights of civilians at its centre. Peace operations cannot succeed where they lack clear mandates, adequate resources, accountability mechanisms, and genuine political support from Member States. The international community must not ask peacekeepers to fulfil ambitious mandates while denying them the tools required to do so.

𝐌𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐌𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬’ 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐊𝐞𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐚𝐰 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐲

On Thursday 21 May 2026, Geneva International Centre for Justice (GICJ) welcomed twenty-tow Masters students and staff members from Kennesaw State University at its office in Geneva.

This visit took place during their study abroad program, as a part of their Master of Science in International Policy Management course.

Naji Haraj, Executive Director of GICJ, introduced the organisation, the team and our missions and roles in relation to the U.N. Human Rights Council.

Mr Haraj elaborated on GICJ’s engagement with U.N. Human Rights Mechanisms such as the Human Rights Council regular and special sessions, the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), U.N. Treaty Bodies as well as Special Procedures.

Members of the Team explained the different facets of their participation at GICJ, through their articles, reports, social media posts and written, video and oral statements.

Mutua Kobia, senior collaborator at GICJ, provided an example of an oral statement he had given for GICJ during a Human Rights Council Session. Delfina, Patricia and Mihretab presented their experience and activities with the organisation.

The coordinator of our Social Media Team, Lila, had the opportunity to present the diversity of GICJ’s content on social media. She emphasised the need for the organisation to have a regular social media presence in order to share our work and have a more global impact.

The students and staff members were very attentive and asked precise questions during the presentation.

GICJ would like to thank the Masters students and staff members of Kennesaw State University for their visit to our organisation.
It was a pleasure to have them !

...........

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐝𝐨𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐎𝐮𝐭𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝟓𝟐𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐏𝐑: 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐬

On 15 May 2026, the Adoption of Outcome Reports for the 52nd session of the Universal Periodic Review took place at the United Nations Office of Geneva.

During this meeting, the Outcome Reports of all States under review were formally adopted and every one of them was given the opportunity to give their last remarks before ending this session of the UPR.

First, the representative of Namibia took the opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to the protection of human rights. He emphasized the importance of the UPR process as a moment to reflect on Namibia’s achievements and on the remaining challenges of the country. He declared the “unwavering commitment” of Namibia to the UPR process and promised human rights improvements “rooted in their responsibility to improve lived realities”.

Then, the Outcome Report of Niger’s review was adopted after Cuba, on behalf of the Troika constituted of Kenya, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Cuba, declared that 265 recommendations were received for Niger.
The representative of Niger affirmed that Niger’s government would examine those recommendations with the utmost attention.
He argued that, though Niger was willing to make efforts to improve their human rights situation, there were constraints out of their power, as well as socio-cultural specificities that made it difficult. Nonetheless, he promised efforts on the promotion of women’s and children’s rights and to fight against gender-based violence.

Moving on to Mozambique, their representative took the opportunity to thank its Troika, composed of Burundi, Chile and Japan, and to thank the 114 States who had participated in the review of Mozambique. Like Niger’s delegate, he mentioned the country’s constraints in their efforts of advancing human rights, specifically the issues of terrorism and the current situation in Cabo Delgado. The representative of Mozambique also affirmed its commitment to the promotion of the rights of the child and to the fight against gender-based violence.

Mozambique was followed by Estonia, who declared they had received 273 recommendations. The representative of Estonia recognized the need for Estonia to continue their close cooperation with their partners to efficiently advance human rights in their country.

It was then Paraguay’s turn to address their last remarks. Firstly, Ecuador, on behalf of Paraguay’s troika, composed of Ecuador, Kuwait and Slovenia, declared that Paraguay had received 266 recommendations and that 85 delegations had participated in their review.
The delegate of the Republic of Paraguay then took the floor to thank Ecuador as the head of the troika for their presentation, to thank the Secretariat for their organisation of the UPR, to thank all the Member States who had submitted their questions in advance and to all the representatives who were present at the review for their professionalism and commitment.
Finally, the delegate of the Republic of Paraguay evoked a particular sense of responsibility and conviction they felt for the improvement of human rights and affirmed that all 267 recommendations would be looked through in prompt fashion.

Paraguay was followed by Belgium. Estonia, as the head of their troika, declared that 300 recommendations for Belgium were received during this review.
Christophe Payot, the representative of Belgium to the U.N. in Geneva, declared that Belgium would not be able to take care of all the recommendations and questions that were addressed to them.
He recognized that most of the recommendations had been accepted but that 31 recommendations had been noted (meaning: refused). Mr Payot affirmed that Belgium would give explanations for those refusals later and that, overall, the competent Belgian ministries would perform an in-depth analysis of the recommendations given by Member States during their review. Finally, Mr Payot thanked Civil Society and affirmed that Belgium’s collaboration with Civil Society goes way beyond the UPR process.

Then, the delegate of Marshall Islands, as head of Denmark's troika, composed of Brazil, SouthAfrica and Marshall Islands thanked the Secretariat for their work and successful collaboration.
The Deputy Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of Denmark to the U.N. attested that Denmark would work closely with the Danish Human Rights Institutions and Civil Society. He took the opportunity to thank Civil Society for their continued engagement during the UPR process.
Finally, he stated that Denmark had received 265 recommendations, which covered a wide range of human rights issues and that all those recommendations would be reviewed by the competent ministries. He also noted that Denmark would submit their mid-term report, as they have done in the past.

It was then Palau’s turn to make their final remarks before the end of the 52nd session of the UPR working group. The representative of Palau took the opportunity to thank the OHCHR Pacific Office and stated that 59 Member States had taken part in their Universal Periodic Review. He noted that the UPR process was key for the accountability and transparency of States and that, though Palau wishes to fully implement their national human rights obligations, major challenges remained for them like geopolitical impacts on their economy, climate change (food insecurity) and isolation of being a small island in the Pacific. He added that Palau had already passed the Human Smuggling and Human Trafficking Act and that he wished for Palau to continue in this direction by making “decisions that truly reflect the needs of the Palau People”.

The representative of Angola, on behalf of Somalia’s troika, composed of Colombia, Vietnam and Angola, stated that 104 delegations had participated in their review and that Somalia had received 288 recommendations. He noted that though Somalia supports 259 of those recommendations, there were other ones they decided to not accept. He promised that Somalia would provide responses and explanations for those refusals. The delegate of the Federal Republic of Somalia then took the floor to affirm Somalia’s steady progress in the improvement of human rights, in promoting peace and reconciliation and in strengthening democratic institutions.

Following Somalia, the representative of Seychelles stated that 199 recommendations had been addressed to them and reaffirmed the commitment of Seychelles to cooperating with all human rights mechanisms.

Then, China, on behalf of Solomon Islands’ troika composed of Malawi, Switzerland and China, declared that 63 States had participated in the review of Solomon Islands, that they had received 10 advanced questions and that they had received a total of 181 recommendations. The Ambassador of Solomon Islands took the floor to vow that all recommendations given would be considered and to affirm Solomon Islands’ commitment to multilateralism and to their human rights commitments.

France, on the behalf of Latvia’s troika composed of the Dominican Republic, Pakistan and France, declared that 80 Member States had participated in the review of Latvia. She also stated that they had received 7 advanced questions and 283 recommendations. The representative of Latvia then confirmed Latvia’s commitment to the success of the UPR process because this process helps States “assess where we can do better”. He also thanked Civil Society for their participation in the process.

Finally, the representative of Indonesia, on behalf of Singapore’s troika, namely Albania, Benin and Indonesia, stated that Singapore had received 342 recommendations. Those recommendations, he said, would be thoroughly examined. The delegate of Singapore expressed its sincere thanks to the working group for their overwhelming support and for the participation of 142 Member States to their review. He confirmed that the recommendations would be carefully studied by the inter-ministry for Human Rights.
To finish, he complimented the Universal periodic Review process as a unique peer review tool and vowed that Singapore would continue to support (especially financially) and to uphold the UPR process.

In the following weeks, 10 reports will be published on GICJ’s website. They will fully cover the Reviews, compare the real human rights issues of those countries to what was publicly admitted, and analyze critically the evolution of the States under review’s human rights situation over the course of the last 4 cycles of the UPR.

Please stay tuned for more analytical content on the 52nd session of the UPR !

78 Years of the Ongoing Nakba: Upholding the Right of Return, Securing Restitution, and Advancing International Accountability

15 May 2026 marks 78 years since the 1948 Nakba, a definitive rupture in the history of the Palestinian people characterized by systematic forced displacement and the widespread dispossession of land and property. Between 1947 and 1949, the fragmentation of Palestinian society resulted in the exodus of 750.000 thousands of civilians and the extensive depopulation of hundreds of towns and villages.

This grave humanitarian crisis established a protracted state of statelessness and exile that remains a core obstacle to regional stability. For the international community, the Nakba remains a foundational issue of state responsibility, representing a refugee crisis that continues to test the efficacy of global human rights frameworks and the obligations of third states to ensure the protection of displaced persons under international law.

For nearly eight decades, generations of Palestinians have endured a "continuous Nakba"—a lived reality defined by the persistent denial of the right of return and the ongoing erosion of their territorial integrity. This displacement has relegated families to refugee camps for decades, where they remain deprived of restitution and the security of permanent residency. This situation is compounded by contemporary patterns of dispossession, including the expansion of settlements and the arbitrary confiscation of land, which systematically undermine the socio-economic viability of Palestinian life and the fundamental right to an adequate standard of living.

Geneva International Centre for Justice (GICJ) maintains that the realisation of a just and lasting peace is inextricably linked to the legal accountability of all parties involved in the grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and violations of peremptory norms of international law. We assert that the protection of the Palestinian people is a collective responsibility of the international community, necessitating a transition from rhetorical expressions of concern to the implementation of effective remedies against the prevailing culture of impunity.

GICJ calls for an all-encompassing framework of restorative justice that prioritizes the full restitution of property, the restoration of human dignity, and the realization of the right of return as recognized under UN General Assembly Resolution 194. We remain committed to our engagement within global forums, ensuring that the protection of Palestinian human rights remains a primary obligation for the restoration of international legality and the preservation of the rule of law. Only through the end of the occupation and the recognition of the right to self-determination can the international community fulfil its mandate to uphold the universal principles of justice and human rights.

......

𝐒𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐞’𝐬 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐚𝐥 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐝𝐢𝐜 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 𝐂𝐲𝐜𝐥𝐞: 𝐁𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐆𝐫𝐨𝐰𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲

𝑇𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑠ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝐺ℎ𝑜𝑠ℎ / 𝐺𝐼𝐶𝐽

On 12 May 2026, at the 52nd session of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process, Singapore outlined its assessment of the human rights situation in the country. The delegation of Singapore presented its National Report pursuant to Human Rights Council resolutions 5/1 and 16/21. During the review, it was noted that the socio-political structures in Singapore are highly organised, enabling sustained economic growth while maintaining social stability. Singapore provided an overview of both legislative and executive interventions to ensure the full and effective realisation of human rights. Protecting and promoting the rights of women, children, older persons and persons with disabilities emerged as an area of priority for the Government. The National Report reaffirmed Singapore’s commitment to fostering an inclusive, cohesive and resilient society.

Indeed, Singapore affirmed that it prioritises broader community interests over narrower individual considerations. The rights guaranteed to individuals, including the right to freedom of speech and expression, the right to life and personal liberty and the right to peaceful assembly are subjected to restrictions in the interests of security, public order or morality. The nature and scope of the restrictions imposed have been a matter of contestation, prompting recommendations from Member States during the review process. To align domestic rights protection with international human rights standards, it has been recommended that Singapore sign and ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976) (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) (ICESCR) and the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984) (UNCAT). Human rights recognised under international treaty instruments must necessarily be enforceable before an independent institution conferred with the authority to protect and promote such rights. Accordingly, the review process of Singapore included recommendations on the establishment of a National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) in accordance with the Paris Principles to ensure that human rights violations are closely monitored and expeditiously investigated.

The delegation of Singapore acknowledged the recommendations issued by Member States. However, Singapore exercised caution in its response to recommendations on the ratification of the ICCPR, the ICESCR and the UNCAT. Consequently, domestic legislative frameworks that enshrine human rights protections continue to retain primacy in the legal system. Noting the recommendation to establish an NHRI, Singapore added that cases involving violations of human rights would be heard by competent authorities within the legal system. It further reiterated that the Inter-Ministry Committee on Human Rights engages with civil society to implement human rights policies in Singapore.

𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐚 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 (𝐆𝐈𝐂𝐉) welcomes the National Report presented by the delegation of Singapore. GICJ commends Singapore’s sustained engagement with the UPR process to ensure the protection and promotion of human rights in the country. It takes cognizance of Singapore’s human rights commitments affirmed during the fourth cycle of the UPR process and its follow-up on the recommendations issued during the previous cycle. Furthermore, GICJ urges Singapore to:
- Sign and ratify core international human rights treaty instruments, including but not limited to, the ICCPR, the ICESCR and the UNCAT.
- Ensure that the constitutional guarantees of the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly are aligned with universally recognised human rights standards.
- Impose a moratorium on executions as the first step towards the abolition of the death penalty as it constitutes cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.
- Establish an NHRI in accordance with the Paris Principles to monitor and investigate human rights violations.

A full report on Singapore’s fourth UPR cycle will be released shortly, providing a detailed analysis of the challenges facing Singapore and the measures undertaken by the Government to address pressing human rights issues.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐚𝐥 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐝𝐢𝐜 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 𝐨𝐟 𝐒𝐢𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐚 𝐋𝐞𝐨𝐧𝐞: 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐬

𝐵𝑦 𝑅𝑎𝑤𝑎𝑛 𝐴𝑙-𝐴𝑞𝑒𝑙 / 𝐺𝐼𝐶𝐽

During the 52nd session of the Universal Periodic Review on 12thMay 2026, Ms. Francess P. Alghali, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation started with presenting the National human right report for the 3rd cycle. The interactive dialogue, which took place in Geneva, saw dozens of delegations offering recommendations and posing critical questions. Delegations including the United Kingdom, Mexico, Australia, Mongolia, Morocco, Namibia, Uganda, and others engaged in a structured dialogue, raising recommendations and expressed multiple concerns.

Key recommendations focused on criminal justice reform, gender equality, child protection, and strengthening the National Human Rights Commission in line with the Paris Principles. Several States urged Sierra Leone to fully implement reforms to reduce prison overcrowding, improve legal aid, and expand non-custodial sentencing. They also recommended the explicit criminalization of female ge***al mutilation, stronger enforcement of the Child Rights Act and Child Marriage Prohibition Act, and an expanded access to education and maternal healthcare, especially in rural areas. Climate resilience and environmental rights were also highlighted by States like Tunisia and Mozambique.

The Sierra Leonean Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation acknowledged that challenges remain and stated that the Sierra Leonean Parliament had revised constitutional provisions, including Section 27 on non-discrimination, and reaffirmed commitments to women’s rights, education, healthcare, and justice sector reform. The delegation also highlighted efforts to strengthen child protection systems and continue community outreach and public education campaigns to address culturally entrenched practices while looking into the ratification of the convention.

Sierra Leone continues to face major human rights challenges despite important legal and institutional reforms in recent years. Key concerns include gender inequality, child marriage, female ge***al mutilation (FGM), human trafficking, discrimination, and weaknesses in the healthcare system. Women and children remain particularly vulnerable due to societal fragilities and culturally entrenched oppression.

The country also struggles with severe healthcare challenges. Reports also showed illegal fees being charged in public hospitals. All in all, Poverty, underfunding, corruption, and weak infrastructure continue to undermine access to quality healthcare and social services, making it especially difficult for Sierra Leone’s government to address this major human rights challenge.

𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐚 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 (𝐆𝐈𝐂𝐉) welcomes Sierra Leone’s progress in abolishing the death penalty, promoting women’s political participation, and strengthening legal protections for children and vulnerable groups. However, Geneva International Center for Justice remains concerned about persistent human rights challenges, including prolonged pre-trial detention, maternal mortality, discrimination, and the continued practice of female ge***al mutilation. GICJ encourages Sierra Leone to ratify the conventions and to strengthen safeguards against torture and arbitrary detention. The organisation also calls for increased investment in healthcare, education, and child protection, while urging authorities to address corruption, to ensure legal, social and political accountability, and to uphold the rights and dignity of all persons without discrimination.

𝐑𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐨𝐫 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐚𝐥? 𝐋𝐚𝐭𝐯𝐢𝐚'𝐬 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐔𝐏𝐑 𝐂𝐲𝐜𝐥𝐞

𝐵𝑦 𝑌𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛 / 𝐺𝐼𝐶𝐽

On 11 May 2026, the Human Rights Council convened the fourth-cycle review of Latvia during the 52nd session of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). Latvia’s delegation, led by Mr Andžejs Viļumson, State Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, opened the dialogue by framing recent developments in the context of regional security pressures stemming from Russia’s war against Ukraine.

By far, the most recurrent theme was Latvia’s standing as a party to the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women (Istanbul Convention). Although Latvia ratified the instrument in November 2023, the Saeima voted in October 2025 to withdraw from the convention, a decision currently suspended by President Edgars Rinkēvičs’s suspensive veto, deferring any outcome until after the October 2026 parliamentary elections. A large number of delegations urged Latvia to remain a State party to the convention, to combat misconceptions surrounding the treaty, and to fully implement its provisions on consent-based sexual offence legislation, victim protection and law-enforcement training.

Delegations also called on Latvia to strengthen its response towards hate speech and hate-motivated crimes (particularly online and against minorities, and journalists) and to align the national definition of torture with international standards. Minority and linguistic rights featured prominently in the recommendations of Member States, including the situation of the remaining “non-citizens” and recent reforms to Russian-language education and public broadcasting. The treatment of migrants and asylum-seekers at the Belarusian border drew sustained attention, alongside the issues of trafficking in persons, Roma rights, persons with disabilities and the lack of implementation of Latvia’s climate commitments.

In response, Latvia highlighted recent reforms including civil partnerships entering into force in July 2024, the opening of a new prison in Liepāja aligned with international detention standards, the deployment of Roma mediators in schools, and the Ombudsman’s role as the National Preventive Mechanism. The delegation firmly defended its citizenship framework, recalling that Latvia is a restored (rather than a successor) State, and that holders of “non-citizen” status enjoy a distinct legal regime broader than the rights of stateless persons under the 1954 Convention, a characterisation that continues to be contested by independent observers.

Latvia’s most pressing human rights challenges remain shaped by its post-Soviet legacy and by regional tensions.Approximately 165,000 people, close to 9 per cent of the population, the majority ethnic Russians, continue to hold the status of "non-citizens", excluded from voting and from certain public positions despite decades of residence. Reforms phasing out Russian-language instruction in publicly funded schools, alongside Latvian language-proficiency requirements imposed since 2022 on Russian and Belarusian citizens holding permanent residency, have placed additional pressure on the Russian-speaking community.

Gender-based and domestic violence remain widespread. Latvia ratified the Istanbul Convention in November 2023 after years of political deadlock, but the recent parliamentary withdrawal vote (currently suspended by presidential veto) has placed the country at the centre of a wider European debate. The Belarusian border has also drawn international criticism over reports of pushbacks and limited asylum access.
These challenges exist within a broader context shaped by occupation history, regional geopolitical pressure, cultural conservatism on gender issues, and limited resources for minority-protection mechanisms.

𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐚 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 welcomes Latvia’s constructive engagement with the UPR process and recognises notable progress achieved since the third cycle, in particular the ratification of the Istanbul Convention in November 2023, the strengthening of hate-crime legislation, and the entry into force in July 2024 of the partnership law extending legal protection to same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike. GICJ is, however, particularly concerned by the Saeima’s subsequent vote in October 2025 to withdraw from the Istanbul Convention, which, if confirmed by the next parliament, would mark a major regression and set a worrying precedent in the European region. GICJ further calls on Latvia to accelerate naturalisation pathways for the remaining "non-citizens", many of whom have lived in the country for decades but continue to be excluded from voting and from a range of public positions.
With regard to language policy, Geneva International Center for Justice wishes for reforms to education and public broadcasting to be accompanied by safeguards that avoid disproportionately disadvantageing the Russian-speaking population (citizens and non-citizens alike) and that ensures continued access to information and learning resources in minority languages.
GICJ’s full report on Latvia’s UPR review will be released soon, with further analysis of the recommendations and concerns raised during the session.