Kategorie: Humans

Background: In mid-September 2025, media reports suggested that US President Donald Trump’s administration planned to call for “reframing the global approach to asylum” during an event on the sidelines of the United National General Assembly High-level Week. On 25 September, the US hosted a side event at UNGA headlined by Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau, titled The Global Refugee and Asylum System: What Went Wrong and How to Fix It. Speakers included representatives from Panama, Liberia, Bangladesh, and Kosovo.  

The administration called for a “reframing” of the global approach to asylum, based on five “principles”: 

• Every nation has the “right” to control its borders. 

• There is no right to immigrate or to receive asylum or refugee status in the country of an individual’s choice. 

• Refugee status is temporary, not permanent. 

• Sovereign states, not transnational bodies, make the determination whether the conditions in a country of origin permit return. 

• Every country must agree to accept expeditiously the return of its nationals. 

The US is party to the 1967 Refugee Protocol, but not the 1951 Refugee Convention. Despite earlier reports, no indication was made in the event that the US would withdraw from the Protocol. However, consistent with an Executive Order issued by President Trump in February, the State Department is undergoing a review of all treaties to which the US is a party.  

Q1: What does Amnesty International think about the proposal? 

The most striking feature of the Trump administration’s proposal is the absence of any reference to the principle of non-refoulement, the cornerstone of the current global asylum system. Under this principle, states cannot return anyone to a place where they would be at real risk of serious human rights violations.  

The key substantive point of the proposal would be requiring asylum seekers to claim protection in the first country they enter. This would (1) severely curtail the ability of refugees, particularly of poor and racialised people from Global South countries, to seek protection; and (2) increase the chasm between Global North and Global South countries, as middle- and low-income countries in the Global South continue carrying most of the responsibility for the world’s refugees.  

First, the proposal would have a disproportionate impact on poor and racialised asylum seekers and refugees from Global South countries. The proposal would make it impossible for asylum seekers to seek protection in countries other than the first country they enter. For people travelling by land, that would mean not being able to seek protection in countries other than those neighbouring their own. That would not only restrict people’s ability to exercise the right to seek asylum; it would make the right to seek and receive international protection dependant on an individual’s country of origin and the vagaries of geography. The impact of the proposal would be more severe on asylum seekers and refugees coming from regions where refugee protection is weak, and those who do not have the means to travel by air.  

Second, the proposal would serve the interests of Global North countries, to the detriment of Global South countries that already host most of the world’s refugees [see below Q4]. 

The US has both the international and domestic tools to address the concerns it has raised, without undermining or overturning the multilateral agreements or weakening protections for refugees. 

Q2: Why should asylum seekers be allowed to pick and choose the country they want to go to? 

The US administration’s claim that asylum seekers pick and choose the country where they claim asylum is not supported by evidence. In fact, most refugees and asylum-seekers worldwide stay in the first country they enter. According to UNHCR, 67% live in countries neighbouring their countries of origin; and 73% are hosted in low- and middle-income countries. 

However, often protection cannot be found in a neighbouring country and asylum seekers and refugees need to keep moving to find safety.  

Authorities in Iran, the country hosting the largest number of refugees (3.5 million), are waging an unlawful expulsion campaign targeting Afghan refugees, forcibly returning more than one million people to Afghanistan in 2025. Authorities in Pakistan have forcibly returned more than one million Afghan refugees and asylum seekers since announcing a “repatriation plan” in October 2023.  

In several African countries, legislation criminalising homosexuality and increasingly repressive practices have had a negative impact on LGBTI refugee communities. In Kenya, Amnesty International and the National Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (NGLHRC) have documented hate crimes, violence, and other serious human rights abuses targeting LGBTI asylum seekers and refugees living in one of Kenya’s biggest refugee camps. 

Amnesty International has also documented abuses against asylum seekers, refugees and migrants in Mexico.  

US law already prohibits the granting of asylum or refugee status to anyone who was firmly resettled elsewhere meaning that those who successfully were able to seek safety elsewhere would already been disqualified under US law.  

Q3: Why should refugees be allowed to stay in their country of asylum indefinitely? 

Asylum is not indefinite or permanent per se. The length of time the protection exists is predicated on the conditions in the country of origin. Under the 1951 Refugee Convention, refugee status only continues as long as the person continues meeting the relevant criteria, and “cessation” procedures may be initiated if circumstances in the country of origin have changed significantly and durably.  

Many asylum systems include procedures for the host country to regularly check whether conditions in the country of origin have changed. In the European Union, for example, the Qualification Directive ((Directive 2011/95/EU) allows Member States to review refugee status periodically or when new evidence arises.  

In the United States, refugee status itself is not subject to periodic renewal. Thousands of refugees have become naturalized citizens and have contributed greatly to the country. A recent study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that from 2005 to 2019, resettled refugees and people granted asylum in the U.S. contributed billions more in federal, state, and local government revenues than they received in services.  

Q4: Would the proposal mark a radical shift from how the global refugee system currently works?  

The Trump administration’s proposal reflects and reinforces a decade-long trend among Global North countries refusing their fair share of the responsibility for the world’s refugees and shifting that responsibility on low- and middle- income Global South countries. 

Australia’s offshore detention centres in Nauru and Papua New Guinea, the EU’s cooperation agreements with Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, and others, the UK’s failed deal with Rwanda, measures to unlawfully suspend access to asylum coupled with pushbacks of refugees and asylum-seekers at the borders of Greece, Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia, have all intended to deter and confront spontaneous arrivals of racialised refugees and asylum seekers from Global South countries.  

Proposals currently being negotiated to review the EU’s return or deportation legislation as well as the ‘safe third country’ concept in EU law, likewise, would make it possible for EU countries to reject individuals’ asylum claims as inadmissible and transfer them, against their will, to countries to which they have no connection and in which they may have never set foot. 

In the US, policies including “metering”, the Migrant Protection Protocols (“Remain in Mexico”), the Title 42 Public Health Order, the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Final Rule (the “Asylum Ban”), the June 2024 Presidential Proclamation and mandatory use of the CBP One mobile application have severely limited access to asylum at the US-Mexico border over the past decade. On 20 January 2025, President Trump declared a national emergency at the US-Mexico border and suspended the entry of non-citizens and people without valid visas, meaning there is currently no way for individuals at the border to seek asylum in the US.  

As they increasingly refuse to welcome refugees and asylum-seekers on their territories, Global North countries are also increasingly refusing to share the financial responsibilities for their protection and assistance in other countries where the vast majority of refugees are hosted, cutting their humanitarian aid budgets and leaving humanitarian appeals underfunded. 

The US’ proposal is a further shift away from the commitments to share responsibility across states in response to forced displacement included in the Global Compact on Refugees, a framework for more predictable and equitable responsibility-sharing adopted by the UNGA in December 2018. 

The Trump administration’s proposal does not stem from an evidence-based analysis of the current global asylum system. It reflects the administration’s domestic political agenda, its biases about the US domestic asylum system, and populist-fuelled fears about a conspiracy to diminish the influence of White people in the country, while perpetuating false and harmful narratives about asylum seekers.  

Q5: But surely countries have the power to control their borders? 

The power of countries to control their borders is not absolute – it is limited by their human rights obligations. Notably, countries are under the obligation not to transfer anyone to a place where they would be at real risk of serious human rights violations (the principle of non-refoulement). Individuals have the right to seek asylum; their asylum claims must be determined in fair and effective asylum determination processes.  

Q6: What are the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol? 

The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol define the term “refugee” and outline the international obligations for their protection. The 1951 Refugee Convention (Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, adopted in Geneva on 28 July 1951) currently has 146 states parties. Its 1967 Protocol (Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, adopted by the UN General Assembly with Resolution 2198 (XXI)) currently has 147 states parties. 

Reflecting the historic context of WWII, the scope of the 1951 Refugee Convention was originally limited to events occurring before 1 January 1951. States parties had the option to apply its provisions either universally or only to refugees from Europe, but most decided to apply it only to refugees from Europe. The 1967 Protocol expanded the scope of the 1951 Refugee Convention by removing both its temporal and geographic limitations. Most states parties currently apply the 1951 Refugee Convention to people fleeing persecution globally and at any time. Only four countries currently apply the 1951 Refugee Convention with the geographical limitation to Europe (Turkey, Monaco, Madagascar and Congo (Brazzaville)). 

The US proposal does not specifically state that the existing treaties should be abandoned. However, regardless of a country’s ratification status to these two treaties, states are bound by the obligation of non-refoulement, which prohibits them from transferring individuals to a place where they would be at real risk of persecution or other serious human rights violations. The obligation of non-refoulement is a rule of customary international law and is therefore universal, binding all states irrespective of their ratification of specific treaties. Its procedural aspects require states to allow individuals to challenge any decision to transfer them on non-refoulement grounds. Any procedure to challenge transfers should afford all procedural guarantees of fairness, including suspensive effect.  

The post The Trump administration’s call to ‘reframe’ the global asylum system would harm people seeking safety  appeared first on Amnesty International.

Responding to Microsoft’s decision to restrict an Israeli military unit’s access to its technology after an investigation found it was being used to store mass surveillance data on Palestinians, Agnès Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International said: 

“Amnesty International welcomes reports of Microsoft’s decision to terminate Israel’s Unit 8200’s access to certain Azure Cloud storage and AI services, however it is crucial that Microsoft investigate all its contracts, sales and transfers of surveillance, artificial intelligence and related equipment to Israel and ensure that they are not being used in connection with Israel’s human rights violations against Palestinians.   

“Microsoft’s move sends a strong signal to all companies, including other Big Tech monoliths, that they too must confront their participation in the global political economy sustaining Israel’s genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, apartheid against all Palestinians whose rights Israel controls, and its unlawful occupation of the Palestinian territory.  

Agnès Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International

“Companies, including other major providers of cloud services, must also suspend all sales and deliveries into Israel of weapons and other military, security and surveillance equipment, or other heavy machinery, parts or goods and services contributing or directly linked to Israel’s international crimes against Palestinians. 

“The tide must turn towards accountability. As Israel’s unprecedented campaign of killing, destruction, starvation and forced displacement continues against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, there must be an end to the impunity that Israel has enjoyed and flouted. States must turn their words into action and live up to their legal obligations toward bringing Israel’s genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip to an end. They can no longer claim they didn’t know. 

“A growing number of international human rights bodies and experts, including Amnesty International and more recently, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, have concluded: that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. The International Court of Justice in January 2024 already raised the alarm on the risk of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and repeatedly asked Israel to stop its illegal conduct. Orders that have remained cruelly unheeded.  

“It is also imperative that states exert pressure on Israel to comply with the UN General Assembly resolution on 18 September 2024, demanding that Israel end its unlawful occupation of the Palestinian territory within 12 months of that date as a result of the July 2024 International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion that found Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory unlawful. The UNGA also called on member states “[n]ot to render aid or assistance to illegal settlement activities, including not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements” in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. These words must be rapidly translated into meaningful measures.” 

Background 

Microsoft has reportedly ended the use of some of its Azure Cloud storage technology by the Israeli military Unit 8200 in mass surveillance of Palestinians following a joint investigation by the Guardian, Israeli-Palestinian publication +972 Magazine and the Hebrew-language media outlet Local Call. Microsoft’s own statement confirmed that they supply other products to the Israeli Ministry of Defense, including for security and military purposes. 

The investigation exposed how Unit 8200, Israel’s elite military intelligence unit, used Azure Cloud to run a surveillance system that collected, stored, replayed and analyzed millions of civilian phone calls from Gaza and the West Bank, targeting the Palestinian population. 

On 18 September 2025, Amnesty International published a briefing calling on states, international, municipal and other public institutions and companies, and other private actors, to apply increased pressure on Israel to abide by its international obligations and put an end to the genocide of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, the unlawful military occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel’s system of apartheid against all Palestinians whose rights it controls. The report names 15 companies that Amnesty International has identified as contributing to Israel’s unlawful actions. 

The post Israel/IOPT: Microsoft’s move to block Israeli military unit’s access to its mass surveillance technology is a moment for corporate reckoning   appeared first on Amnesty International.

Iranian authorities have executed over 1,000 people thus far in 2025, the highest number of yearly executions in Iran that the organization has recorded in at least 15 years, said Amnesty International. The organization is calling on the Iranian authorities to establish an immediate moratorium on executions as a first step, and issuing an urgent plea on other states to immediately intervene to pressure the Iranian authorities to halt all planned executions.

Within less than nine months, the number of people executed by the Iranian authorities so far this year has already surpassed last year’s grim total of 972 executions.

Since the 2022 Woman Life Freedom uprising, the Iranian authorities increased their use of the death penalty as a tool of state repression and to crush dissent, and amid an ongoing spike in executions for drug-related offences. In 2025 the authorities have also intensified their use of the death penalty under the guise of national security in the aftermath of the escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran in June 2025 following Israeli military strikes against Iran.

“The ongoing escalation of executions in Iran has reached horrific proportions as the Iranian authorities continue to systematically weaponize the death penalty as a tool of repression and to quash dissent while displaying a chilling assault on the right to life,” said Heba Morayef, Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International.

The ongoing escalation of executions in Iran has reached horrific proportions as the Iranian authorities continue to systematically weaponize the death penalty as a tool of repression and to quash dissent while displaying a chilling assault on the right to life

Heba Morayef, Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa

“The death penalty is abhorrent in all circumstances and deploying it on a large scale following routinely grossly unfair trials compounds the injustice. Those targeted with complete impunity include political dissidents, members of oppressed ethnic minorities, protesters and those sentenced to death for drug-related offences.

“The international community must take robust, immediate action to pressure the Iranian authorities to immediately halt all planned executions, quash all death sentences and impose an official moratorium on all executions with a view to full abolition of the death penalty. Given the systematic impunity for arbitrary executions, states must also pursue meaningful pathways for holding Iranian officials to account, including by exercising universal jurisdiction over all officials reasonably suspected of criminal responsibility for crimes under international law and other grave violations of human rights.”

Those at risk include individuals sentenced to death for drug-related offences or overly broad and vaguely defined charges such as “enmity against God” (moharebeh), “corruption on earth” (efsad-e fel-arz), and “armed rebellion against the state” (baghi) following grossly unfair trials before Revolutionary Courts.

Amnesty International’s research has consistently shown that Revolutionary Courts, which exercise jurisdiction over national security and drug-related offences, lack independence and impose harsh sentences, including death sentences, following grossly unfair trials, and those tried before such courts are systematically denied their fair trial rights. On 17 September 2025, Iranian authorities arbitrarily executed Babak Shahbazi, who was sentenced to death by a Revolutionary Court in May 2025 following a grossly unfair trial in which the authorities never investigated his allegations of torture and other ill-treatment.

The authorities’ use of the death penalty has disproportionately impacted marginalized minorities, particularly those belonging to the Afghan, Baluchi, and Kurdish communities. At least two Kurdish women, humanitarian aid worker Pakhshan Azizi and dissident Verisheh Moradi are under a death sentence and at risk of execution.

Afghans in Iran have also been heavily impacted by the increase. The number of Afghans executed by the Iranian authorities more than tripled from 25 in 2023 to 80 in 2024. This alarming trend coincides with an increase in racist and xenophobic rhetoric from Iranian officials, which has continued into 2025, and amid an unprecedented wave of forced mass expulsions of Afghans, including those born and living in Iran for decades, to Afghanistan.

The sustained increase in the number of executions for drug-related offenses that started in 2021 has continued into this year in violation of international law and standards, which strictly prohibit the use of the death penalty for drug-related offenses.

Since the escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran, senior officials, including Gholamhossein Mohseni Eje’i, the head of judiciary, have called for expedited trials and executions for “supporting” or “collaborating” with hostile states, including Israel. Iran’s Parliament also passed legislation that would, if approved by the Guardian Council, expand the use of the death penalty, including for vaguely worded national security charges such “cooperation with hostile governments,” and “espionage”,

amid these disturbing calls by officials.

Since 13 June 2025, at least ten men have been executed on politically-motivated charges, including at least eight who were accused of espionage for Israel. Amnesty International has documented scores of others at risk of execution on similar politically-motivated charges, including Swedish-Iranian academic Ahmadreza Djalali, and women’s and workers’ rights defender Sharifeh Mohammadi, whose conviction and death sentence was upheld by Branch 39 of the Supreme Court in August 2025. Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception. The death penalty is a violation of the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and it is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.

The post Iran: Over 1,000 people executed as authorities step up horrifying assault on right to life appeared first on Amnesty International.

Reacting to news that the Slovak parliament voted today to pass amendments to the constitution that will lead to the recognition of only two genders (male and female), restrict comprehensive sexuality education, and limit adoption to only married heterosexual couples, Rado Sloboda, Director of Amnesty International Slovakia, said:     

“This is devastating news. Instead of taking concrete steps to protect the rights of LGBTI people, children, and women, the Slovakian parliament voted to pass these amendments, which put the constitution in direct contradiction with international law. Today is another dark day for Slovakia, which is already facing a series of cascading attacks on human rights and the rule of law. 

The situation for marginalized groups in Slovakia is already dire and these amendments rub salt into the wound

“The situation for marginalized groups in Slovakia – including LGBTI people – is already dire. These amendments rub salt into the wound. Instead of attacking human rights, the authorities should address the lack of legal protection for all families, marriage equality, and the rights of transgender and non-binary people, including access to health care and legal gender recognition. We need comprehensive sexuality education for children to prevent sexual violence and promote sexual and reproductive health in the country. 

“Today the Slovak government chose to follow the lead of countries, such as Hungary, whose policies have led to an erosion of human rights. The only way to stop this decline is to comply with international and European law and introduce proposals to protect human rights for all, while rejecting those that jeopardize these efforts.” 

Background    

The constitutional amendments, cloaked in the language of ‘national identity’, aim at stripping away rights to private and family life, education, and healthcare from children, women, and LGBTI people. They breach EU law and international human rights treaties, and threatened the principle of their primacy concerning a wide range of human rights issues.    

Amnesty International has long warned that these amendments are part of a wider attempt by authorities to roll back rights in Slovakia. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as multiple UN Special Rapporteursin the fields of education, health, and privacy, and the EU institutions, have also expressed concern regarding the amendments and recommended withdrawal or rejection of the proposed changes.    

For more information, see here.  

The post Slovakia: Parliament’s approval of draconian constitutional amendments is a step towards erosion of human rights   appeared first on Amnesty International.

Fernanda Doz Costa trained as a human rights lawyer in Argentina before becoming Amnesty International’s Director of Gender, Racial Justice and Refugee Rights.

To mark International Safe Abortion Day, Fernanda talks about the dangers of unsafe abortions, some of the people she’s supported along the way and the small and easy actions you can take to ensure people around the world can access safe abortions.  

Can you tell me about your role at Amnesty and what led you to it?

I lead Amnesty International’s work on gender, racial justice and refugee rights. My journey into this role was shaped by my experience growing up in Argentina during the dictatorship and being an activist during my law school years, advocating for social justice and human rights.

With a background in law, I’ve always been drawn to the intersection of legal frameworks and activism—how we can use both to challenge injustice and create a world where everyone can thrive and enjoy full human rights. You could say that I have always taken injustice personally, and joining Amnesty was one of my ways to resist!

What areas are you especially passionate about?

I’m especially passionate about reproductive justice, gender equality and racial justice. I’ve also worked a lot with Indigenous Peoples and together with my feminist activism, those were some of the most incredible learning experiences for me.

These areas are deeply interconnected. When we talk about abortion rights, we’re not just talking about healthcare. We’re talking about equality, dignity and autonomy. The right to access abortion and other reproductive health services is not a “luxury”, it is basic human right that deeply affects the quality of life and futures of people and their loved ones.

In my country, like in many around the world, those who have the money have always accessed abortion, whether legal or not. This is why, for me, this is a struggle for social and economic justice.

The right to abortion is an important area of your work at Amnesty – why is it such a pressing issue?

Abortion is a human right. Yet, around the world, people who seek or provide abortions face criminalization, stigma and violence. That our bodies and our reproductive autonomy are still for debate by religious and political leaders, is a clear sign that patriarchy shapes all our lives in very profound ways, and there is a lot to work to do.

There is not any other health service, especially those needed by men, that has this level of globally organized and funded opposition.

Amnesty’s campaign is about making abortion visible, destigmatized and protected—because silence only reinforces oppression and stigma. Abortion is healthcare, and healthcare is a human right that is currently under immense threat globally. This is why Amnesty is prioritizing this issue, and also because structural inequality is at the centre of the debate.

What are some of the stigmas people face when it comes to getting an abortion?

Stigma manifests in many ways, shame, isolation, fear of judgment and even criminal charges. Healthcare providers are ostracized, abortion rights activists are threatened and people seeking or providing abortion are made to feel like criminals for making decisions about their own bodies or supporting those in need of healthcare.

This stigma is a powerful barrier to access to abortion healthcare, and it exposes activists, doctors, nurses and people seeking healthcare to immense stress and discrimination that impact their physical well-being and mental health on the longer-term.

In many cases, this stigma leads to the denial of healthcare and loss of lives that could have been saved. A case in point is the 28-year-old mother, Josseli Barnica, who died in Texas back in 2024, after doctors delayed her treatment in fear of the state’s six-week abortion ban. How is this “pro-life”?

What is the state of abortion rights worldwide? For example, which countries are least progressive? Which countries are most progressive?

We’re seeing a mixed picture. Countries like Argentina, Mexico, Colombia and France have made historic strides in decriminalizing abortion and enshrining it in law and constitution. On the other hand, places like El Salvador, Malta, and parts of the USA continue to impose total or near-total bans. In Namibia, abortion is severely restricted, and in Morocco, criminalization of abortion leads to devastating consequences for women, girls and people who can get pregnant. The struggle continues, however, in many countries.

What has helped advance peoples’ right to abortion? What has put them at risk?

Progress has come from grassroots feminist movements, courageous human rights defenders, and international solidarity. The Green Wave in Latin America is a powerful example.

But setbacks, such as  the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to rollback abortion rights, have emboldened anti-abortion forces, increased funding for regressive campaigns, chopped financial support for reproductive healthcare in countries most in need, and led to censorship of abortion information online.

In fact, it is well-known that you can’t “prevent” abortion, you can only make it unsafe and dangerous when you outlaw it. Hence, this anti-rights drive will only lead to more human suffering and loss of lives.

Are there any stories of people who’ve been denied an abortion that have affected you?

One that stands out is the case of Belén. A woman who was charged with aggravated murder after she had a miscarriage in a public hospital in Tucuman, Argentina, in 2014. Belén, as she was known, was eventually released from prison in 2017 and acquitted of all charges soon after.

The case generated great outrage from people both in Argentina and around the world and eventually contributed to Argentina legalising abortion in late 2020.

Belen’s story is a stark reminder of what’s at stake.

Likewise, are there any stories of women you’ve supported that have stayed with you?

Indeed. The story of Vannesa Rosales, a teacher in Venezuela who helped a 13-year-old rape survivor access a safe abortion, is deeply moving. Vanessa was arrested and charged for aiding access to abortion, yet she stood firm in her commitment to justice. Following a powerful campaign in support of her, she was released from prison on 21 July 2021 after spending nine months detained, six of which under house arrest. Her courage, together with the global support she received, shows the power of solidarity.

What are some of the most unexpected barriers people face when it comes to getting an abortion?

Even when legal, access can be undermined by waiting periods, mandatory counselling, third-party authorizations or police-report requirements. Conscientious objection/denial of care by providers restricts availability in practice, as was seen during our work in South Africa.

Digital censorship and misinformation on major platforms limit reliable guidance. Stigma, as well as religious and social pressures deter people from seeking care. Distance, cost, lack of privacy and weak infrastructure, especially in rural areas, further constrain access. Where services are blocked, people often resort to unsafe methods, driving preventable maternal harm.

One of the most overlooked barriers is online censorship. Social media platforms like Meta and TikTok are removing abortion-related content, making it harder for people to access life-saving information.

How can people support the right to abortion?

Share accurate information, challenge stigma and support abortion defenders in your country. Write a song or a theatre play about the right to abortion. Wear a pro-choice pin, or stick a pro-choice sticker on your car or laptop. Every action counts.

There are so many ways. Join local campaigns led by Amnesty International in Poland, Morocco, USA, Sierra Leone, Northern Ireland and elsewhere. Get in touch with our colleagues and join the fight. Sign this petition to protect the right to access to abortion in the US. Learn more about how to support human rights activists who defend the right to abortion.

You can also share accurate information and challenge myths to reduce stigma; engage in advocacy through petitions, campaigns and direct outreach to decision-makers (in Africa targeting parliamentarians has worked in places like Malawi); and press tech platforms to keep reliable, localized content accessible.

Can you tell me how your background in law has supported your role at Amnesty?

Law gives me the tools to analyse systems of oppression and advocate for change. It helps us hold governments accountable, draft policy recommendations and frame abortion rights as human rights. But it’s not just about legal expertise—it’s about using the law to amplify voices and dismantle injustice.

How do you unwind after dealing with heavy subject matters?

I find solace in community and collective solidarity—connecting with colleagues, friends and activists who share my values and mission. I also make time for nature, music and reading. It’s important to recharge, because the struggle for human rights is a marathon, not a sprint.

What is Amnesty doing to support people’s right to abortion?

We’re running a global campaign called “1000 Ways to Support Abortion Rights”, advocating for the right to abortion in key countries like Sierra Leone, Poland, USA, Morocco and Northern Ireland.

We’re publishing reports, launching podcasts, supporting abortion rights defenders, and pushing for legal reform.

Our goal is to create an enabling environment where abortion is safe, legal and accessible for all.

The post Protecting the right to abortion: An interview with Fernanda Doz Costa appeared first on Amnesty International.