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.

Breaking down in tears, musician Angel Maxine, who identifies as a queer Ghanaian, told DW that she fears for her life after Ghana's parliament voted to pass a controversial anti-LGBTQ+ law.

Maxine was one of the activists that had pushed for the bill's rejection when it was sent to parliament in 2021, but she said that now all hope is lost.

"I am sad because we have been working all these years for this bill not to be passed," Maxine told DW from Ghana's capital Accra.

It has taken Ghana's parliament three years to get this bill passed with the aim to clamp down on the rights of LGBTQ+ people in the country.

Gay sex is illegal in Ghana, carrying a three-year prison sentence, but the "Human Sexual Rights and Family Values" bill could imprison people for more than a decade for activities including public displays of affection and promotion and funding of LGBTQ+ activities.

Losing the battle for recognition

Maxine said this is bad for her community and friends who have been fighting for recognition and respect for their sexuality for years.

"Queer people should not be criminalized. We should be given the freedom to live, like any other human being, like any other Ghanaian," she said. "It breaks my heart that this bill is passed."

Ghana is a conservative society and homosexuality is considered taboo — a sentiment that is fueled by religious and cultural beliefs. That has meant the new law has received support from the majority of Ghanaians.

This is evident in the unanimous passage from lawmakers on Wednesday, who enjoyed the backing of a coalition of Christian, Muslim, and Ghanaian traditional leaders.

The main sponsor of the bill, opposition lawmaker Sam George, told reporters that Ghana's President Nana Akufo-Addo must not delay in signing the bill into law. 

"There is nothing that deals with LGBTQ better than this bill that has been passed by parliament," George said. "We expect the president to walk his talk and be a man of his words."

Will Ghana's president sign the bill?

All eyes are now on Akufo-Addo, who has yet to confirm whether or not will sign the bill into law.

Last year he refused to sign some human rights related bills, claiming that they had not been initiated by the government and had some cost implications for the state.

He said the constitution gives him the option to reject private members bills that exert a financial burden on the state.

The anti-LGBTQ+ bill could also be considered to exert a financial burden on the state.

Human rights groups in Ghana — including an umbrella group of lawyers and human rights activists known as the "Big 18"  — have asked the president not to sign the bill.

"You cannot criminalize a person's identity and that's what the bill is doing and it's absolutely wrong," Professor Takyiwaa Manuh, a member of the coalition said. "We want to impress on the president not to assent to the bill, it totally violates the human rights of the LGBT community."

Professor Audrey Gadzekpo, a rights activist with the Center for Democratic Development in Accra, said the lawmakers rejected all suggestions made during their deliberation depsite the implications of passing the bill for minority groups in the country.

"We are sought of disappointed that parliament didn't take it seriously. We know that there is a lot of pressure within parliament because of the way the issue was framed. So even those who know the dangers of the bill couldn't come out against the bill," she said.

Gadzekpo said none of the suggestions from the human rights community were considered.

Condemnation from abroad

The United States has also criticized Ghana's passage of the bill.

Matthew Miller, a spokesperson for the US Department of State, said in a statement that the United States is "deeply troubled by the Ghanaian Parliament's passage of legislation, officially called the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill."

"The bill would also undermine Ghana's valuable public health, media and civic spaces, and economy.  International business coalitions have already stated that such discrimination in Ghana would harm business and economic growth in the country," Miller said.

UNAIDS executive director Winnie Byanyima said the bill is a barrier to ending AIDS.

"If it becomes law, it will obstruct access to life-saving services, undercut social protection, and jeopardize Ghana's development success," she said in a statement.

Rose Konadu an entrepreneur in Accra told DW she worries the reaction greeting the bill from the international community would harm Ghana's image.

"A bill like this has a negative and positive side. The negative side being that it would affect Ghana in terms of finance and other things from other countries," Konadu said, although she believes in the bill and feels homosexuality is "morally wrong."

Other Ghanaians like Cyril Anani, a civil servant, told DW that the lawmakers did exactly what Ghanaians wanted when they passed the bill into law.

"I think the passage of the anti-LGBTQ bill is just in the right direction because when you look at the public popular opinion of people it is that we don't want it in our country so I think parliament has just done what the people of Ghana want," he said.

Edited by: Keith Walker

Authorities from China, Thailand and Myanmar on Thursday coordinated the release and transfer of 1,200 people who had been trapped in scam compounds in Myanmar, the vast majority of them Chinese nationals.

Flights chartered from China carrying the first group of 150 victims left from Mae Sot airport Thursday afternoon, according to flight data reviewed by DW's investigative unit.

Once in China, it is unclear whether those rescued from the scam compounds would be recognized as victims of human trafficking. But they face possible arrest if they are deemed to have traveled to the scam compounds willingly.

"Chinese scammers would be arrested, according to China's current regulations," a source involved in the negotiations for the victims' release told DW on the condition of anonymity.

Unveiling the perpetrators

The three-day operation comes a month after DW's investigative unit published a documentary unveiling the brutal conditions in one of the scam compounds in Myanmar's lawless east.

DW's investigative unit has spoken to several compound survivors, who detailed the inner workings of the scamming operations.

Inside the compounds, people trafficked from China, Southeast Asia and Africa are forced to scam unsuspecting victims in Europe, the US and China. They lure their targets into investing in fraudulent cryptocurrency schemes.

If they refuse to scam, they face torture, being sold, and even murder.

The process can take months of interaction by the scammer and often includes a romantic component to lure them into investing in fraudulent cryptocurrency schemes. They are described as "pig-butchering scams" because the process is likened to fattening a pig and slaughtering it when the victim has no more funds to invest.

DW's investigative unit unveiled how one of the most notorious scam compounds in the area, KK Park, links back to a vast transnational criminal network with ties to the 14K triad, a criminal organization based in Hong Kong.

Pig butchering scams launched from compounds across Southeast Asia generate more revenue than the local drug trade, according to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime.

Victim or scammer?

It is unclear what will happen to the remaining 200 human trafficking victims who are not Chinese nationals.

Many of them are from African countries, according to an NGO worker who attended a closed-door briefing by Thai law enforcement and requested anonymity for security purposes.

In Thailand, victims rescued from scam compounds are often presented with two options.

The first is to enter Thailand's burdened identification system to be recognized as a victim of human trafficking. The second is to turn themselves over to the police and declare themselves violators of Thailand's immigration laws.

If recognized as a victim of human trafficking, they are provided with food and housing until they are repatriated to their country of origin. If they fail to be recognized as a victim, they are instead held in a detention center for up to a year.

Watch DW's documentary Scam Factory: Inside Asia's Cyber Slavery to find out more.

Edited by: Rina Goldenberg

When Ishan Kumar came to Armenia from southern India early last year, he thought he was coming for a better life.

Kumar, who spoke with DW using a pseudonym, said a friend living abroad introduced him to the idea of moving․

"He said I'd earn a lot of money there, about $1,000 dollars per month. He said it's a European country."

Kumar's friend organized the trip through an agent in Armenia, and paid more than 650,000 Armenian drams (€1,500/$1,600) for an e-visa, the flight and the provision of a job at a delivery company.

There was no agreement other than a WhatsApp chat, but Kumar decided to go.

His new home for the next six months was the Cherry Hotel, located some thirty minutes from downtown Yerevan, the Armenian capital. The hotel provides lodging for many Indian workers in Yerevan, who sleep in cramped rooms, Kumar said.

Kumar soon started working for the delivery service. But the job conditions were not what he had expected.

"They said for one order we would receive 1,900 drams at peak times and 1,400 drams at other times of the day. But when I came here, I realized that it is all a scam. That they were only giving us 1,300 and 900 drams."

But Kumar said he worked hard from morning until midnight. In the end, his first salary was close to what he had expected, the equivalent of around $940.

However, Kumar claims he could only save a small part of that money.

He had to pay for room and board in a space shared with 10 people. He also had to pay to rent the scooter used for the delivery service. Kumar said he had not been informed about these costs before he left for Armenia. "After I paid all that, I had only 50,000 drams to send home."

What draws Indian workers to Armenia?

Indians are the second largest group of foreign citizens in Armenia after Russians. According to Armenia's economy ministry, 20,000 to 30,000 Indians currently live in the country.

Some 2,600 of them are students – Indians have been coming to Armenia to get higher education since Soviet times.

In 2017, the Armenian government decided to change the law to make it easier for Indian citizens to get an entry visa. Since then, their number has increased. Last year, 3,200 Indians were granted a work visa, compared to 530 the year before and 55 in 2021.

However, many workers told DW that like Kumar, they were promised a high salary and were convinced into paying large sums to agents to move to Armenia.

Some said they spent even more money than Kumar – up to $3,500. Others claimed they weren't provided with any work after arrival, or didn't receive the salary they had agreed to. At the same time, they had to pay high prices for bunk beds in crowded rooms.

Most workers originated from India's southern Kerala region. People from Kerala started migrating in large numbers in the 1970s, said S. Irudaya Rajan, head of the International Institute of Migration and Development in Kerala.

"The main factors then were poverty and unemployment," he told. Today, they are mostly "aspirational migrants" from the middle class who strive for a higher standard of living elsewhere.

Rajan said there are many job agencies in Kerala. "Migration is hope. The recruitment agencies are selling people dreams," he said, adding that the industry is rife with fraud and that migrants are abused and endure bad living conditions in many host countries.

"I know hundreds of cases where people were being cheated," he said. "Often, after migration, their life is much worse than before."

From bad to worse

Kumar's experience soon went from bad to worse after he had a scooter accident in the icy streets of Yerevan. After the accident, he wanted to change jobs, but was unemployed for several months. He couldn't afford the rent at the Cherry Hotel, so he had to go into debt with his agents.

Later, several jobs were arranged for Kumar, but they were all short-term. His agents charged him a commission and withheld his wages to pay room and board.

He wanted to leave the Cherry Hotel, but being in a foreign country, he didn't know where to go. "That is why all of us are staying there like this," he said.

Some of his companions eventually found work on their own and Kumar wanted to join.

But then there was another problem. Kumar said the agents were holding his passport. He claimed he had to lie to get it back.

"I said I want to go to India, I want to get a ticket, give me the passport." Kumar said he doubts the agents would have returned the passport otherwise.

Several other Indian men who stayed at Cherry told DW their passports were taken.

One worker said he complained to the Indian embassy in Yerevan. DW contacted the embassy. While Consul Aditya Pandey was open for a background talk, the embassy didn't respond to DW's request for a statement on the allegations.

Recruitment company promised 'amazing salary and benefits'

Kumar's agent, Raihan Sainelabudeen, was once an "aspiration migrant" from Kerala who came to Armenia to study medicine. Sainelabudeen's current business partner is Anna Petakchyan, and a company called "Find Your Progress LLC" is registered under Petakchyan's name at the Cherry Hotel address.

The company operates an additional office in Kollam, Kerala. The company's ads claim they provide "amazing salary and benefits" and a highly attractive "compensation package" that "ensures that employees are rewarded for their hard work and dedication."

However, the Indian workers who used the company said they were exploited and abused.

Yerevan-based labor and migration attorney Ara Ghazaryan told DW that the motivation behind recruitment of workers is crucial to determining malfeasance by recruitment agents.

 "If the purpose is not to give a normal and safe employment environment, but to exploit, then it's already a crime," he said.

Employing a migrant who doesn't have immigration status or a work permit is a crime. The same goes for violating labor rights, he added.

Migrant workers, Ghazaryan notes, shouldn't be paid in cash, they should have a valid employment contract and place of work, normal working hours, annual leave, sick leave, weekends off. "And of course, no ill treatment or threats," he said.

Withholding passports is one of the initial indicators of trafficking and exploitation, Ghazaryan added.

"By holding the passport, they control the movement and the life of the migrant," he said. Generally, only government agencies are allowed to hold on to a person's passport. "The passport is property. No one can keep it."

The Armenian Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs told DW they delt with 14 cases of Indian labor migrants as possible trafficking victims in 2023.

To date, none of them have been acknowledged as trafficking, but violations of labor relations and fraud were found. In some cases, passports were taken by employers, but not by force, the ministry said. They were given to the employer for processing work permit papers.

However, Ghazaryan said that providing the original passport isn't needed during the permit process. A simple copy is sufficient.

"If they claim otherwise, it's a lie. It means a crime is ongoing," he said.

What do recruiters say?

Petakchyan and Sainelabudeen told DW that all workers pay them $1,500 in advance, which covers airfare, job placement and the first month of food and lodging.

Apparently, some of the conditions have changed since Kumar arrived. Petakchyan confirmed that at the time, food and rent were not free, adding that workers were informed about this before their arrival.

In addition, all workers sign contracts now, Petakchyan said. However, a document seen by a DW reporter in a binder full of contracts,did not include the salary or the agent's signature.

Petakchyan claimed the recruitment agency is working with some of the biggest companies in Armenia, including hotels, restaurants and gas stations. They don't want to register Indian citizens, she said, and that's why "Find Your Progress” hires the workers and provides services.

According to Petakchyan, that is the reason why salaries are not transferred directly to the workers. "We pay them exactly the salary they are receiving," she insisted.

Petakchyan said 40 workers live in the basement rooms of the hotel.

"I don't say it's perfect, but it's the minimal that Indian people need," she said.

During the conversation, three men said they didn't receive their wages and accused Sainelabudeen and Petakchyan of holding on to their passports.

Sainelabudeen disputed this. "You have some proof?"

Petakchyan confirmed that they take worker's passports to file residency applications. "After that we return the passport," she said.

It is hard to say who is telling the truth. In any case, it is clear some of the men were without their passports. 

When DW talked to Kumar one month after first meeting, he was unemployed. The manager of a factory said Kumar had to leave because health problems impacted his performance. Kumar said he had to ask his family in India for money. He hopes he can soon start working as a taxi driver.

Kumar would like to return to India, but that's not an option for him now. He needs money for the plane ticket. And most importantly, he had to borrow a large sum to come to Armenia in the first place and must pay it back.

"After all that, I will go to India," said Kumar. But for now, he is stuck.

The article was published in collaboration with Hetq, an online newspaper in Yerevan.

Edited by: Wesley Rahn 

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 jailing of 12 Shiite Muslim men in Saudi Arabia has highlighted the dangers for fans who want to travel for sporting events such as the World Cup, according to human rights campaigners and an exiled Saudi Shiite.

The men were summoned, along with more than 100 other fans, for questioning after being filmed singing a religious song celebrating the birth of Imam Ali, an important figure in the Shiite Muslim faith at a match between their team, Al Safa, and Al Bukiryah in January. Those 12 jailed have received sentences of either six months or a year, though with little oversight from international bodies of the Saudi prison or legal system, sentence lengths are not always respected.

The men were penalized under the kingdom's cybercrime laws, provisions of which are often used to punish those who commit supposed offences offine too. Many observers of Saudi Arabia consider these laws to be arbitrary, thereby allowing the state, ruled by de facto leader crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, to use them to clamp down on groups and beliefs which do not align with its own.

Freedom of expression under threat

"These laws have egregious sentences for basic freedom of expression issues," Joey Shea, Saudi Arabia researcher for Human Rights Watch, told DW. "Anything that can be interpreted as destabilizing the state or insulting the country's leaders can come with very big sentences that can be meted out. And, ultimately, it can be a political decision to decide which fans and which speech is cracked down upon. It's a really terrifying scenario."

In recent years, these laws have been used to hand out decades-long jail sentences, or even death sentences, for sending tweets deemed to be critical of the country's leadership.

In the case of the Al Safa fans, the offense appears to be celebrating their religion. The club is based in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province, where most of the country's minority Shiite population is based. Shiites, as followers of that branch of Islam are known, have long been persecuted in Sunni majority Saudi Arabia and have no representation in positions of power. When Bin Salman came to power and promised to modernize the country, Shiites like Taha Alhajji hoped for an improvement in their circumstances.

"There was a period of optimism for the Shiite community that the situation would be better and would be less harsh on them, so they could practice their rituals," Alhajji, who now works as a lawyer in Germany after fleeing his homeland, told DW. "It is clear that the new government's approach is pretending to accept the others. But the reality is that it has imposed more and more severe restrictions, whether on religious rituals or on freedom of belief."

Human Rights organizations are unable to gain access to Saudi prisons but Shea said that accounts from those who have been released suggest the 12 men will face "general neglect and dire conditions” without access to medical care or contact with their families.

Sports ministry sack club board

Alhajji, who offers legal advice to the European Saudi Organization for Human Rights, said the men have the right to an appeal but, given the courts are effectively operated by the government, that is unlikely to succeed. He rejects the notion that they have comitted a criminal offense. "The chants did not contain any provocation, incitement, abuse, or aggression against any person," he said.

The Saudi authorities clearly disagree, and have sacked the entire board of Al Safa. In a statement, the country's sports ministry said the club had broken article 36/3 of its rulebook and committed "practices, or actions that are inconsistent with public order, public morals, or regulations" before adding that it would "refer them to the relevant authorities to take the necessary action." The likelihood is that they will replace them with representatives more favorable to the government, but there has yet to be any public announcement.

Saudi Arabia's huge investment in sport has turned the eyes of the world towards the oil-rich Gulf state. So far, most large sporting events have passed off without a hitch for the handful of international fans that travel. But the football World Cup, in 2034, is likely to be a bigger test. Fans used to total freedom of expression will travel in greater numbers, while players, coaches and administrators have also shown some willingness to take on politically sensitive topics, such as the rainbow armband or the German team's gesture of covering their mouths to draw attention to the lack of freedom of speech in Qatar during the 2022 World Cup. For Shea, this could lead to serious issues.

'Not safe to attend football matches'

"It is absolutely not safe to attend a football match in Saudi Arabia and express any form of political opinion that is not just uncritical support of Mohammed bin Salman," Shea said. "We just don't know how Saudi authorities will react when there are loads of foreigners visiting who are used to raising issues at football matches. I think that we very well may see more arrests, unfortunately, in the future."

Alhajji has similar concerns, adding that Saudi Arabia's lack of reporting and transparency means the breadth of persecution of minorities or dissidents remains unknown: "Everyone must be careful, as they may be at risk of arrest because of their clothing, appearance, a word they said, a stance they took, or raising a slogan or flag."

World Cup organizer FIFA says it is "committed to respecting all internationally recognized human rights and shall strive to promote the protection of these rights," but Alhajji said the organization are putting no pressure on Saudi Arabia to change. It is unclear whether the imprisonment of an international fan, rather than Saudi Shiites, might yet force its hand.

Edited by: Mark Meadows

Polish women had to wait a long time for this day. Some four months after the center-left coalition under Donald Tusk took office, the liberalization of abortion was finally on the agenda for the Sejm, the country's lower house of parliament. The debate was fierce.

"Old men in suits will no longer decide what women must do with their bodies," shouted Anna Maria Zukowska, a member of parliament for the co-governing The Left alliance, at the presentation of the bill on Friday. "No more hell for women!"

"We want to make our own decisions about our bodies, our health and our lives," said Monika Wielichowska from Tusk's liberal-conservative Civic Coalition.

"We have waited long enough, now action must be taken," added several MPs from the ruling coalition.

The liberalization of abortion rights was a central issue in the election campaign led by Tusk and his allies last year. The large turnout of women contributed significantly to the coalition's victory in the parliamentary election.

Poland's abortion rules among most restrictive in Europe

Abortion regulations in the traditionally Catholic nation are among the most restrictive in Europe. The procedure is permitted only if the life or health of the mother is at risk, or in cases of rape or incest. In recent years, several women have died because doctors refused to perform an abortion or have done so too late for fear of criminal prosecution.

Tusk had promised a quick remedy during his election campaign, but soon after forming the government clear differences emerged between the left-wing and Christian-conservative forces in his three-party coalition.

The first bills introduced by the New Left were delayed by parliamentary speaker Szymon Holownia. He postponed the debate, which was supposed to take place after the first round of the local elections, on April 7, to the week after the second and final round, on April 21. He presumably feared that a dispute within the coalition could have a negative impact on the election result.

Coalition strife

There has been bickering in recent weeks between the The Left alliance and Holownia's more conservative Third Way electoral alliance. Many politicians, particularly in the Christian-conservative Polish People's Party, would rather listen to the parish priest than Tusk. Both sides have accused the other of lying and used vulgar language, poisoning the atmosphere in the governing coalition.

Despite these differences, the coalition parties attempted to demonstrate unity during the Sejm debate. The four drafts on the table were sent forward to a special committee, with the aim now being to find a workable compromise, though it appears that this will be no easy task.

The Left alliance wants abortion to be permitted up to the 12th week of pregnancy and to be paid for by the state. It also wants abortion to be decriminalized by deleting Section 152 of the Criminal Code, which provides for prison sentences of up to three years for abortion assistance. Previously, a woman's next of kin were often at risk for prosecution: parents or husbands who had, for example, procured money for the abortion.

Theatrics on the parliamentary floor

The Third Way, on the other hand, would like to return to the old compromise of 1993, which allowed abortion even in the case of fetal abnormalities, though it was later removed by the Constitutional Tribunal in 2020 at the suggestion of the national-conservative Law and Justice party (PiS). This plan also includes a referendum to be held on how far liberalization should go.

"The right to abortion is a human right. You cannot vote on human rights," said left-wing lawmaker Zukowska.

The right-wing parliamentary groups — PiS and Confederation — protested vehemently against the planned relaxation of the abortion ban during the debate. Conservative lawmaker Dariusz Matecki entered the chamber with a banner depicting a 10-week-old fetus and played sounds meant to represent the heartbeat of the unborn child.

Far-right politician Roman Fritz accused the "abortion lobby" of having adopted the ideas of Adolf Hitler. You are the "avant-garde of the civilization of death," he said, addressing the Left.

Waiting for a new president

Regardless of the outcome of this week's parliamentary debate, Polish women will likely still have to travel to the Czech Republic, Germany or the Netherlands for abortions for a long time to come. It's certain that President Andrzej Duda will block any attempt to soften the abortion ban with his veto, and the coalition lacks the necessary three-fifths majority to overrule the arch-conservative head of state.

A liberal abortion law can only come into force after Duda leaves office in the summer of 2025. And then only if a more progressive candidate, such as Warsaw Mayor Rafal Trzaskowski, is elected as his successor.

This article was originally written in German.

YouTuber Dhruv Rathee, a 29-year-old from India living in Europe, has recently set Indian social media humming with a video criticizing the direction his country was moving in under Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Rathee's video "Is India becoming a DICTATORSHIP?" (sic) has amassed over 24 million views since it was uploaded in late February. In it, the creator cites instances of media control and claims state agencies are being used against opposition leaders, eventually alleging that these efforts are part of a broader trend to silence Modi's rivals.

Rathee has some 17.6 million subscribers on his main YouTube channel. And the platform is booming in India — it currently has over 460 million users in the world's most populous country.

By 2029, it is expected to have over 859 million Indian users, according to estimates by Statista, an online platform specializing in data gathering and visualization.

As more and more people turn to YouTube to get news, more journalists are also migrating to the platform to cover Indian news and politics, hoping to find a way out of India's more traditional and polarized media landscape.

Newsrooms 'diminished'

The space for independent reporters in India's newsrooms has been shrinking for a while.

Independent journalist Ravish Kumar, one of the country's best-known media personalities, says many journalists have been ideologically transformed and are increasingly influenced by the state.

"Even if there is a political change, it will not change the situation in the media. The way the newsroom has been diminished, there has been a cascading effect in local newsrooms across states in India as well," Kumar, who used to work for the mainstream NDTV media channel, told DW.

He is now a one-man media company and now boasts 8 million subscribers on YouTube where he launched his channel in October 2022.

"Mainstream media does a banal analysis of data and there is very little factual analysis of the prime minister's speeches. There is only a reproduction of biases, which has been done in the last few elections," Kumar said.

Tweaking laws to control messaging

Recently, however, the government has been pushing amendments to existing media laws.

The laws include the Telecommunications Bill of 2023, the draft Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill of 2023, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023. Critics say that officials want to have more control over what can be posted on the internet.

Last week, YouTube removed the channel of digital Hindi news outlet "Bolta Hindustan," which had close to 300,000 subscribers. YouTube refused to give any reasons for the suspension, but some reports indicate it was done on instructions from the Indian government.

The move also comes just months after the "Bolta Hindustan" handle was suspended on Instagram.

"The government has a way of getting to you," political satirist Akash Banerjee told DW. "You cannot fully be yourself. Of course, there is self-censorship here, too. One must be controlled, as I know the knock on my door can happen, too," added the host of the political satire channel The DeshBhakt (The Patriot) on YouTube.

BJP boasts its own influencers

Indian authorities blocked 104 YouTube channels and 45 videos from the beginning of 2021 to October 2022, under the provisions of the Information Technology (IT) Act, which can be invoked to restrict access to content in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of the country. The government has also repeatedly clashed with X, formerly Twitter.

Last year, social media platforms were directed to block a BBC documentary that implicated Modi in the 2002 Gujarat riots.

Sharing links and clips from the documentary was banned, and the government deployed police to stop students from screening the film.

The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has also tried to rope in YouTube and Instagram influencers and gain their help to promote its campaigns and shape voters' opinions ahead of the general election set to start this month.

'The crackdown has been way too transparent'

Digital players have been "doing more public interest journalism, news, and commentary than legacy media over the past several years," said Abhinandan Sekhri, co-founder and CEO of the Indian media watchdog "Newslaundry."

"The government sees this and has since amended and introduced several rules and to have more control and tighter regulation of the digital space," he told DW.

"The blocking of YouTube channels and social media accounts is only the next step in this ongoing trend. The crackdown has been way too transparent and unselfconscious for any self-respecting democracy," he added.

'Fake news' watchdog put on hold

And yet, there are some positive signals for those who warn that the government is trying to tighten its grip on the media.

In March, India's Supreme Court put on hold an official initiative to identify fake news related to the government.

The official Fact Check Unit (FCU) had been formed to respond to any posts that it deemed fake or containing misleading facts about the business of the government. Part of the response would be to flag those posts to social media intermediaries.

The initiative was challenged in court by the stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, who argued that the FCU would coerce social media companies to implement censorship of online content pertaining to the government.

"The establishment of the FCU would muzzle speech against the government. The new IT rules will have a chilling effect on free speech. Elections are coming, the public must have all information about the government, not information filtered out as 'fake' by the government," Kamra told DW.

Edited by: Darko Janjevic

 

The leader of the military junta in Mali, Colonel Assimi Goita, has long been accused of not being genuinely interested in a "return to democracy."

On Thursday, Goita issued a decree suspending all political activities in the restive West African nation. The ban applies "until further notice and across the entire country" and affects "political parties and associations with a political character."

Government spokesperson Abdoulaye Maiga justified the move in a statement read on state television on Wednesday night, citing the need to maintain "public order."

Media silenced

Also on Thursday, Mali's high authority for communication ordered all media — whether television stations, radio stations, newspapers or online services — to cease all reporting and publication on the activities of political parties or associations.

Journalist associations, civil society representatives and NGOs, as well as opposition parties, protested against the latest measures by the Malian leadership.

The president of the Convergence for the Development of Mali (CODEM) party, Housseini Amion Guindo, called for "civil disobedience until the fall of the illegal and illegitimate regime." 

Mohamed Cherif Kone, a judge who was dismissed after rebelling against the junta, also called for civil disobedience.

"For us Malians, allowing this dictatorship to prosper is not an option," he wrote on various social media platforms. The government has been "disqualified" to speak on behalf of Mali since March 26, he added.

Opposition voices largely suppressed

The United Nations has sharply criticized the new directive, saying it is "deeply concerned."

Mali's junta must "immediately" lift the suspension of political parties' and media activities, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk said Thursday on X, formerly Twitter.

On April 1, more than 80 political parties and civil groups used a joint statement to call for presidential elections and a swift end to military rule.

Under pressure from regional leaders, Mali's junta, which came to power in a 2020 coup, had previously pledged to hold elections and hand over power to a civilian government by March 26. These promises, however, were not kept.

Mali has been ruled by military juntas since coups in 2020 and 2021. The deteriorating security situation has been exacerbated by a humanitarian and political crisis, with opposition voices largely suppressed since then.

Withdrawal of Western troops

Since the coup, the Malian army has systematically turned away from European partners like its former colonial power France and instead allied itself with Russian mercenaries.

France withdrew its last soldiers from Mali in August. Germany's military, the Bundeswehr, was still involved in a UN stabilization mission (MINUSMA) there at the time, but withdrew the last German peacekeepers in December.

Germany's Defense Ministry said roughly 20,000 military personnel had served in Mali over the years.

'Setback for freedom of expression and assembly'

Most Malian NGOs, such as the fact-checking platform Benbere Mali, have expressed shock over the decision. Abdoulaye Guindo, the head of Benbere, which connects young bloggers across the country, is pessimistic about the future.

"We are very concerned and do not know how we can continue our activities. So we are worried. This measure by the government marks a setback for freedom of expression and assembly in our country," he told DW.

"Just in June 2023, we adopted a new constitution. And in this constitution, the authorities vigorously reaffirmed Mali's commitment to republican values. So the authorities should reconsider their decision."

Several civil society associations have already been dissolved by the ruling military, and individuals deemed too critical have had problems with the justice system since the coups.

Malian authorities have been criticized for being particularly harsh on individuals from the opposition spectrum, accusing transitional President Assimi Goita of "dictatorial tendencies" for repeatedly postponing presidential elections and the return to constitutional order.

In recent months alone, four civil society associations, including the Malian Association of Students, have been dissolved under the pretext of "public unrest." Their common denominator was the demand for upcoming free elections.

In February 2023, rioters prevented a meeting of the "February 20 Appeal to Save Mali," an opposition platform, at the press house in Bamako. This group had criticized the planned constitutional referendum by the junta.

In early March 2024, Aguibou Bouare, the president of the National Human Rights Commission, expressed concern about "serious threats to the exercise of certain civil and political rights, particularly freedom of assembly."

Edited by: Keith Walker