Social media has always been one of the only places where members of the LGBTQ+ community in Iraq could meet and be more open about their sexual identity.

"Before Instagram, members of the community created fake Facebook accounts and joined secret groups to get to know one another," Khalid, a 22-year-old student in the central Iraqi province of Babylon, told DW. He couldn't give his full name, because doing so would expose him to danger. "Then with Instagram's 'close friends' story feature [launched in 2018], it became even easier for people to connect, and even to find love."

The country's conservative culture means most queer locals have always hidden their sexuality. Surveys of attitudes toward homosexuality in Middle Eastern countries indicate that usually less than 10% of local populations "approve" of homosexuality.

"Social media has been the main platform of expression of any kind here, especially for those who do not have their own spaces," explained Ayaz Shalal Kado, executive director of the Iraqi human rights organization IraQueer. "That includes vulnerable groups, such as the LGBTQ+ community, disabled people and others. Social media was a way for these people to express themselves, connect and create communities."

While social media and digital platforms have offered an opportunity, they have also posed a danger, Human Rights Watch said earlier this year as it launched the campaign Secure Our Socials. Working with local rights groups, Human Rights Watch reported how digital activity was being used by authoritarian states against individuals suspected of being queer.

Dangers of digital life 

This danger is now likely to increase for the LGBTQ+ community in Iraq.

Despite generally negative attitudes toward same-sex relationships, Iraq — unlike most other countries in the Middle East — never had a law explicitly criminalizing them. Instead, Iraqi officials used more vague anti-obscenity laws to punish and harass members of the LGBTQ+ community.

But in late April, the Iraqi government amended a preexisting law on prostitution. The new amendments ban any sort of homosexuality or transsexuality, punishing these with up to 15 years in prison. Anybody seen to "promote" homosexuality could be fined up to 15 million Iraqi dinars ($11,220/€10,5050) or sentenced to jail for up to seven years.

This comes after the Iraqi Communications and Media Commission, which regulates local media, issued rules in August 2023 mandating that media in Iraq may no longer use the term "homosexuality" and should instead replace it with the phrase "sexual deviance." Media may also not talk about "gender."

According to the local media outlet Rudaw, Iraqi lawmakers insisted they needed the amendments "to preserve the entity of Iraqi society from moral degeneration," as the amendment text read.

"The truth is, this new law is not new at all," Babylon-based student Khalid complained. "We've always lived in fear and hiding." It's just that now there's even more thing to worry about, he said.

Iraq comes under international criticism

The amendments were widely criticized by international rights organizations and Iraq's foreign allies.

The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq said the law contradicts a number of human rights treaties ratified by Iraq. The US State Department argued the new rules could be used to "further hamper free speech and personal expression and inhibit the operations of [non-governmental organizations] across Iraq."

Iraqi NGOs are still working out exactly how to respond. One Iraqi rights organization, Gala for LGBTQ, posted advice on its Instagram page that included telling users to make their accounts private, unfollowing openly queer accounts and deleting digital material that could be seen as LGBTQ+-friendly.

"If you are in Iraq, it is better not to talk or publish about the LGBTQ+ community and leave this to people who are outside Iraq," the organization suggested.

"There are many ways to fight back and that's what the community is working on currently," said Kado of IraQueer. "Safety and security are the highest priority. But we will not give up. That is not an option."

Kado does worry that the online presence of Iraq's LGBTQ+ community is about to be reduced or even disappear altogether, as locals realize the dangers of using social media. But, he added, there are even larger ramifications around freedom of expression in Iraq.

Wide-ranging impact on rights groups

"Banning words like 'homosexual' or 'gender' is a huge step backwards — and not just for queer people," he said. "It's intersectional. It doesn't just affect my organization, but also all feminist organizations, all those who work for women's rights, and those who focus on gender and bodily rights in general."

There have also been other cases of social media becoming dangerous in Iraq.

The same weekend Iraqi authorities passed the new LGBTQ+ rules, a popular Iraqi influencer, Ghufran Mahdi Sawadi, known online as Um Fahad, was murdered by an unknown assailant outside her home, most likely because of her online persona.

"Every young person has the right to entertainment and to share content on their Snapchat account," Sawadi's brother Amir, told DW. "This is their personal life."

Over the past year, two other Iraqis who were well known on social media — a transgender person known as Simsim and Noor Alsaffar, who posted videos of himself in women's clothing — were also murdered.

"History shows us that when one group is targeted, then another vulnerable group is bound to be next," said Kado. "Once you allow perpetrators [of human rights abuses] to take a step without accountability, they will take more steps. At some point it will be too late to stop them." 

Edited by: Cristina Burack

Iranian authorities are stepping up street patrols in a renewed push towards suppressing women who refuse to follow strict Islamic dress codes.

Under a new campaign called "nour" or "light," endorsed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iranian "morality police" are out in force on so-called guidance patrols looking for women who refuse to wear the hijab, or headscarf.

One 25-year-old woman, who spoke to DW anonymously, said she was accosted on the streets of Tehran while on her way to university on April 20.

She said she was surrounded by dozens of police officers who demanded that she cover her hair, and when she resisted, they quickly resorted to violence, pulling out some of her hair and verbally harassing her as they dragged her into the van.

"At that moment, I didn't fully understand what was happening; I just knew they were beating me. Later, I saw that several parts of my body were bruised," she said.

As she was being beaten and harassed by police, the woman said she thought of the "Women, Life Freedom" movement, which started in September 2022 when 22-year-old Jina Mahsa Amini died after being taken into custody by the morality police in Tehran for allegedly improperly wearing a hijab.

Amini's death was followed by the highest level of public unrest Iran had seen in decades, with thousands of people taking to the streets of Iranian cities in support of women's rights. Authorities used force to suppress the protests. A UN fact-finding mission estimates that 551 protesters were killed.

"I remembered Jina Mahsa Amini and other women who sacrificed their lives during the women's uprising for life and freedom, and I told myself I had to be strong," the woman said.

"I shouted loudly that my dress code is my own business. As soon as I said this, their insults and violence began," she said. The female officers called her a prostitute and told her that as long as she lived in Iran, she "must respect the laws of the country derived from Islamic commands."

The woman said she was taken into police custody, where at least five other women were also detained for not wearing a headscarf. She was released after several hours but was forced to sign a letter committing to following Islamic dress codes, and may also face further legal action.

A renewed crackdown on women in Iran

In recent weeks, there have been many similar reports on excessive violence against women circulating on Iranian social media. Many women have shared their experiences of police violence, arrest and fines.

Iran's legislative bodies, the Islamic Consultative Assembly and the Guardian Council, which sign off on laws, have recently been negotiating bills aimed at legalizing a crackdown on women who oppose the "compulsory hijab."

The resurgence of violence against women began after Khamenei's speech on Eid al-Fitr, April 10, the holiday that ends the month of Ramadan.

Emphasizing the necessity of compulsory hijab, he ordered actions against "religious norm-breakers."

Following this speech, the morality police increased street patrols. The calls for a crackdown also coincided with the large-scale Iranian missile and drone strike on Israel, and a surge of international concern over a widening of the conflict in the Middle East.

Mahtab Mahboub, an Iranian women's rights activist residing in Germany, told DW that the timing of the increased crackdown on women's rights, along with the heightened tensions with Israel, is not a coincidence.

"The issue of security lies at the core of the Islamic Republic's policies — external security through attacking the 'enemy,' and internal security through controlling the bodies of women and all sexual and gender minorities," she said.

She added that women and protesters "are seen as potential agents of rebellion who can challenge the compulsory value system" of the Islamic Republic.

Osman Mozayan, a lawyer in Tehran, told DW that in recent days, many unlawful detentions have taken place.

"In some cases, women's bank accounts have been blocked, or their cars have been confiscated. Some students have been prevented from entering universities. Even some have been deprived of work. Their civil and civic lives are disrupted," he said.

"These individuals are mostly referred to the courts, and regardless of the verdict — conviction or acquittal — these punishments and restrictions imposed are irreparable," he added.

Iranians demand change

Many believe that the nationwide Women, Life, Freedom protests represent the most severe internal challenge since the Islamic Republic was formed in 1979.

However, the regime has never been willing to concede to the demands of the protesters, especially the removal of mandatory hijab obligations.

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Narges Mohammadi, who is currently in Tehran's Evin Prison, described the recent surge in violence against women and youth as a sign of "desperation" from the Islamic Republic.

Mohammadi said the new policy stems from the regime's "untreatable pain of illegitimacy."

A group of mothers who lost their children during the Women, Life, Freedom protests issued a statement recently condemning the "brutal and continuous repression by this misogynist regime."

"Women have no intention of returning to the past and do not allow themselves to be considered second-class citizens, letting the patriarchal government and society decide for them," the statement said.

Rojina, a journalist in Tehran who spoke to DW using a pseudonym, said despite the recent uptick in violence, she has not seen any change on the streets.

"Every day, many women can be seen in public with optional clothing. They have accepted that freedom requires a cost, and they are determined not to revert to life before the Women, Life, Freedom movement."

Feminist activist Mahboub is in contact with many women in Iran. She said the Women, Life, Freedom movement has "restored the lost self-confidence to women and reminded the entire society that the freedom of women and the most marginalized groups is the measure of society's freedom."

"Some women who still leave home without a hijab are courageously reclaiming their lost dignity. They insist that no one has the right to decide for our bodies," she said.

Before you leave: Every Friday, the DW Asia newsletter delivers compelling articles and videos from around the continent right to your inbox. Subscribe below.

Edited by: Wesley Rahn

Taiwan's Constitutional Court on Tuesday debated the island's death penalty and discussed whether it violates the rights guaranteed under the Taiwanese constitution.

The democratic island is known for its strong human rights record and progressive stance on marriage equality and LGBTQ+ rights. In 2019, Taiwan became the first place in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage.

Taiwan's debate over capital punishment

Beijing considers self-ruled Taiwan to be Chinese territory, and President Xi Jinping has made "reuniting" the democratic island with mainland China a long-running centerpiece of his strategic policy.

Taiwan's long-awaited debate on the death penalty is considered a historic step that human rights groups believe will decide the future of capital punishment in the democratic island and perhaps further distinguish it from China, which is considered "the world's leading executioner," according to a 2022 report by Amnesty International.

While the final ruling on the constitutionality of the death penalty is not expected to be made before the end of September, the debate surrounding capital punishment has become heated.  

"It's been a debate that's rumbled on for too long [in Taiwan]," Saul Lehrfreund, co-executive director of the Death Penalty Project, an organization that provides free legal representation to those facing the death penalty, told DW. "I'm happy that the court have an opportunity now to consider whether or not the death penalty is constitutional."

The debate came after Taiwan's 37 death row inmates, with help from the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty, a coalition of NGOs and research institutes, petitioned for a constitutional review of capital punishment.

"If we can understand the process of a criminal's downfall, why do we focus on killing the fallen angel while overlooking the Satan who led them astray?" one of the attorneys told the court.

The defendants, represented by officials from Taiwan's Ministry of Justice (MOJ), claimed that capital punishment is considered only "as a last resort" which does not violate the protection of the right to life.

Basic rights guaranteed in Taiwan's constitution "can be restricted within the framework of legal preservation and the principle of proportionality," MOJ officials added. 

What are Taiwanese people saying?

Polls cited by the Taipei Times suggest that a majority of Taiwanese oppose the abolition of the death penalty.

A 17-year-old student, who spoke to DW on condition of anonymity, said that she is in favor of keeping the sentence. "I believe that murder should be punished with the death penalty," she told DW, adding that it should be given regardless of the factors behind the crime.

Another student, in his 20s, holds a similar point of view. He told DW that since murderers have taken away someone's life, it should be "a form of equality" for the legal system to do the same.

But for those supporting the abolition of capital punishment, the execution of perpetrators could only offer temporary solace to victims' loved ones, rather than long-term comfort. 

"I think there should be well-established measures for explanations and compensation to the families," said Mr Hong, a 40-year-old office worker. "It may feel like you have taken revenge at the moment, but in reality, it doesn't seem to have any lasting impact on the family."

To what extent should public opinion be considered?

According to a 2022 report by Amnesty International, close to three-quarters of governments around the world have abolished the death penalty in law or practice, almost none of which ended the death penalty due to the public demand or support for it, Lehrfreund pointed out.

Rather, he told DW, the public "followed the political lead or the judicial lead" and have eventually accepted abolition.

Human rights groups believe constitutional interpretation could pave the way for formal abolition of death sentences since Taiwan only legalized same-sex marriage after the Constitutional Court ruled the ban on it unconstitutional.

But the MOJ argues that the same-sex marriage and death penalty cases are not comparable because the application of the death penalty relates to criminal policy.

Although Taiwan has taken steps towards abolishing capital punishment, for example it removed mandatory executions for certain crimes, the island may still impose the death sentence for over 50 different crimes, including murder, robbery and drug trafficking.

"Taiwan has said for many years that they're on a road to abolition," Lehrfreund told DW. "But my question is, is that road too long politically and that not enough progress has been made politically to move away from the death penalty?"

Hong, who supports the abolition of capital punishment, also believes the issue is often being used as "some kind of political maneuvering."

"I don't think it's going to be easy to reach a consensus," he said, "because after all, the Constitutional Court has to take into account the majority of the people in [Taiwan]."

The most recent death-row inmate to be executed in Taiwan was Weng Jen-hsien, who had been convicted of murdering six people, including his parents and their caregivers, and was executed in Taipei in 2020.

It was Taiwan's second execution since President Tsai Ing-wen took office in 2016.

Taiwan's Constitutional Court is expected to issue its ruling on capital punishment between July and September.

DW's correspondent Yu-Chun Chou contributed to the report.

Edited by: Keith Walker

Before you leave: Every Friday, the DW Asia newsletter delivers compelling articles and videos from around the continent right to your inbox. Subscribe below.

Russian national Oleg Ponomaryov's asylum application was turned down by Germany's Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) at the end of February. BAMF said he was at no risk in Russia and should leave Germany within 30 days. If not, he could expect to be deported.

Ponomaryov's despair is palpable. He fears he will be arrested as soon as he arrives in Russia and be sent to fight against Ukraine.

"The situation in Russia is getting worse and worse, a total mobilization is on the cards and my fitness level and driving license allow me to drive military vehicles," says Ponomaryov, who came to Germany in September 2022 after Russia announced a partial mobilization.

At the time, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz declared that Russian nationals who did not want to take part in Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine, which is a violation of international law, should be given protection in Germany. Ponomaryov applied for political asylum, and while he waited for the decision, he learned German and volunteered at an integration center for Russian speakers. His wife also came to Germany and applied for asylum.

Ponomaryov thinks that the negative decision is unfair. "We are expected to speak out and be more politically active, and then we are denied asylum. According to several articles of the law in Russia, we can be thrown into jail just for taking part in protests here," he says, pointing out that he has regularly attended anti-war rallies in front of the Russian embassy in Berlin. He is concerned that he could be charged with "discrediting" the Russian armed forces if forced to return to Russia.

'They think I'll be safe there'

Dmitriy, another young man whose name has been changed, fled Russia after an appointment at an enlistment office. He had been given several hours to pack his things before returning. He decided to go into hiding and then left the country. 

He had been active in the resistance against the war, spraying graffiti and distributing stickers, but was unwilling to reveal any more than that. Some of his like-minded comrades had been more active, he said, blowing up trains carrying munitions for the Russian army for example. 

He said that for the German authorities what he had done was not enough proof that he would be in danger if he returned to Russia. "They think I'll be safe there," he said sarcastically. "They're too cowardly to do anything against [Russian President Vladimir] Putin's regime themselves, but they want Russians to fight against it."

Human rights activist Rudi Friedrich from Connection, a German NGO that campaigns for conscientious objectors and deserters around the world, said that he had seen several letters recently in which Russian nationals had been refused asylum on similar grounds.

He explained that from the perspective of the courts and the Federal Office for Migration there has to be a "considerable probability" of persecution for somebody to be recognized as a refugee.

"With regard to Russian conscripts, it is very often assumed that such a probability does not exist, even if a person submits their draft notice," said Friedrich. "Then, the argument runs that conscription is not likely because the person is too old. Or that there are 25 million reservists, so why do people think they will be enlisted?"

He said that though this was in line with the requirements of the highest court in Germany, these were interpreted to the disadvantage of asylum seekers, with the result that applications were often rejected. He added that if ordered to return to Russia, these men ran the very real risk of being conscripted. 

Friedrich also confirmed that Russian deserters had been granted asylum in Germany.

According to BAMF, 4,431 male Russian nationals of military age have applied for asylum in Germany since Russia's invasion of Ukraine. A decision has been issued in more than half of the cases (2,476), but in most (1,905) the asylum seekers have simply been referred to the country responsible for granting asylum in their case.

Of the cases for which Germany is responsible, asylum has been granted for 159 people and rejected for 412. The number of positive decisions has been falling steadily.

In 2022, the ratio of rejections to positive decisions was six to four, whereas these days it is nine to one. Clara Bünger, a lawmaker for Germany's Left party, criticized the development: "I call on the federal government to instruct BAMF to be generous in granting protection to Russian conscientious objectors, as was announced. That would send a strong signal in favor of peace politics," she said.

'Torture, prison, war and death'

When asked what awaited him in Russia if he was forced to return, Dmitry said: "Torture, prison, war and death." Oleg Ponomaryov said he was plagued by "the thought of waking up one day, with the police knocking at the door saying: 'Let's leave for Russia!'"

Although there are currently no direct flights between Germany and Russia, there have already been deportations of Russians convicted of criminal offenses, via third countries such as Serbia. "What's to stop the German authorities from doing the same with conscientious objectors?" asked Ponomaryov.

The two men have both appealed against the BAMF decisions and proceedings could drag on for years. In the meantime, they have been allowed to stay in Germany, but their asylum seeker status makes it difficult to find work, study or even rent an apartment.

This article was originally written in Russian.

While you're here: Every Tuesday, DW editors round up what is happening in German politics and society. You can sign up here for the weekly email newsletter Berlin Briefing.

More than 1.1 million people have fled to Germany as a result of the war in Ukraine — including an estimated several thousand Romani refugees, members of Europe's largest minority. While members of mainstream Ukrainian society received a warm and unbureaucratic welcome as refugees, most Romani people have experienced a very different Germany: highly bureaucratic, unhelpful, suspicious, derogatory, and racist.

This is the conclusion reached by the Reporting and Information Center on Antiziganism (MIA) in its monitoring report "Antiziganism against Ukrainian Romani refugees in Germany." Antiziganism is a form of racism that is directed against Romani people or against people who are perceived as such.

Romani families fleeing the war in Ukraine are entitled to the same assistance in Germany as other Ukrainians. "But this welcoming culture is simply not there for Romani people," MIA managing director Guillermo Ruiz told DW: "We have seen from day one how Ukrainian Romani people have been discriminated against in all forms." MIA has received around 220 such reports.

According to the report, Romani people are systematically discriminated against: in refugee shelters, by the police, who raise doubts about their nationality, by railway employees, who force them out of waiting areas, train stations, or trains, by school authorities, who have denied Romani children access to school, by social workers or volunteers who are committed to helping other Ukrainians.

"It really shocked us," says Ruiz. Some Romani families were treated so badly that they traveled back to the war zone. Reports of racial discrimination continue to come in from all over Germany.

'Ukrainian Romani people are descendants of Holocaust survivors'

Representatives of municipalities in Bavaria said: "We can continue to take in Ukrainian refugees, but not Roma." One district administrator said that they would "take in refugees, but not dogs and Roma." These statements are particularly alarming, Ruiz emphasizes because they were made by German authorities. "Germany has a historical obligation to this minority."

In Europe, up to half a million Romani people were murdered in the genocide perpetrated by Nazi Germany. "The Ukrainian Romani refugees are the descendants of Holocaust survivors," says Ruiz. According to estimates, almost half of the Romani people in Ukraine were murdered during the German occupation.

On April 8, International Romani Day, Mehmet Daimagüler, the Federal Commissioner for Combating Antiziganism, warned that it is not enough to simply lay wreaths for those who were murdered: "The dead are held in high esteem, while their descendants are despised."

Renata Conkova works every day for the descendants of the persecuted. The 44-year-old helps Ukrainian Romani refugees navigate government agencies and doctors, enrolling in school, and finding housing. As a member of the Romani community in Slovakia, she has experienced discrimination firsthand. For the past three years, she has worked in Thuringia for RomnoKher, an advocacy group for people with a Romani background.

RomnoKher offers workshops in which Romani refugees learn how everyday life is organized in Germany. Renata Conkova runs a monitoring program to identify possible diseases, necessary vaccinations, and education levels. She organizes literacy classes for children and parents. There is a great interest in education.

Marginalization in Ukraine and Germany

Many Romani people in Ukraine were also pushed to the margins of society, forced to live in extreme poverty on the outskirts of cities, sometimes without electricity or sanitation. Many have reported being denied access to school, Conkova said, which has left generations illiterate. The MIA report highlights marginalization and even violence in the 2010s.

Racism is commonplace for Romani refugees in Germany as well, Conkova observed. Guillermo Ruiz agrees: Even today, long-standing antiziganist prejudices against the minority are widespread. They are accused of criminality, child abduction, or the trafficking of children and women. "Unfortunately, antiziganism is still the norm in Germany."

Prejudices are being spread through media reports, but also through gatherings of so-called concerned citizens from the right or far right, some of which have been organized by the AfD, said MIA managing director Ruiz. At these gatherings, the alleged "Roma problem" was discussed. Ruiz asked a mayor why his citizens were worried: "What are the Romani people doing, where's the problem?" The mayor said: "They are just there."

Antiziganism among the Ukrainian mainstream

Renata Conkova has repeatedly heard Ukrainian interpreters make racist remarks about refugees. And in the city of Cologne, Ukrainian refugees protested against being housed together with Ukrainian Romani people, with similar reports coming from many German states. In one case, Roma families were so intimidated that they no longer dared to leave their rooms.

The MIA Reporting Center is calling for further education and awareness of antiziganism among authorities and aid workers, as well as an end to discrimination against Ukrainian Romani people in all areas of life.

On International Romani Day, German Family Minister Lisa Paus strongly condemned hate speech against the minority: "Every incident is one case too many." She called on people to report any incidents: "Stand up for Romani people!"

This article was originally written in German.

While you're here: Every Tuesday, DW editors round up what is happening in German politics and society. You can sign up here for the weekly email newsletter Berlin Briefing.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, commonly known as the Genocide Convention, is one of many pieces of international law created in response to the worst genocide of the 20th century.

Under the auspices of the newly formed United Nations, the 1948 treaty aims to make good on "never again," a refrain that arose from Germany's systematic extermination of 6 million European Jews and millions of others during the Holocaust.

By laying out a legal framework for "genocide," the convention hopes to prevent another one — although a number of large-scale war crimes have taken place around the world in the decades since. Germany and Israel are two of more than 150 countries party to the convention, along with the small Central American country of Nicaragua. That means each signatory has the legal responsibility to uphold the convention's provisions and reserves the right to formally accuse another of violating them.

That's what Nicaragua has done. On March 1, it initiated proceedings against Germany at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. The filing alleges that Germany, due to its steadfast support for Israel including weapons deliveries, has "failed to fulfill its obligation to prevent the genocide committed and being committed against the Palestinian people" and thus has "contributed to the commission of genocide in violation of the Convention" and other elements of international law.

The proceedings request that the court implements "provisional measures" against Germany, which could call for a suspension of its support for Israel, "in particular its military assistance including military equipment, in sor (sic) far as this aid may be used in the violation of the Genocide Convention."

Defining 'genocide' a matter of legal opinion

In the wake of the October 7 attacks by Hamas — categorized as a terrorist group by the US, the EU and other governments — which Israeli officials say killed about 1,200 people including at least 850 civilians, Israel has bombarded and besieged the Gaza Strip. The resulting death toll has exceeded 32,000 people, or more than 1.5% of the population, according to the Hamas-run Health Authority. Many thousands more are missing.  Some aid organizations have said the figure could be an undercount.

The United Nations and human rights groups have accused Israeli forces of indiscriminate attacks against civilians. Even staunch allies of Israel, such as the United States, have called the civilian death toll too high.

Whether Israel's actions amount to "genocide" is a matter of legal opinion. In a January ruling of a South African case against Israel, the ICJ found "at least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the Convention."

In a subsequent announcement on March 28, the court added additional provisions, including asking Israel to report to the court how it is fulfilling its obligations under international law.

Germany has been an outspoken defender of Israel's rejection of the accusations, which goes hand-in-hand with denying wrongdoing itself.

"We value the ICJ and will of course participate in the proceedings and defend ourselves," Christian Wagner, a spokesperson for Germany's Foreign Ministry, told reporters following the Nicaragua filing. "But let us make it very clear that we of course reject this accusation made against us by Nicaragua."

Potential impact of Nicaragua's case

The Nicaragua case leans heavily on the South African one, and may test a legal argument that the January ruling triggers certain obligations of third states, such as Germany.

"A considerable degree of ambiguity surrounds these issues. However, Nicaragua's case on the merits faces serious obstacles," Michael Becker, an assistant professor of international human rights law at Trinity College Dublin, told DW.

One challenge for Nicaragua is accusing Israel of genocide without Israel's direct involvement in the case. To get a ruling against Germany, "it will likely be important for Nicaragua to establish that some of Germany's obligations do not turn on whether Israel has violated international law but are triggered only by a serious risk," said Becker.

While every treaty signatory has the same right to appear before the court, Nicaragua faces a higher bar in the court of public opinion.

"Nicaragua is clearly a dictatorship," Sophia Hoffmann, an international relations scholar at the University of Erfurt, told DW. "Unlike South Africa, which is not only a democracy, but also has this incredibly successful positive narrative behind itself."

In other words, South Africa has more credibility on the world stage, given the dismantling of its own apartheid regime and transition to democracy in the 1990s. To take just one metric, the latest Democracy Index from the Economist Intelligence Unit ranked South Africa 47th — a "flawed democracy," akin to the US and Israel. At 143, Nicaragua is grouped with "authoritarian" regimes and just one place ahead of Russia.

Still, "there is of course also a very legitimate, important claim to be made," said Hoffmann. "The rules are for everyone," she added, and Germany "is being sort of very duplicitous here with regards to supporting international law on the one side, looking at what's going on in Ukraine, and sort of taking a blind eye with regards to important political allies."

Germany one of Israel's strongest allies

Germany is hardly Israel's only ally, but it is one of its strongest. After the US, it was Israel's largest weapons supplier between 2019 and 2023, accounting for 30% of imports, according to SIPRI, a conflict research institute. The German government greenlighted considerable additional deliveries following the October 7 attacks.

"The idea that German weapons are contributing to the killing of many, many civilians — thousands of civilians, women, children — is an awful idea," said Hoffmann.

Before filing its case, Nicaragua sent diplomatic notes to a handful of Western countries, including Germany, that support Israel or had withdrawn funding from UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, due to thinly supported Israeli allegations that UNRWA staff were involved in the October 7 attacks. 

The diplomacy campaign may have had some effect on those countries, since some have since paused arms sales or restored funding against the backdrop of worsening conditions in Gaza. Germany, however, stayed the course. UNRWA aid restarted only last week, but without Gaza relief, due to an ongoing investigation into Israel's claims. 

Germany's 'reason of state' under pressure

The ICJ has no means of enforcing its decisions. However, it can add to political and public pressure on a government.

Whatever the tangible consequences, Germany faces an existential bind. Its postwar identity is rooted in upholding the universal principles of international law that was prompted largely by its own historical crimes, which Germany seeks to make good on with specific support for Israel, despite the Jewish state's growing estrangement from many Jews around the world.

Germany's support for Israel is couched in the country's Staatsräson, or "reason of state," an ambiguous political concept that makes certain state policy unassailable. Germany's Federal Agency for Civic Education understands the concept more in an authoritarian or monarchal context than a democratic one. Among other problems, Germany's support for Israel due to its past genocide of the Jews risks conflating the state and the people, which could be antisemitic according to the controversial IHRA antisemitism definition that Germany uses at various governmental levels.

The case dovetails with broader international criticism of Germany's domestic clampdowns on freedom of academic and cultural expression, which has led to people being the "victims or targets of this repression against this very wide, broad definition of antisemitism," said Hoffmann.

The court has set aside two days to hear the case, on April 8 and 9, with Nicaragua and Germany getting one day each to present oral arguments. A ruling could follow within weeks.

"International law would benefit from clarification with respect to the actions that a state must take to abide by these obligations," said international law professor Becker. "Nicaragua's claims against Germany present a concrete case within which those issues can potentially be examined."

Edited by: Kyra Levine and Ben Knight

While you're here: Every Tuesday, DW editors round up what is happening in German politics and society. You can sign up here for the weekly email newsletter Berlin Briefing.

Earlier this week, seven members of the international aid organization World Central Kitchen were killed in an Israeli attack. The aid workers were trying to reduce the suffering of the estimated 2.4 million people in the Gaza Strip. The shocking news, which drew international condemnation, has again highlighted the difficulty of getting international aid, including aid from Germany, to those trapped in the war zone.

For weeks, German aid groups have increasingly voiced their concern that the help they are able to provide is extremely limited. Gerda Hasselfeldt, president of the German Red Cross, isn't prone to exaggeration, which makes her description of the situation in Gaza as "truly catastrophic" all the more startling.

Hasselfeldt, a former German health minister and politician with the conservative Christian Social Union, recently told the public broadcaster Deutschlandfunk that the relief supplies passing through the very limited crossings into Gaza were insufficient.

"Everything is lacking. And with increasing threats and fighting, as well as announcements of further attacks, the situation is becoming even more precarious," she said.

Getting aid to Gaza remains difficult

Hasselfeldt, who has led the German Red Cross since 2017, cannot say exactly how much her organization has provided in Gaza since the October 7 terrorist attacks by Islamist militant group Hamas in Israel.

However, she said it has "already delivered several planeloads of relief supplies via Egypt to the Gaza Strip." Cargo on the planes included food, medical equipment and hygienic supplies.

Development cooperation between Germany and other countries is traditionally carried out by the government or government-owned agencies such as the German Corporation for International Cooperation (GIZ), which is tasked with implementing projects run by the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. 

Ministry spokesperson Katja Hummel told DW that organizations such as GIZ do not maintain permanent staff from Germany in Gaza. Before the Hamas terrorist attacks, GIZ employees stationed in the West Bank city of Ramallah or staff sent from Germany checked on the progress of projects in the enclave.

"Such staff trips to the Gaza Strip will not be possible until further notice, due to the current situation," said Hummel.

Church groups work with local helpers

The same is true for German church aid organizations, such as Catholic charity Caritas International.

"That's not our approach, in any case," said spokesperson Achim Reinke. "We always work with local helpers." But Caritas, which is closely networked with other Catholic groups around the world, also provides an insight into the catastrophic situation.

Reinke said he believes the fact that the German army is now participating in an airlift from Jordan to drop aid packages over the war zone shows how desperate the situation is.

"It's basically a sign of powerlessness," he said. "Such drops only reach the strongest of the strong, if they reach them at all. The elderly and people with disabilities get absolutely nothing from them."

Reinke said aid transport over land or sea would be more effective, but that these, too, would increasingly face risks. Such transports are currently limited, as Israel closed many crossings into Gaza following the Hamas attacks.

Since mid-March, Germany has been involved in dropping aid packages by plane to the desperate population in Gaza. Two Hercules transport aircraft from the Franco-German air transport squadron were transferred from their base in Normandy to Jordan to support the airlift.

The German Bundeswehr's aircraft are equipped with French parachute systems for dropping aid supplies, and the crew comprises both German and French personnel. Observers in Jordan have reported concerns that some of the aid supplies could "trickle away" there.

During her most recent trip to the Middle East last week, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock described the airlift aid packages as "a drop in the ocean." While in Egypt, Baerbock emphasized the importance of land border crossings for supplying aid.

"Egypt plays an incredibly important role, especially in fighting hunger," she said, adding that most food aid that reaches people in Gaza enters the enclave at the Rafah border crossing.

New funds for Gaza

The Foreign Ministry's website also states that the humanitarian situation in Gaza remains catastrophic –– particularly in the north. Basic services for the civilian population have collapsed. There is a lack of essentials — food, water and medical care.

At the moment, the total German aid for the Palestinian territories –– not only in Gaza –– amounts to around €250 million ($270 million). Of that, €175 million have been approved since October 7, 2023.

German payments to  UNRWA, the UN's relief agency for Palestinians, have been halted since the beginning of 2024, after the Israeli government accused 12 of the agency's some 13,000 Gazan employees of helping Hamas during the October 7 terrorist attacks. The organization has since fired those employees.

Fifteen other countries have since stopped payments to UNRWA, including the United States, its biggest donor. Germany did announce a few weeks ago that it would provide €45 million for UNRWA's regional work in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and the West Bank.

This article was originally written in German.

While you're here: Every Tuesday, DW editors round up what is happening in German politics and society. You can sign up here for the weekly email newsletter Berlin Briefing.

Last week, Saudi Arabia was chosen to chair the United Nations' leading gender equality forum, the Commission on the Status of Women. Even before the choice was finalized, rights organizations were issuing warnings.

Other countries "should oppose the candidacy of Saudi Arabia, which has an egregious women's rights record," the rights group Human Rights Watch (HRW) wrote a week beforehand. 

After the decision was made on March 28, they were even more upset.

"Whoever is in the chair, which is now Saudi Arabia, is in a key position to influence the planning, the decisions, the taking stock, and looking ahead, in a critical year for the commission," Sherine Tadros, head of Amnesty International's New York office, told the Guardian. "Saudi Arabia is now at the helm, but Saudi Arabia's own record on women's rights is abysmal, and a far cry from the mandate of the Commission."

How did it happen?

The Commission on the Status of Women, or CSW, is made up of 45 UN member states. To ensure fair representation, CSW members are chosen according to geography so there are 13 members from Africa, 11 from Asia, nine from Latin America and the Caribbean, eight from western Europe and other states, and four from eastern Europe. Each member state serves for four years. Saudi Arabia, part of the Asia bloc, is a member until 2027.

Every year, the CSW holds an annual conference, attended by thousands, during which progress towards equal rights for women is assessed and a statement — known as an "outcome document" or "agreed conclusions" — is negotiated and published. 

The CSW also has a leadership "bureau," consisting of a member from each bloc. There is also a rotating chair, with each bloc taking a two-year turn in it.

Most recently, it has been Asia's turn, with the Philippines appointed to head the CSW's bureau. However, as they are only a CSW member until 2024, Manila planned to share the job, allowing another Asia-group country to take on the last year of leadership. That ended up being Saudi Arabia. 

Why didn't anybody object to Saudi Arabia taking over?

Usually members of the geographic group confirm the post unanimously, without any kind of vote.

It would have been possible for other members of the CSW, including the Netherlands, Portugal or Switzerland, to protest, Human Rights Watch pointed out as it lobbied them to oppose Saudi Arabia's election. After all, in 2022, Western governments effectively expelled Iran from the CSW during the Iranian government crackdown on protests around the death of Mahsa Jina Amini, HRW argued.

"Diplomats from the UN's Western regional group privately acknowledged the problems of the Saudi candidacy," Louis Charbonneau, UN director at HRW, wrote shortly before the decision was made. "But they're not planning to oppose it or call for a recorded vote, as they don't want to create a precedent."

How much power does the post bring?

Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the UN, Abdulaziz bin Mohamed al-Wasel, will lead the CSW's bureau into 2025, the first Saudi diplomat to do so since the CSW was created in 1946.

"The newly elected chair of CSW is expected to carry forward the work of predecessors in leading the Commission," a UN Women spokesperson explained to DW.

That includes advancing the goals of what is known as the Beijing Declaration, a resolution adopted by 189 countries in September 1995. It's often described as a landmark in gender equality and it marks its 30th anniversary next year.

Critics of Saudi Arabia worry the country could negatively influence the UN's position on gender equality at, for instance, next year's CSW conference.

This year's CSW conference had already "exposed the deep cultural and religious divisions between conservative and progressive nations over sexual and reproductive rights and LGBTQ protections," reporters from specialist website Devex, which covers global development work, wrote last month.

This year, Saudi Arabia worked together with other countries — including Belarus, Nigeria, Turkey, Indonesia and Russia, as well as the Holy See — to promote conservative family values and ensure that language about, for example, LGBTQ rights or protections for sexual and gender-based violence, were diluted or left out of the CSW's final statement, observers said.

"Giving a platform, giving access and giving a voice and power to people who are actually trying to regress gender justice and women's rights issues, is a pitfall and it weakens the language [on] the key issues that we want to actually push the needle on," Oxfam International's head of gender rights and justice, Amina Hersi, told Devex.

Progress on women's rights or just PR?

The Saudi embassy in Berlin did not respond to DW's questions but the Saudi Arabian government often points to recent progress made on women's rights.

"The Kingdom's chairmanship … [is] in line with the qualitative achievements achieved by the Kingdom in this field, thanks to the special attention and care the Kingdom's leadership pays to woman empowerment and rights," the state-run Saudi Press Agency said in a statement. The country's ambitious Vision 2030 plan also supports more female participation in the Saudi economy, it added.

There might be some potential for positive change, concedes Lina al-Hathloul, head of advocacy for the London-based organization ALQST for Human Rights.

"We do believe that international engagement and collaboration can lead to positive change, and that Saudi Arabia's willingness to engage … could hold incentives," she told DW.

But, she added, Saudi Arabia's recent reforms mean very little when Saudi women can still be arrested or detained for not behaving or dressing in a pre-prescribed manner, not obeying their male "guardians," or for peacefully expressing political opinions.

"Concretely, what we have seen in recent in years is that — despite the narrative of reforms — the discourse around women's rights remains a PR stunt," al-Hathloul argued, one that is really only about the state's economic goals and attracting more Western investors and tourists. 

Edited by: Jon Shelton

Issa Fayed is the owner of a car repair center in Haifa, a city on Israel's Mediterranean coast. He's also an Arab Israeli, or, as he describes himself, a Palestinian living in Israel. 

When Israel began its offensive on Gaza in the aftermath of the October 7 Hamas attacks, Fayed posted a video on his Instagram account saying that Palestinian residents of Israel had no freedom of speech. 

"I said that the Palestinian and Arab views matter, too, and this will still remain the case if they [Israeli authorities] arrest us," he told DW. 

As a result of the video, Fayed was arrested by Israeli authorities on October 13 for alleged incitement of terrorism. No charges were brought against him, however, and he was released after a few days. Fayed's account mirrors that of other Arab Israelis who have been arrested under similar circumstances. 

Fayed said since his arrest in October, he's been self-censoring his social media posts. 

"Before the war, I knew we were second-class citizens," he said. "Now, it feels like we live under occupation." 

New challenges for Arab Israelis

For many of Israel's roughly 2 million Arab citizens, the ongoing Israel-Hamas war has made a historically complex relationship with the state of Israel even more difficult to navigate. 

Arabs, including both Muslim and Christian Palestinians as well as Druze and Bedouin communities, make up roughly 20% of Israel's population. Many are descendants of Palestinians who remained in the new state of Israel after its founding in 1948, which saw the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians into neighboring areas. As a consequence, Palestinians in Israel often have strong ties to Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza, as well as those in the global diaspora. 

Following the October 7 attacks by Hamas, classified as a terror group by Germany, the US, the EU and other governments, and the subsequent Israeli offensive in Gaza, some Palestinian citizens of Israel say they've faced a range of restrictive measures. These include arrests and expulsions from their academic studies in response to their social media posts about the war and the situation in Gaza. 

Adalah, an Israeli NGO advocating for the legal rights of the Arab minority in Israel, has been tracking investigations and arrests that have arisen from "opposition to the targeting of civilians in Gaza, expressions of sympathy for the Palestinian people in Gaza, opposition to collective punishment and war crimes, and the dissemination of news about Gaza." 

According to Suhad Bishara, Adalah's legal director, hundreds of Palestinian citizens of Israel have been arrested following social media posts. Such cases fall under the category of free speech and almost exclusively affect Arab citizens of Israel, she told DW. 

"We see a pretty drastic deterioration in the authorities' policies, which are based on racist assumptions and selective enforcement," she said. "This has no legal basis." 

According to Bishara, Israeli authorities and politicians equate any show of solidarity with Gaza by the country's Arab minority with support for terrorism. 

"There's a process of dehumanization of all people in Gaza in Israeli politics," she said. 

Arab Israelis fear for their lives and future 

Fayed agrees with this sentiment, arguing that there's a double standard for Arabs and Jews who voice solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. 

"If you're Jewish, you're a left-wing activist," he said. "If you're Arab, you're a terrorist supporter." 

A recent poll by the Israel Democracy Institute suggests Fayed's feeling is shared by many Arab citizens of Israel. The December 2023 survey found that 71% of Arabs living in Israel are worried about voicing their views on social media. 

"Presumably, this is due to the fact that since the outbreak of the war, there has been a noticeable rise in the number of complaints made and charges brought by law enforcement agencies for the offense of incitement," the survey summary said. 

The survey also found that 84% of respondents feared for their physical safety, while 86% worried about their economic security. 

Fayed can also relate to these are also sentiments. Following Facebook posts about his arrest, he said, his shop was vandalized with graffiti such as "death to Arabs." He also said the income from his car repair business has fallen 90%, as many of his Jewish clients began boycotting his business. 

Hope for peaceful coexistence between Arabs and Jews

At the moment, the divide between Israel's Jewish population and its Arab population is wide. A January poll conducted by Israeli statistician Mano Geva found that only 34% of Israel's Jewish population say they trust the country's Arab population, and more than 60% say they are against an Arab party being part of an Israeli government coalition. 

Yet despite the challenging situation posed by the war between Israel and Hamas, some groups are still trying to maintain, and even strengthen, the delicate bonds between Jews and Arabs in Israel. One such group is Standing Together, a grassroots initiative by Arabs and Jews fighting for more equality in Israeli society. 

As part of its activities, Standing Together has collected food for Palestinians in Gaza. The donated goods were transported to Gaza by a car convoy that departed from several Israeli cities and made its way toward the Kerem Shalom border crossing in southern Israel. 

Though such groups are often seen negatively by large parts of right-wing Israeli society, Fayed believes there's no alternative for Jews and Arabs but to work together.

"You can't live without this hope for living together," he said.

Edited by: Michaela Cavanagh, Timothy Jones

Hong Kong has passed a draconian national security law at a fast-tracked speed, which experts warn is an effort to quickly extend Beijing's grip over the remaining opposition to its erosion of civil liberties in the semi-autonomous territory. 

On Tuesday, the city's pro-Beijing legislature finished the second and third readings of the "Safeguarding National Security Bill," also known as Article 23 of the Basic Law, before proceeding to the final vote.

With unanimous support from all 89 lawmakers, the bill is now set to take effect on March 23 — nearly a month earlier than many observers had expected.

The specific laws will introduce a range of new offenses including treason, espionage, external interference and disclosure of state secrets – some of which are punishable by up to life in prison.

Following the first passage of a sweeping national security law Beijing imposed on Hong Kong in 2020, the latest bill is widely believed to further undermine the city's freedom and autonomy promised by Beijing after the region returned from British colonial rule in 1997.

A 'direct order' from Beijing?

There is widespread international concern over the sudden fast-tracked legislative process.

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk said in a statement that it is alarming to see "such consequential legislation was rushed through the legislature."

Eric Lai, a research fellow at Georgetown University's Center for Asian Law, shed light on the timing of the "speeding up."

He noted that it came right after Hong Kong's Chief Executive John Lee visited Beijing earlier this month to attend the annual meeting of China's National People's Congress. 

"It's believed Beijing has given rather clear instructions to impose the legislation in Hong Kong as soon as possible," he told DW. Speeches in recent months from officials have constantly highlighted the importance of passing the law "sooner rather than later," he added.

Chief Executive Lee said on Tuesday that the passage of the law is a "historical moment" waited upon for over 26 years, adding that Hong Kong finally completed its constitutional duty and "lives up to the expectations of the central government."

Some lawmakers also pointed out that large-scale protests in the past decade would not have happened if the law was enacted earlier.

"It seems that they've received a direct order from Beijing," Lai said.

Beijing tightens its grip on Hong Kong

In 2020, Beijing imposed a sweeping national security law on Hong Kong, with officials saying it could bring stability to the city after months of pro-democracy protests erupted in 2019.

Since then, the voice of dissidents and opposition have largely died down. But the authorities still believe Article 23 is required to tie up loose ends, despite a previous failed attempt in 2003 after around 500,000 protesters took to the streets.

"They want more legal tools to tighten their grip on Hong Kong society," said researcher Lai.

Compared to the first national security law, Article 23 will strengthen the law enforcement power of the Hong Kong police, notably in regard to extension of detention measures and restrictions on access to lawyers under certain conditions.

Lai said that this will considerably "deter the public from participating in public affairs" and that crimes related to sedition may have the greatest impact on Hong Kong citizens.

Since the definition of the offense is relatively unclear and broad, "causing disputes" between citizens in Hong Kong and in Mainland China can also be induced as an intent of sedition, Lai said. 

Amnesty International's China director Sarah Brooks called the new law "a devastating moment" for the people of Hong Kong, as "they lost another piece of their freedom – any act of peaceful protest is now more dangerous than ever."

Vague legislation leaves room for interpretation

In response to widespread criticism from other governments and human rights groups, Hong Kong authorities have argued that the law is comparable to security laws in Western countries, such as the UK, the US and Canada.

Amendments to the draft include provisions for public interest defenses in cases involving the disclosure of state secrets, but only if the disclosure "manifestly outweighs" the public interest served by withholding the information.

Despite the government's defense, researcher Lai noted that many regulations appear vague and broad when viewed through international standards, providing the authorities more room for interpretation of individual cases.

For instance, the draft explicitly states that "external forces" include not only a foreign government but also an international organization and its associated entities and individuals.

"Foreign media, non-governmental organizations, religious groups and academic institutions, all have the potential to be implicated," Lai added.

Chan Ron-sing, the chairman of the Hong Kong Journalists Association, also expressed worries that the new law will affect not only the survival of journalists, but also the entire media ecosystem.

"I am most worried that more young people will be deterred from joining the profession [journalism] because of the concerns over Article 23," Chan told DW.

Hong Kong's status as global financial hub in jeopardy?

Johannes Hack, the president of the German Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong, told DW that since the definition of state secrets and collusion is quite broad and the penalties are severe, companies tend to "over comply."

"And overcompliance simply can mean that you don't do things any longer," he added.

But compared with mainland China, Hong Kong to him is still a distinctive region and the first stop for businesses looking to crack the world's second-largest economy.

"I don't think anybody's going to look at this [Article 23] and say okay this is where I move out," Hack said, but it could become more challenging to convince foreign firms that the city is different from the mainland.

Now that the legislation is put in place, Hack said he would hope for the Hong Kong market to "move on" and focus on openness as well as "making an attractive place for people to come and do business."

Edited by: Sou-Jie van Brunnersum

On March 18, the results of an independent, international UN fact-finding mission on Iran's response to a nationwide protest movement were introduced to the UN Human Rights Council during its regular session in Geneva.

In the over 300-page report, UN investigators spelled out how Iran's government carried out a brutal campaign of oppression against the protests, which chairperson Sara Hossain said in some cases amounted to crimes against humanity.

In November 2022, two months after the death of 22-year-old Jina Mahsa Amini sparked an Iran-wide protest movement, the UN Human Rights Council established the fact-finding mission on the "deteriorating situation of human rights" in Iran to document any potential crimes against the Iranian people.

At that time, there were already suspicions that Iranian state authorities may have used disproportionate force in cracking down on the "Women, Life, Freedom" protests.

"Crimes were committed," Hossain told the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on Monday. She cited extrajudicial killings, torture, rape, enforced disappearances and gender-specific persecution as examples.

Iran has always denied being responsible for Amini's death and said she was not beaten in custody. The fact-finding mission assessed that Amini was beaten to death "while in the custody of morality police."

More than 100 witness statements

Hossain told DW that the UN Commission examined and evaluated numerous sources for its report.

"We analyzed government documents and public statements by government officials. We also reviewed a number of reports prepared by Iran's High Council for Human Rights."

Hossain, a barrister in the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, added that the fact-finding mission evaluated 134 direct witness statements for the final report. Investigators also analyzed an enormous amount of open-source information, such as digital medical records and legal documents.

"All of this formed the basis of our material. This allowed us to draw on both direct and corroborated evidence from primary and secondary sources, giving us a solid foundation for our investigation and findings," Hossain said.

Many eyewitnesses who testified before the commission still show the traces of targeted shots fired by the security forces.

Kosar Eftekhari is one of them. The 24-year-old woman from Tehran was hit in the eye by a rubber bullet during the 2022 protests. She has been blind in that eye ever since.

As if that were not enough, she was brought before the Revolutionary Court in Tehran on charges of "assembly and conspiracy against the security of the country" and "propaganda against the regime."

"Due to enormous reprisals, I fled the country two months ago," she told DW.

Eftekhari now lives in Germany and testified before the commission in Geneva.

"I took part in a peaceful protest that was brutally crushed by the security forces. They deliberately shot me in the eye at close range. It is important for me, as an eyewitness, to tell the world what we experienced and how the protesters were repressed," she said.

'Systematic attack on the civilian population'

According to the fact-finding report, 551 people were killed by security forces, including at least 49 women and 68 children. Women, children and members of ethnic and religious minorities in particular were subjected to human rights violations.

These methods are part of a "systematic attack on the civilian population," Hossain told the session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva.

The fact-finding body called on the Iranian government to stop the executions of protesters, release all those detained in connection with the protests, stop harassing the victims and their families, and provide them with reparations.

Iranian human rights lawyer Saeid Dehghan said that the fact-finding mission's work is of enormous importance for the civilian population in Iran.

"For the first time in the history of the Islamic Republic, crimes committed by those in power against the population have been documented. This is the first time that the term 'crimes against humanity' has been used in an official report on the situation in Iran. This has historical significance," she told DW.

Dehghan, who has lived in Canada since 2022, founded a worldwide network of Iranian lawyers. He runs a legal center called Parsi Law, which offers legal advice to people in Iran. The legal center he heads also supports international organizations such as the UN, which promote human rights in Iran.

Although Iran rejects the report's findings, Iranian officials living in Western countries, could be put on trial, have their assets frozen or be denied entry on the basis of the report.

In fact, Iran has presented itself as a victim by claiming that the work of the fact-finding mission is politically motivated.

Tehran strongly condemned the UN findings, saying they were based on "unfounded allegations" and "false and biased information, without any legal basis."

Iranian authorities refuse to cooperate with the UN fact-finding mission and want to prevent its work from being extended.

The mission's mandate is due to expire on April 5, 2024. Iranian and international human rights organizations have called for the mandate to be extended. The Human Rights Council will vote on the extension as well as on all pending resolutions at its next meeting at the beginning of April.

This article was translated from German

Edited by: Sou-Jie van Brunnersum

Female genital mutilation (FGM) remains illegal in Gambia — for now. A decision in Gambia's National Assembly on whether to overturn the ban on FGM has been postponed for at least three months.

The divisive issue led MPs to ask for more consultation on the matter, referring the bill to a parliamentary committee which will examine it for at least three months. The bill will then be returned to parliament.

According to the AFP news agency, hundreds of people were seen protested outside parliament on Monday, with most supporting a repeal of the ban on FGM.

The tiny West African nation had explicitly criminalized FGM, also called cutting or female circumcision, in 2015, making the practise punishable with up to three years in prison or a fine of 50,000 dalasi ($736 or €678), or both.

In cases where FGM causes death, the law calls for life imprisonment.

FGM involves the partial or total removal of the female external genitalia, often involving the removal of the clitoris or labia. It has no health benefits and is proven to harm girls and women in many ways.

The private bill to scrap the law outlawing FGM, which was proposed by individual members of parliament, argues that the current prohibition violates citizens' rights to practice their culture and religion.

Renewed debate around criminalizing FGM

The debate around FGM in Gambia flared up in mid-2023 after three women were convicted of the practise under the law. They were ordered to pay a fine of 15,000 dalasi or serve a year in jail for carrying out female genital mutilation on eight infant girls, aged between four months and one year. However, an imam paid the fines for all three women,

These were the first convictions under the law. Prior to this, only two people had been arrested and one case brought to court, according to UNICEF, and no convictions or sanctions had been handed down.

This is despite nearly three out of four girls and women, or 73%, having undergone female genital mutilation in Gambia, according to official figures.

Parliamentary reporter Arret Jatta told DW that she wasn't surprised that the pro-FGM bill has come before parliament, given the heated discussions in recent months:

"Almost all the National Assembly members are in support of the law being repealed, especially the female National Assembly members," she said.

Different interpretations of Islam

Most of the small African country's population are Muslim, and many believe that FGM is a requirement of Islam. The Gambia Supreme Islamic Council issued a fatwa (religious decree) last year, declaring FGM "one of the virtues of Islam."

However, Isatou Touray, former vice president and founder of the anti-FGM organization GAMCOTRAP, strongly refutes this interpretation.

"Who has the right to interfere in what Allah had created, and who has the right to define how a woman should look?" Touray told Gambian media organization Kerr Fatou.

Supporters of FGM meanwhile believe it can "purify" and protect girls during adolescence and before marriage.

"When it comes to the social aspect, they'll even tell you, 'Oh, it is to ensure that you stay a virgin because if you have the clitoris then … you would want to have sex,'" woman's rights advocate Esther Brown said in an interview on DW's AfricaLink radio program earlier in March.

Human rights violation

The practice of FGM is recognized internationally as a violation of the human rights of girls and women, finds the World Health Organization. 

As well as severe bleeding, FGM can cause a variety of severe health problems, including infections, scarring, pain, menstruation problems, recurrent urinary tract infections, infertility and complications in childbirth.

One study on the health consequences of FGM in Gambia found women who were cut are four times more likely to suffer complications during delivery, and the newborn is four times more likely to have health complications if the mother has undergone FGM.

But for Fatima Jarju, an FGM survivor who sensitizes women in Gambia to the harms of the procedure, the ongoing debate on the issue is causing further damage to women's rights:

"I think it's a big setback ... looking at our human rights standards as a country and also the commitment from the government to protecting the rights of women and girls of this country," she told DW.

Legislation not always effective against FGM

The Gambia is among 28 sub-Saharan nations where FGM is practiced. Six of these nations lack a national laws criminalizing the procedure (see map below). The Gambia could soon join them.

Many anti-FGM activists stress, however, that legislation alone is insufficient to tackle FGM, especially when it lacks enforcement, as is the case in Gambia.

Rugiatu Turay in Sierra Leone, one of the six African nations without a law against FGM, has gained international recognition for her work combating FGM.

The strategies she uses include the development of rites of passage for girls that don't involve cutting, finding alternative livelihoods for the cutters and intense community engagement.

She isn't convinced that legislation is the best way to tackle the issue.

"Generally, in Africa, people make laws to satisfy their donor partners. But when it comes to implementation, they are not implemented," she told DW.

To change cultural attitudes, she says, more community-based initiatives are needed that involve everyone from regional chiefs, local headmen and religious leaders to the cutters and the mothers making decisions for their daughters.

"If every sector in our country speaks about the cut and the scar — and its consequences — I tell you, we will end FGM," she said.

Sankulleh Janko in Banjul, Eddy Micah Jr. and George Okach contributed to this article.

This article was first published on March 7, 2024 and was updated on March 19, 2024 to reflect the postponement of a vote to repeal the FGM ban.

Edited by: Rob Mudge

In central Tehran, a woman and her friends are harassed by a group of armed men on motorcycles. Their first thought: "Put on your hijab."

"Since that day, every time I hear the sound of a motorcycle behind me, my body freezes," one of the women recalls. The incident from last year has been burned into her memory.

"That's why I don't go for walks anymore. When I do, I have my headphones on the whole time."

Scenes like this are everyday life in Tehran. This story was shared with Ghoncheh Ghavami, an Iranian feminist activistand editor in chief of "Harasswatch," a Farsi-language website about oppression and sexual violence faced by women in Iran and around the world.

Women from Iran have sent many stories like this about the oppression they face every day under the Islamic Republic's regime, which are published anonymously on Harasswatch website.

Ghawami, who herself has more than once been in the clutches of the Iranian justice system, stays in touch with many Iranian women, despite all the difficulties and dangers.

'Women, life, freedom'

Nationwide protests following the death of Jina Mahsa Amini in autumn 2022 have not improved the situation for women in Iran.

Amini, a Kurdish woman, was arrested during a trip to Tehran and taken to a police station, allegedly because she was not wearing her headscarf appropriately.

A few hours later, she was taken unconscious from police custody to the hospital. Three days later, on September 16, she was officially declared dead.

The ensuing protests under the slogan "Women, Life, Freedom" became the longest lasting demonstration movement since the founding of the Islamic Republic in 1979. The government responded to this with massive repression and violence.

Exact figures are difficult to obtain, but according to independent human rights organizations, security forces in Iran killed at least 550 demonstrators during protests in the 12 months after September 16, 2022.

Seven men were executed in connection with the protests. Amnesty International reported more than 22,000 arrests.

Activist and human rights lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh told DW that the repression by Iranian authorities continues. In February, Sotoudeh received several reports form girls and women about harassment.

All of them were not wearing a headscarf, and said they were attacked and treated humiliatingly by civilians and Basij militia, a volunteer department that is organizationally assigned to the Revolutionary Guards.

The following day, over 60 women were brought to court. Some were sentenced to fines. "It's a misogynistic regime," said Sotoudeh.

'This damn headscarf'

Women in Iran, especially those who refuse to wear a headscarf, or hijab, face threats, lawsuits, punishment, physical attacks, and harassment such as having their car confiscated.

"Wearing or not wearing this damn headscarf is associated with many thoughts and emotions for us, with fear, shame, helplessness, anger, humiliation," an Iranian woman recounted on Ghavami's Harasswatch website.

The woman reported that her feelings fluctuate between courage and hesitance.

"Many of us go through these feelings every day. We are in a constant inner dialogue with ourselves and with our fellow sufferers," the woman said.

"How can we, who witnessed the revolution over the death of Jina Mahsa Amini, passively bear this humiliation? How can we ignore the turmoil in our bodies? If the Islamic Republic sees hijab as significant, for us, unveiling means so much more," she added.

The decision to wear a headscarf or not is not just a question of clothing, it shakes a person's self-image, she underlined.

"For me, not wearing a headscarf is the basis of my identity," another woman reported to Ghavami. Wearing a headscarf is a dilemma for her. "I feel like I'm denying myself when I'm forced to," she said.

"I either have to fear the hijab police on the metro or suffer because my body is covered. I don't want to go back to that disgusting look they created for us," she said.

Activist Sotoudeh said the decision to either wear a headscarf or have to expect harassment, if not a lawsuit, limits women enormously.

"The cases of Mahsa Amini and Armita Geravand remind us how limited public mobility is for women. When in doubt, they prefer to stay at home - and that's exactly what the rulers want," said Sotoudeh.

Sixteen-year-old Gerawand was not wearing a headscarf when she collapsed on the subway in early October 2023. According to Iranian state media, she fell due to low blood pressure. But human rights activists are certain that she was a victim of Iran's "morality police." Gerawand died after weeks in a coma.

Iranian authorities "continue to treat women as second-class citizens," said a 2023 Amnesty International report on the human rights situation in Iran.

This also applies to marriage, divorce, child custody, employment, inheritance and holding political office. Amnesty also points out the marriageable age of girls under Iranian law is currently 13 years.

'A struggle over women's sexuality'

The US political scientist Hamideh Sedghi writes in her 2007 book "Women and Politics in Iran: Veiling, Unveiling and Reveiling" that the regime's gender order focuses so much on clothing regulations.

For those in power, the headscarf is the strongest symbol of the Iranian Revolution. "The Islamic Revolution also developed into a sexual counter-revolution, a struggle over women's sexuality," Sedghi writes.

From then on, this sexuality was strongly political, specifically with anti-Western connotations. "Wear a headscarf or we will hit you on the head" was one slogan in the revolutionary year of 1979. "Death to the Unveiled" was another.

But Iranian women are resisting this paternalism that continues to this day, said activist Sotoudeh. Their protest is directed, for example, against the continued attempt to force women to be immobile.

"But we Iranian women cannot allow that to happen," she said.

'United by the idea of human rights'

That's why resistance to the regime's regulations continues, said Sotoudeh. This often happens together with Iranian men.

"Because regardless of power struggles, men and women in this country are united by the idea of human rights," she said.  This concept directly affects their everyday lives.

"They long to normalize their lives, to live like everyone else in the world, and to wake up every morning without hearing that another young girl is being killed because of her clothing choice."

Sotoudeh told DW that the resistance movement has had some successes, even if the regime has not changed its ways.

To measure success, we have to ask the question differently, she said.

"What would our situation look like if there was no Mahsa movement? I dare say it would be much worse."

This article was translated from German

It has been more than 100 years since German suffragists won the right for women to vote. That was back in 1918, during the Weimar Republic era in Germany.

So women in post-World War II democratic Germany have always had an equal right to participate in elections. Today, voter turnout among women is virtually the same as men's.

Which parties do women vote for?

Women's party preferences have changed quite a lot since Germany's first postwar parliamentary elections, then held in only West Germany.

For many years, the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the party of former Chancellor Angela Merkel, was more popular among women than men. In the 1950s and 1960s, more than half of all female voters chose the party. This might be due to its focus on Christian and family values, Elke Wiechmann, who researches the representation of women in politics at Hagen University, told DW.

"As religion, family and home life became less central to women's lives, this changed," Wiechmann said. "We think that for a while, Angela Merkel might have still given the CDU a bonus with women, despite the party's policies. When Merkel's era ended, that was over."

When Angela Merkel didn't run for office again in the most recent, 2021 election, the CDU almost entirely lost its edge with female voters.  

What if only women had elected the German parliament?

"In the last election, women voted more progressive," Wiechmann said. If only women had had their say in 2021, the Social Democratic Party (SPD) of Chancellor Olaf Scholz would have had one percentage point more, as would the environmental Greens. Meanwhile, the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) and neoliberal Free Democratic Party (FDP) would have lost seats.

This is down to the parties' political programs, Wiechmann told DW.

"Women's lives still look different to men's," she said. "They still carry more responsibility for children, for the home, in addition to work and career."

"Women might be more likely to, for instance, value better public transport over a new highway," she said, leading to their voting for progressive parties — like the SPD, Greens or Left — which tend to promote gender equality, even without the explicit label.  

However, with their votes, women in the broader population can only hope their chosen party will implement the changes they would like to see. Female representatives in parliament wield more direct power.

Are there enough women in Germany's parliament?

In past decades, the share of women in the German parliament, or Bundestag, has hovered at only around a third, even though women make up a little over half of the German population.

"In order to represent the breadth and diversity of women's experiences and perspectives, you need a certain number of women from different backgrounds in parliament as well," says Elisa Deiss-Helbig, a research fellow at the University of Konstanz who focuses on party politics and political representation, particularly the representation of politically marginalized groups.

Women might introduce topics into the political agenda that could be overlooked by a male-dominated parliament, she told DW.

This is particularly relevant when it comes to women's rights: In 1957, when fewer than 10% of parliamentarians were women, Germany voted on whether husbands should continue to have the last say in all marital affairs (the so-called "Stichentscheid" of the husband). It was women's votes that ended this discriminatory law: A majority of male parliamentarians would have kept the law, while 74% of the women voted to repeal it.

Some changes required a much larger share of women. For example, it took Germany until 1997 to criminalize rape during marriage. That was the result of a decades-long, cross-party effort led by female legislators. Multiple draft laws brought to parliament since the early 1980s had been rejected. 

Ulla Schmidt from the SPD, one of the initiators of the reform, said in an interview: "We finally had more women in parliament. With fewer than 10% of women, any cross-party campaigning lacks the basis needed to exert pressure"

More than 90% of female parliamentarians voted in favor of the new law. Among the men who voted against it were multiple prominent politicians, including current CDU party leader Friedrich Merz.

Which parties do female legislators belong to?

Of the 736 seats in the current parliament, just over a third (263 seats) are held by women. Most of them belong to parties on the political left: 70 are from the Green Party alone, while the far-right AfD only has nine female representatives in the Bundestag.

"There is definitely a difference in ideology behind this," Deiss-Helbig told DW. "Left-leaning parties tend to place greater emphasis on gender equality. So they were the first to introduce quotas."

The Greens, for instance, self-imposed a mandatory quota of 50% women on all political mandates in the 1980s. The SPD currently has a 40% quota. The CDU recently introduced a gradually rising quota as well, while the FDP and AfD still reject gender quotas entirely.

What if only the female parliamentarians voted?

In Germany, members of parliament typically adhere to strict party lines when voting, which is known as "Fraktionsdisziplin," or party discipline. This makes it difficult to determine how women legislators would vote if they followed only their own conscience.

However, there have been some historical decisions made without party discipline being exerted, particularly on morally challenging issues. These show that female parliamentarians can hold different opinions than their male counterparts, even within the same party.

• Marriage equality: In 2017, only 54% of male MPs voted to open marriage to couples of all genders, compared to 76% of women.
• In 2023, reforms aimed at regulating and decriminalizing access to assisted suicide failed, with 375 against to 286 in favor. If it had been only up to female parliamentarians, the law would have passed with 105 against to 128 in favor.
• During the COVID-19 pandemic, parliament was debating whether to mandate vaccination for people aged 60 and above, with compulsory vaccination counseling for anyone over 18. The law would have passed with 62% of valid votes if only female parliamentarians had voted. As it stands, it failed with only 44% in favor. Vaccination remained voluntary in Germany, with the exception of certain health care professions.

Research by a Swiss-German research team also found that female MPs tend to advocate more for gender equality issues throughout their whole careers, making significantly more parliamentary inquiries related to gender than their male counterparts.

Edited by: Timothy Jones and Nancy Isenson

Data and code behind this story can be found in this repository.

More data-driven stories can be found here.

This article is part of the Towards Equalityprogram, a collaborative alliance of 16 international news outlets highlighting the challenges and solutions to reach gender equality, which is led by Sparknews.

On Tuesday, a court in Moscow sentenced Oleg Orlov, co-founder and co-chair of the human rights organization Memorial, to two and a half years in prison. The 70-year-old had been charged with "repeatedly discrediting" the Russian military after writing an article criticizing Russia's invasion of Ukraine and labeling President Vladimir Putin's regime as "fascist."

Orlov's wife, Tatiana Kasatkina, was present at the verdict's announcement. The two had jointly built up the Nobel Peace Prize-winning organization in the 1980s. Russian authorities have been clamping down on the entity's work for years, and in 2021, the Russian Supreme Court ordered the outright liquidation of International Memorial and the Memorial Human Rights Center, the two branches of the organization.

Despite this, the activists and campaigners involved have carried on their fight, and on Tuesday, Kasatkina confirmed that they would continue to do so. "We will live, and we hope that what is happening right now will be over soon, and that Oleg and many others are released ahead of time," she told reporters in front of the courthouse.

She also said that she believed the court had rushed the case in order to announce the verdict before the upcoming presidential elections in March.

'Fascist totalitarianism'

Members of the movement Veterans of Russia had initiated the case in response to an article by Orlov titled "They wanted fascism. They got it," first published in the French online newspaper Mediapart. In his opinion piece, Orlov argued that, following the "bloody war unleashed by the Putin regime in Ukraine," Russia had "slipped back into totalitarianism, only now of the fascist variety."

A Moscow court had already sentenced Orlov to a fine of 150,000 rubles ($1,650, €1,522) in October 2023. Two months later, however, a higher court canceled the decision and sent the case back to prosecutors. In court, Orlov demonstratively read Franz Kafka's novel "The Trial," and at times even refused to participate in proceedings.

In his closing statement, he said that Russia's "state of affairs really does have a few things in common" with the book's plot, namely "absurdity and tyranny dressed up as formal adherence to some pseudo-legal procedures."

Drawing international attention

Many public figures and politicians in and outside of Russia have called for Orlov's release. In an online statement , the EU's chief diplomat, Josep Borrell, called the sentence "politically motivated," and said it "goes against the Russian legislation and the Russian Constitution."

Nikolay Rybakov, the leader of the Russian opposition party Yabloko, called the court decision "counterproductive" and argued that it undermined state institutions.

Svetlana Gannushkina, who helped set up the Memorial Human Rights Center in the 90s, believes the initial fine was meant to silence Orlov, or persuade him to leave the country.

"But he couldn't leave. Oleg might be one of the few people who still considers himself a patriot. To him, that doesn't just mean loving your country's culture and language," she said. "Above all, it means standing up for freedom and human rights, and fighting for the right to tell the truth."

More risk for human rights advocates

Gannushkina said that Orlov's prison sentence was yet another blow to human rights campaigners in Russia. But she added that such advocates were not yet ready to "go underground" just yet, as there are still some areas where one can work publicly, such as providing refugee aid, or defending labor laws and prisoner's rights.

She said that in spite of the growing risk, new campaigners would still volunteer to join the human rights movement and added that this work is essential for bringing about social change.

But the 81-year-old activist also noted that it could take generations of Russians to overcome the aftermath of what Putin is calling a "special military operation" in Ukraine.

New Russian movements

Another fellow campaigner, the founder of the now-dissolved For Human Rights movement Lev Ponomarev, recalled that Orlov had put his life on the line more than once.

During the 1995 Budyonnovsk hospital hostage crisis in southern Russia, Orlov and other negotiators volunteered to be hostages for the Chechen separatists to allow for the exchange of civilians.

"And in his closing statement, he didn't speak about himself, but about the killing of Alexei Navalny and other political prisoners," Ponomarev said.

Ponomarev added that the current repression in Russia was also creating an incentive for campaigners to take action, and that smaller popular movements were now replacing larger human rights associations. As an example, he pointed to the movement of women whose husbands have been drafted for Russia's war in Ukraine.

But, Ponomarev said, these new human rights movements rely solely on private donations, which severely limits their work. Still, he's convinced that the mounting pressure from the government was a sign that Putin's regime had maneuvered itself into a "hopeless dead-end."

This article was translated from German.

Three days after her husband's death, Yulia Navalnaya announced publicly that she would continue his work and take over the management of his Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK). She also accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of killing Alexei Navalny, and announced that an investigation into the exact details was underway.

Navalny founded the non-profit organization FBK in 2011. Its aim is to combat corruption by uncovering and publicizing cases of bribery and abuse of power among the Russian elite. 

Many see Navalny's death at the age of 47 in a penal colony in Siberia as a result of the years of reprisals and harassment by the Russian authorities for these political activities.

An 'invisible helper'

When Yulia Navalnaya chose to continue her husband's work, she launched her own political career, according to observers. Some see her as the new face of the Russian opposition, yet she never actually wanted to become a politician. 

Yulia Abrosimova and Alexei Navalny met in 1998 while on vacation in Turkey. They married in 2000 and their daughter Daria was born a year later. Their son Zakhar was born in 2008. The couple joined the Yabloko party in the 2000s.

Though Navalnaya graduated from the Faculty of International Economic Relations at Plekhanov University in Moscow, and completed an internship at a business school in Denmark, she did not pursue her own career. Instead, she chose to support her husband's political career, helping him with translations and business plans the more important he became.

"I was an invisible helper," Navalnaya told the magazine Afisha in 2014 in a cover article entitled "The stronger sex."

In December 2011, one year after founding his donation-funded anti-corruption project RosPil, Navalny was arrested after participating in a rally for fair elections. His wife and other members of the opposition searched for him in detention centers across the Russian capital Moscow. He was released after two weeks in detention.

Navalnaya later said that the "most dramatic day" had been in 2013 when her husband was sentenced to five years in jail on charges of embezzlement. He was accused of defrauding the a state-owned lumber company called KirovLes and ordered to pay damages equivalent of $35,000 (€32,000). Pictures of the courtroom showed Navalnaya with her head bowed. She had been prepared for the worst. In the end, the sentence was suspended after a public outcry. 

Navalnaya told Afisha that she had come to terms with the risks of her husband's political work: "People believe in him, their eyes light up and they take to the streets, even if they are intimidated and at risk of being arrested. That's great."

Navalnaya earned the nickname "First Lady" of the opposition in 2013 when Alexei Navalny ran for mayor of Moscow and came second after garnering around 27% of the vote. He campaigned for more transparency in politics, including with regard to his own income, property and also his family. The Navalnys came across differently from other politicians.

The doctor Aleksandr Polupan told DW that Navalnaya had been composed, strong-willed and self-confident despite the stress after her husband was poisoned in Omsk in the summer of 2020. He said that it was her perseverance that had ensured Navalny was transported to Germany, and that she was also responsible for the case receiving a great deal of public attention. Navalnaya had appealed to Putin to allow her husband to be treated in Germany; the president later said that he had personally asked the public prosecutor's office to allow Navalny to leave the country.

'Moral symbol of resistance'

Now that Navalny is dead, his wife wants to succeed him. Political scientist Dmitri Oreshkin said that Navalnaya could be an important symbol in the fight against "male" tyranny in Russia. He added that while a majority of Russia's male population believed that NATO wanted to attack Russia, the female population meanwhile had to solve problems: "Their husbands have been killed, brothers have had to join the army and sons have been sent to die in Ukraine. Navalnaya's image could prove to be a unifying force for the opposition at home and abroad."

Andrey Kolesnikov, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, agreed that Navalnaya could become a "moral symbol of resistance." He said that if a democratic presidential candidate were ever nominated she would be considered best in the view of millions.

'Keep fighting and do not give up'

Navalnaya told Afisha that she had been interested in society, politics and the media since childhood. "I have voted in every election since I turned 18," she said, describing Mikhail and Raisa Gorbachev as the ideal couple, who went for "a walk together almost evening after work." She said that her bond with Alexei had given them both strength despite the risks. He relied on her to improve his speeches, while she could depend on him.

"By killing Alexei, Putin killed half of me, half of my heart and half of my soul," she said in her video address. "But I still have the other half, and it tells me that I have no right to give up."

She asked those she was addressing to share her "anger, rage, hatred for those who have dared to destroy our future," and to help build a new Russia. "Exactly as Alexei Navalny envisioned it. Full of dignity, justice and love. There is no other way. The unthinkable sacrifice he had made cannot be in vain.

Keep fighting and do not give up. I am not afraid, and I urge you not to be afraid of anything as well."

This article was originally published in Russian. It was updated on May 3 to reflect Navalnaya being honored with DW's Freedom of Speech Award.
 

 

Rusudan Djakeli, 30, has hardly spent an evening at home recently. She has been out on the streets of the Georgian capital Tbilisi almost every evening, mostly protesting in front of the parliament.

At times, there have been tens of thousands of people in front of the elaborate building on Rustaveli Avenue, demonstrating against a draft law the government is currently trying to push through.

"I'm here to defend my country," says Djakeli, who believes her homeland is in great danger. The bill stipulates that non-governmental organizations and media outlets that receive more than 20% of their funding from abroad will have to register as "pursuing the interests of a foreign power."

Many protesters see parallels between the proposed law and what has happened in its northern neighbor Russia. Demonstrators hold banners reading, "No to the Russian law." 

"Russia is attacking us," Djakeli says, "not directly, but indirectly."

The Georgian legislation has already passed two readings in parliament. It would need to pass a third reading and be signed by the president for it to become law.

Under Kremlin influence?

Georgia's government has rejected the criticism. But many protesters believe that the country's ruling party, Georgian Dream, is under the influence of the Kremlin. Earlier this week, the party's founder and honorary chairman, Bidzina Ivanishvili, who made his fortune in Russia in the 1990s, endorsed a conspiracy theory that is reminiscent of Putin's rhetoric. He spoke of a "global party of war" that has "a decisive influence on NATO and the European Union."

Many protesters argue that the law the Georgian government wants to introduce is akin to the "foreign agents" legislation that Russian President Vladimir Putin's government put in place in 2012.

"They want to adapt our legal system according to Moscow's. This bill is a copy of the Russian law," says Djakeli.

The Russian law of 2012 stipulated that organizations that received money from abroad had to designate themselves as "foreign agents."

"The Russian law was stricter, but both laws have a similar, defamatory character," says Marcel Röthig, the director of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation's South Caucasus Regional Office. He rejects the government's argument that the new law will create more transparency: "An environmental organization that campaigns for nature conservation and receives a grant from a foreign partner will suddenly be assumed to represent foreign interests. Or a free media outlet that does not represent anyone's interests will suddenly be labeled as representing the interests of foreign powers."

The media landscape in Georgia is already divided into broadcasters that are close to the government and receive taxpayers' money on the one hand, and independent, often cash-strapped outlets on the other. Media outlets that provide independent reporting generally receive little income from advertising and are often dependent on funds from the EU or the US, for example. Many critical outlets would probably have to shut down without this financial support.

Targeting of LGBTQ+ community?

Many of those who have gone out onto the street to demonstrate are also worried that NGOs campaigning for minority rights could be discredited, particularly those who defend LGBTQ+ rights.  Georgian Dream lawmakers have spoken about protecting young people from "LGBT propaganda"on multiple ocassions.

Protesters fear that this law is just a first step, and that the government will continue to tighten the measures, as the Kremlin has done. Moscow has banned numerous NGOs, including the human rights organization Memorial.

"We saw this in Russia. These laws were the beginning of the dismantling of Russian civil society," says Röthig. "They poison the atmosphere, because people involved in civil society initiatives might be afraid of being stigmatized."

One major difference between Russia of 2012 and Georgia today is that the latter has the prospect of joining the EU. It was granted candidate status last year and according to the polls, 80% of the population wants to join the bloc. The legislation would likely stop any concrete negotiations advancing the republic's membership in the EU. This is one of the reasons Rusudan Djakeli plans to go out onto the streets until the bill has been withdrawn.

This article was translated from German.

The voices of some 50 elderly protesters are heard echoing in song across the grounds of South Africa's Constitutional Court in Johannesburg, the commercial heart of South Africa. They are demanding justice and reparations for abuses suffered under apartheid — 30 years after the country became a democracy.

They are all members of the Khulumani Support Group and the Galela Campaign — two groups fighting for financial redress for the victims of white minority rule under apartheid.

The protesters say that since they weren't identified as victims of human rights abuses during apartheid by South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), led by the late Archbishop Desmond Tutu 28 years ago, they haven't benefited from any reparations paid out by the government to date.

While the group has protested in front of the court intermittently for years, their permanent camp outside the Constitutional Court only started in November 2023.

'We were the revolutionaries'

One of the protesters is Thabo Shabangu. He was shot in the back by police officers in 1990 during a demonstration against the oppression of the majority black population by the white regime — just as the country was warming up to the idea of equality and democracy.

The 61-year-old told DW that he has never received any compensation for his injuries.

He feels abandoned, he says. "I am so very, very disappointed. We are the revolutionaries. We are the people that formed this democracy. We are the first democratic people. It is us that fought for the reparations that today we are not eating the fruit of."

Shabangu wants reparations for the suffering he experienced during the struggle against apartheid, as well as greater medical and social support.

Like around a third of all South Africans, he is unemployed, and money is scarce.

"We thought the TRC would bring us justice," he says about South Africa's democracy project.

Those protesting with him outside the Constitutional Court say despite their role in the fight for South Africa to become a democracy three decades ago, they won't vote in South Africa's upcoming 2024 elections in May if reparations aren't paid: "No reparations — no vote," says Shabangu.

Amnesty for perpetrators of apartheid

Formal hearings before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission began in April 1996 and ended in October 1998, with then President Nelson Mandela personally appointing Tutu to chair the commission.

Its aim was to promote reconciliation and forgiveness, rather than retribution, between perpetrators and victims of apartheid.

During this period, the commission focused on evidence of killings, abductions and torture of people, as well as other human rights abuses.

Victims and perpetrators often sat opposite each other in community halls and churches across the country.

Perpetrators who fully explained what had happened were granted amnesty, a painful compromise for many victims.

But the promise of impunity brought to light the truth about the fate of many people who had disappeared without a trace, those who had been abducted, killed and buried somewhere.

Minimum compensation for victims

Thus, just two years after the African National Congress (ANC) came to power in the first democratic elections in 1994, the atrocities of the past were in the public spotlight.

To no one's surprise, the vast majority of those who had suffered at the hands of the apartheid state were found to be black South Africans, although some cases also involved white victims as well as others.

In 2003, when the Truth Commission eventually published its delayed recommendations for repatriations, it recognized 21,000 victims and recommended paying them a monthly allowance administered by a special presidential fund. This list was later cut down to 17,000 people eligible for reparations.

However, then-President Thabo Mbeki arranged for a one-off payment of 30,000 rand (worth $3,890 or €3,600 at the time) instead.

The fund was also supposed to support victims' housing, education and healthcare in addition to the one-off payments, but in June 2023, it still had around $100 million in unused assets.

The protestors outside the Constitutional Court say that it should be opened up for new payments.

Calls to revisit victims' list

However, there is still the issue of who is and who isn't officially recognized as a victim of apartheid. Calls for the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development to reopen the investigation into who qualifies are mounting.

The national director of the Khulumani, Marjorie Dobson, says the group has tens of thousands of members who were unable to make a claim when the TRC was holding its hearings in the 1990s.

For one, the government failed to give sufficient notice of how victims could make their declarations to the truth commission, she tells DW. But many victims also lacked money to travel to attend hearings.

"We have documented this all for the Department of Justice because we think it's completely unjustified just to close the doors when all this work has been documented, and the flaws are actually on the side of the state," Dobson says.

Danisile Mabanga, whose family was forcibly displaced during apartheid, is among those still hoping to receive compensation.

"We knew about the commission, but we didn't manage to go there," she tells DW. "Times were hard, and we were scared."

Justice Minister Ronald Lamola meanwhile says he sees no reason for the people to stay protesting at the court: "They should go home," he told DW in an interview.

"There is nothing that we can do. The parliament has the [victims'] list, it's closed. And it would be an irregularity for us to open the list."

Dianne Hawker in Johannesburg contributed to this article.

This article was originally written in German.

Edited by: Sertan Sanderson

What are the reactions to the Rwanda bill?

With the final passing of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act after a long marathon between the two houses of parliament in the UK, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said that deportation flights of asylum seekers to the small African nation would start in the coming weeks.

"We are ready, plans are in place and these flights will go, come what may," Sunak said at a press conference.

Rwandan government spokesperson Yolande Makolo meanwhile said on Tuesday that Kigali was also "pleased" to learn about the UK decision to pass a bill allowing irregular immigrants in the country to be sent to the African country for processing and, if they succeed, for relocation.

According to Makolo, the government is looking forward to "welcoming those relocated to Rwanda."

But top UN officials, including UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk, have criticized London's plans, warning that this could establish a "dangerous precedent."

According to media reports, not everyone is enthused about the development in Kigali, either.

The opposition United Democratic Forces of Rwanda (UDF) party expressed concerns about the bill, as have various human rights organizations on the ground.

While some believe that the country's economy will benefit from the policy, with the UK paying Rwanda a reported €430 million over five years at the very least, others are worried that there won't be enough jobs to go around for everyone.

How did the Rwanda deal come about and what will it achieve?

The idea of the Rwanda bill was first introduced by former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson in 2022, and has since been carried forward by two other prime ministers and as many Home Secretaries.

The bill is part of the UK's strict approach to irregular immigration since its departure from the European Union (EU), commonly referred to as Brexit.

Incumbent Prime Minister Rishi Sunak extended the Rwanda plan into his "Stop the Boats" policy, which is intended to curb the number of irregular migrant arrivals on British shores departing from the north of France and Belgium.

According to Sunak, relocating irregular asylum seekers to Rwanda will help end the business model of people smugglers bringing migrants and refugees to Europe.

However, despite the shadow of the Rwanda policy looming large for two years, the numbers of migrant arrivals on the UK's coast has only skyrocketed; more than 6,250 people have reached the UK by crossing the English Channel in boats so far this year, according to UK government statistics.

In 2023, there were at least 12 fatalities on this route, which is considered to be among the most dangerous in the world.

Why did it take so long to sign the bill?

The enactment of policy ran into multiple legal hurdles in the past two years, with the country's Supreme Court deciding last year that Rwanda cannot be regarded as a safe country to send asylum seekers to.

The lower house of parliament, the House of Commons, responded to that decision, launching a bill to essentially reclassify why Rwanda could be deemed safe. That bill went back and forth between the commons and the upper house of parliament, the House of Lords, for months in a process known in the UK as "political ping-pong."

The final shape of the document that was eventually passed this week includes some amendments from the Lords, though ultimately represents the government's original design.

Many regard the bill as an attempt by the ruling Conservative Party to increase their votes in the upcoming UK general elections, which are expected to take place in October. But with or without the policy, the Conservative Party is almost guaranteed to lose its majority, according to recent polls.

What is Rwanda's government like?

President Paul Kagame and the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) have ruled Rwanda, a small East African nation dominated by rugged mountains and fertile plains, since the end of the 1994 genocide.

On paper, the country is a multiparty democracy. But political opposition is "nonexistent," as the US development agency USAID puts it.

Kagame's three election victories have been plagued by numerous and credible accusations of irregularities, including vote rigging and intimidation. Officially, he won the 2017 presidency with 99% of the vote.

The nation is designated an "electoral autocracy" by the Varieties of Democracy Project, an international democracy database. And it earned only eight out of 40 possible points for political rights in the 2023 Freedom in the World report.

What about other rights and freedoms in Rwanda?

Several observers have identified significant rights issues in Rwanda, including extrajudicial killings, people being disappeared by the government and torture of dissenters.

This has had a chilling effect on freedom of expression and association by perpetuating "a culture of intolerance of dissent," finds Human Rights Watch.

As for media freedom, "beaten down by decades of oppression, the Rwandan media landscape is one of the poorest in Africa," says Reporter without Borders, which ranks the country 131 out of 180 on its 2023 press freedom index.

What about Rwanda's economy?

In 1994, Kagame inherited a nation torn apart by the genocide that saw a million ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus slaughtered in just 100 days, and destroyed Rwanda's economy.

Rwanda's economy still depends on subsistence agriculture and lacks the rich natural resources of many of its neighbors.

But reform-minded Kagame has steered Rwanda to strong economic growth and "substantial improvements" in living standards, according to the World Bank.

GDP soared by 142% from 2000 to 2020 and the number of people living under the poverty line fell to 52% by 2016-17.

Ranked one of the least corrupt nations in Africa, Rwanda has also climbed 100 places in the past decade for the ease of doing business, to second on the continent.

Rwanda is below average, however, compared to other low-income African countries when it comes to private investment, which is hindered by factors such as the low-skilled workforce, its landlocked position and the high price of electricity.

What is the situation like for refugees in Rwanda?

Rwanda hosts nearly 135,000 refugees, mainly from Burundi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Not forced to live in a camp like in many other nations, they enjoy freedom of movement and have the right to work, own property, register businesses and open bank accounts.

Rwanda's "economic inclusion" refugee policies "stand out as a model with lessons learned for East Africa and beyond," finds a 2023 report by Refugees International.

Despite this, refugees in Rwanda face prejudice and discrimination and most refugees are chronically poor. The vast majority (93%) live in camps and rely on a meager cash assistance of 10,000 Rwandan francs ($7.94 or € 7.27) a month to buy food.

As well as the poverty, rights organizations say Rwanda's human rights record makes it no country for refugees.

Why is Rwanda positioning itself as a safe haven for international refugees?

In recent years, Rwanda has repeatedly received refugees evacuated from Libya's notorious detention centers under a UNHCR partnership.

The country was also part of a now defunct and controversial policy to receive rejected asylum seekers from Israel. 

Rwandan government spokesperson Yolande Makolo told local news site KT Press that Rwanda kept an open policy for refugees because people in the country know "what it is to be on the move, or to be displaced, just because of the history of our country."

But for global politics expert Toni Haastrup, Rwanda's refugee policy serves another purpose: "It's a way of legitimating Rwanda within the international community," she told DW.

"You're not going to scold Rwanda in global politics if it's been accepting all of these refugees on your behalf."

Edited by: Cristina Krippahl

The Al Jazeera TV network was taken off the air in Israel on Sunday after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Cabinet voted to suspend the broadcaster's operations.

The decision follows a law — commonly referred to as the "Al Jazeera law" — passed by the Israeli Knesset that allows the closure of foreign broadcasters considered to pose a security threat amid the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza.

"My government decided unanimously: the incitement channel Al Jazeera will close in Israel," Netanyahu posted on X, formerly Twitter.

Al Jazeera on Sunday again rejected accusations from Israel that its reporting from Gaza was biased.

"The Netanyahu government has decided in a highly misleading and calumnious step to endorse the order to shut down Al Jazeera offices in Israel," the network said.

It called the move a "criminal act" that violates the human right of access to information.

"We confirm that we will pursue all avenues at international and legal organizations to protect our rights and crews," it added without elaborating.

What we know about the ban

Israeli Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi said on X that the order would take immediate effect.

According to Israeli media, the order can suspend broadcasting in the country for 45 days. It also allows authorities to confiscate broadcasting equipment.

Al Jazeera's senior English correspondent in Israel, Imran Khan, said that alongside the TV channel, the website was also being blocked.

He said devices used for providing content to Al Jazeera were also banned, meaning his phone could be confiscated if he uses it for news gathering.

"It’s a wide-ranging ban and we do not know how long it will be in place for," he added, according to his statement on Al Jazeera's website.

"The background of this decision is not professional or journalistic ... it's political," said Waleed Omari, bureau chief of Al Jazeera in Israel and the Palestinian territories, adding that the network was preparing a legal response.

Israel's relationship with the Qatari broadcaster

Israel has had a tense relationship with the Qatar-based news organization, which has intensely covered the ongoing war in Gaza with a particular focus on the Palestinian side.

One of the few media organizations that has continued to function in Gaza since October 7, Al Jazeera has broadcast images and videos of deadly airstrikes and crowded hospitals under Israeli fire.

Israel has accused the network of working with Hamas.

Qatar, which owns the network, has been involved in mediating a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas — a Palestinian militant group considered a terror organization by Israel, the US, Germany and other countries.

Numerous journalists have been killed in Gaza during Israel's military offensive, including several who worked for Al Jazeera.

The death of the Palestinian-American reporter Shireen Abu Akleh in May 2022 sparked global outrage. She had been reporting for the network during an Israeli raid on the Jenin refugee camp in the occupied West Bank when she was shot dead.

Al Jazeera blamed the Israeli military for the death and took the case to the International Criminal Court (ICC). Israel has rejected the accusation.

ab/sms (Reuters, AP, AFP)