Schlagwort: human rights

Ukrainian journalist Dmytro Khilyuk was arbitrarily arrested, detained and forcibly disappeared by Russian armed forces for three years, five months, and twenty-one days— in hunger, cold, and without cause.

Taken from his home region near Kyiv in March 2022, he disappeared into Russia’s prison system. His case illustrates the plight of Ukrainians being forcibly disappeared, facing torture and other ill-treatment, and the dangers civilians — in particular journalists — face under Russian occupation.

Throughout his ordeal, Amnesty International worked with Ukrainian colleagues to trace his path through contacts inside Russia. Dmytro says he survived by “holding on to the thought that it would end one day.”

On November 2, the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists, Dmytro shares his story.

Before captivity, I’d often read in books that in prison the main thing is to remain human. Back then, those were just words to me; I didn’t understand what stood behind them. When I found myself imprisoned, I understood what humanity really meant.

In the hardest conditions, you must keep at least some humanity in yourself, not turn into an animal. Stay human. Even when you’re hungry, cold, and terrified.

We “celebrated” birthdays in captivity. The others would give the birthday person their pieces of bread, their breakfast, or their dinner — so that, for just one day, that someone wouldn’t be hungry.

The beginning of Russian occupation

On February 25, 2022, Russian tanks entered Kozarovychi, a village near Kyiv, where I live. I saw military columns moving down the street, one after another. That was the beginning of Russian occupation.

I never imagined there would be fighting in our village, that people would be kidnapped, taken hostage, looted.

On 1 March, they came to our house and forced my father and me into the street. They placed an armed soldier next to my mother. She’s over 70 and had suffered a stroke. Then they went through the rooms.

They “liberated” me of my watch and flashlight, and my parents of their phones. Neighbours later told me the Russians took food from their fridges, they even took children’s games. They took everything, from money and valuables to the cheapest little things.

A few days later, my father and I were detained near our house. We were led to a warehouse 500 meters away. They tied my hands, blindfolded me, and threw me into a room where there were already people. Some had their legs tied, one man’s fingers had been broken with a hammer. My father was taken to another room.

During the interrogation, I told the Russians I was a journalist. They started asking: “What were you filming? What were you looking for? What were you doing here?”

I answered: “I live here.”

My father was soon released, and I was taken further.  They transported me to Belarus, where we spent a day and a half. And then we were taken to Russia’s Bryansk region, to Pretrial Detention Facility №2 in Novozibkov town, not far from the border with Ukraine,where I spent more than a year.

“We had no outerwear, even for walks”

The hunger was terrible. I was constantly hungry. People went crazy from hunger. We talked about food from morning till night. You’d look at a bar of soap and think it was ice cream.

The cold was unbearable. We stood by the radiator all day. If we stepped half a meter away, we froze. When the radiators didn’t work, we walked in circles in the cell. I wore socks on my hands, and underwear around my neck instead of a scarf, because I had two pairs and didn’t have anything else. We had no outerwear, not even for walks.

We went outside in what we always wore indoors: synthetic prison trousers and jackets, and the cheapest rubber slippers. In the morning, they forced us to sing the Russian anthem.

The next place was Pakino in the Vladimir region. In Pakino, they would tell us to stand in a circle, then throw a mattress on top of us, and tell the biggest guy to climb up — we had to hold him up. I had scabies – most of us had scabies. Some had tuberculosis.

As far as I know, no one ever visited. Tatyana Moskalkova, Russia’s Commissioner for Human Rights, came to once but we didn’t see her. They staged a Potemkin village – a façade – for her in another building. They gathered some prisoners and, for one day, even opened a canteen for them to eat there.

Later, she sent a representative who brought humanitarian aid from Ukraine, but half of it was stolen. He also brought some clothes. We took underwear and socks, but it was a show for the camera, later they took it all away from us.

“We were forced to read a statement that we had no complaints”

There were many civilians in captivity. Most of them were grabbed on the street or at home in occupied cities. A person would walk down the street and disappear.

“You all say you’re civilians, but in reality, you are not,” the guards would tell us. There were no legal explanations, not even pseudo-legal ones. People in the military at least understood they’d been captured in battle, but the civilians like me had no idea why we were there or what our status was.

No charges were ever brought against me. I signed an interrogation protocol, where I was listed as a witness, and somehow it was about events in Donetsk and Luhansk in 2014. I’d never been to Luhansk at all. And I’d been to Donetsk only a few times for work before 2014. 

Civilian people held in Russia are, purely and simply, like hostages. There are no charges.

For all this time I lived with one thought, that it would end someday. I was exchanged on 24 August. Before the exchange, we were forced to read a statement saying that we had no complaints against the Russian Federation. We repeated that ridiculous nonsense on camera.

The recurring thought was: Finally, it’s over. The understanding that I’m home is still “coming to me” even now.

The post Ukrainian journalist Dmytro: “I never imagined that people would be kidnapped” appeared first on Amnesty International.

By Agnès Callamard and Federico Borello

When the world emerged from the horrors of World War II and vowed “never again,” nations laid the foundation for the system of international justice that now exists to address the planet’s worst crimes. Today, the United States is actively trying to dismantle it.

The Trump administration on Sept. 4 imposed sanctions on three leading Palestinian human rights organizations: Al Haq, founded in 1979 and a pioneer in documenting violations in occupied Gaza and the West Bank; Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, which for more than two decades has meticulously chronicled laws of war violations in Gaza; and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, which has long provided legal aid to victims, particularly from Gaza.

In June, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on another leading Palestinian rights group, Addameer, under a different set of measures.

This is part of a broader Trump administration effort aimed at those who support justice for Palestinians. The stated reason for the September sanctions was that the three groups had helped the International Criminal Court in its investigation of Israel “without Israel’s consent.” But the U.S. government has also gone after officials of the court, which has taken on an investigation that covers allegations of grave crimes by Israeli forces in Gaza; it has issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and former defense minister Yoav Gallant, accusing them of crimes against humanity and war crimes. The administration has placed sanctions on the I.C.C. prosecutor, deputy prosecutors and six of the court’s judges, as well as Francesca Albanese, the U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in Gaza and the West Bank.

Beyond what has been done to the Palestinians, the Trump administration has undermined the rule of law, protection of human rights and international justice, which all lie at the heart of a rules-based global order. The administration has slashed funding to the United Nations and threatened more cuts while disengaging from the U.N. Human Rights Council. It abruptly terminated nearly all U.S. foreign aid, which had supported human rights defenders and provided lifesaving humanitarian assistance around the world. Cuts to grants by the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor and offices on refugees, women and global justice further downgraded America’s commitment to human rights.

Al Haq, Al Mezan and the Palestinian Center are award-winning organizations that in extraordinarily difficult circumstances have exposed violations of human rights and environmental law by Israeli and Palestinian authorities, armed groups and businesses. They are the voice of Palestinian victims, amplifying stories of injustice that would otherwise remain unheard.

The groups have continued their courageous work in Gaza over nearly two years. Al Mezan and the Palestinian Center are based in Gaza, and Al Haq, based in Ramallah in the West Bank, has staff there as well. They have faced bombardment that has resulted in the killings or wounding of staff members and hundreds of their relatives as well as starvation and forced displacement. On Sept. 7, Israeli bombings flattened the high-rise building that housed the Palestinian Center’s headquarters. The offices of Al Mezan across Gaza were damaged and destroyed in 2024.

Governments need to condemn efforts to undermine the I.C.C.’s independence and to silence those who are documenting abuses.

The U.S. sanctions will not only disrupt the critical work that they are still able to do but also send a chilling signal to human rights defenders whose work implicates powerful actors or their allies. The Palestinian groups have been vocal in their support of the I.C.C.’s investigation into Israeli conduct and have made submissions to the court’s prosecutor.

Our organizations, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have worked closely with these groups for decades and, consistent with our longstanding and independent mandates to speak out in protecting human rights, we can attest that their work is indispensable to the human rights community not only in the region but internationally.

This work is part of a broad global movement advancing justice for victims and survivors of the human rights abuses. A credible system of international justice that addresses genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity is an essential element of building respect for human rights.The International Criminal Court is a central pillar of this system. Created through a treaty in 1998, the court is a forum of last resort. Governments intended to deliver on the post-World War II promise of “never again” by establishing such a permanent institution. The system is not perfect, but its capacity to seek to hold accountable even those in the highest positions of power can help end cycles of abuses. This power of the law is now at risk.

Further sanctions or other actions by the United States, including extending sanctions to the court as a whole, would jeopardize the rights of victims across the globe. Governments should rise to the occasion to protect the system they created.

When Israel designated leading Palestinian human rights groups including Addameer and Al Haq as “terrorist organizations” in 2021, nine European Union member states rejected the allegations as unsubstantiated. That pushback was likely a major reason Israel did not go further.

So far, other governments have carefully balanced their reactions to the U.S. sanctions for fear of provoking the Trump administration. This is a flawed strategy and out of step with the urgency the situation demands.

Governments need to condemn efforts to undermine the I.C.C.’s independence and to silence those who are documenting abuses. They should use regional and national laws, like the European Union Blocking Statute, which can be employed to nullify external laws in the union, to mitigate the impact of U.S. sanctions on those working with the court. Those who helped establish the international court and claim to uphold the values underpinning it must step up to defend them.

---

Agnès Callamard is the secretary general of Amnesty International. Federico Borello is the acting executive director of Human Rights Watch.

This article was originally published by the New York Times.

The post What happened to human rights for Palestinians? appeared first on Amnesty International.

Responding to the Latvian parliament’s vote to leave the Council of Europe convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, also known as the Istanbul Convention, Amnesty International’s Senior Campaigner on Women’s Rights, Monica Costa Riba, said: 

“Latvia’s withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention would be a devastating blow to the protection and rights of the country’s women and girls and all people facing domestic violence. It sends a reckless and dangerous message to perpetrators that they can abuse an kill women and girls  with impunity. 

We urge the President of Latvia to do the right thing and use his veto to stop Latvia’s withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention

“This decision has been driven by powerful anti-rights groups spreading harmful disinformation about this vital safeguard in order to demonize gender equality, women’s and LGBTI people’s rights.  

“We urge the President of Latvia to do the right thing and use his veto to stop Latvia’s withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention and advance measures to ensure its full implementation to protect women and girls from gender-based and domestic violence.  

“Amid persistent backlash we must come together to resist further assaults on women’s rights and gender equality in Latvia and across Europe”.  

Background 

The bill now awaits the President’s decision to either veto or sign it into law. If signed, Latvia will become the second country to withdraw from the Convention, following Türkiye’s widely condemned exit in 2021, and the first country in the EU to withdraw from a major Council of Europe human rights treaty.

The Convention entered into force in Latvia in May 2024 following its ratification in November 2023.  

The Istanbul Convention was adopted by the  Council of Europe Committee of Ministers on 11 May 2011 and entered into force on 1 August 2014. It is the first European treaty specifically targeting violence against women and domestic violence. 

The Convention sets out minimum standards on prevention, protection, prosecution and the development of integrated policies to counter violence against women and domestic violence.

To date, the Convention has been signed (45) and ratified (39) by a vast majority of Council of Europe Member States. On 28 June 2023 the European Union also ratified the convention.  

Only Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania and Slovakia have yet to join the convention.  

For more information contact press@amnesty.org

The post Latvia: President must reverse parliament’s appalling and dangerous decision to leave Istanbul Convention  appeared first on Amnesty International.

Ahead of the trial of prominent lawyer and human rights defender Ahmed Souab starting on 31October in Tunis, Heba Morayef, Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International, said: 

“Ahmed Souab is facing unfounded charges that carry heavy prison sentences, including ‘forming a terrorist organization’ and ‘spreading fake news,’ solely for peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression and carrying out his professional duties as a human rights lawyer. His arrest and subsequent prosecution are in retaliation for his criticism of the lack of due process and independence of the court regarding the ‘conspiracy case’ in which he was representing three defendants. 

Ahmed Souab should never have been detained in the first place, let alone be prosecuted.

Heba Morayef

“Ahmed Souab should never have been detained in the first place, let alone be prosecuted. His case is a chilling example of the Tunisian authorities’ broader authoritarian practices to target critics, lawyers, and human rights defenders who dare to speak out against persistent violations of judicial independence and the rule of law and executive overreach. Authorities are using bogus “terrorism” charges as a pretext to crackdown on peaceful dissent and severely restrict the right to a fair trial and create a pervasive climate of fear. This travesty of justice must stop.

“The Tunisian authorities must immediately and unconditionally release Ahmed Souab and drop all the baseless charges against him. They must uphold their international human rights obligations and cease the targeting of lawyers for defending their clients or criticizing the judiciary. Authorities must uphold the rule of law including judicial independence and allow lawyers to freely carry out their professional functions without any harassment, intimidation or improper interference.” 

 Background 

Ahmed Souab is a prominent Tunisian lawyer and human rights defender known for his outspoken criticism of violations of fair trial rights and executive interference with judicial independence, particularly under President Kais Saied’s administration. He previously served as a judge at the Administrative Court and has been a vocal critic of the dismantling of the rule of law following President Saied’s July 2021 power grab.  

Souab has represented several high-profile victims of human rights violations, including political opposition and activists in the “conspiracy case,” the highest-profile example of the broader authoritarian practices including crackdown on political opposition and the erosion of judicial independence and the rule of law in Tunisia. On 19 April, a Tunis criminal court sentenced 37 individuals including prominent political opposition figures, lawyers, and human rights defenders, to harsh prison terms ranging between four and 74 years on unfounded “conspiracy” charges.   The defendants have been convicted solely for the peaceful exercise of their human rights. Their trial has been riddled with procedural and substantive violations and a blatant disregard of defense rights and was based on unsubstantiated charges. 

Ahmed Souab’s hearing will be held without his physical presence as the court extended its decision to hold terrorism trials remotely citing a vague “imminent danger.”  Souab is refusing to attend his court hearing remotely and insists on being physically present during his trial in order to defend himself. There is no justification to deny detainees their right to be brought physically before the court to challenge the lawfulness of their detention. Denying the detainees this right is also incompatible with the requirements of respect for due process law, as for example, it undermines the ability of the detainees to effectively participate in and follow the proceedings and to be heard without technical impediments. Such a denial is incompatible with the principles of due process guaranteed under both Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Tunisia is a State Party. 

Souab’s arrest on 21 April 2025 came just two days after he spoke at a press conference criticizing the lack of fair trial in the “conspiracy case,” in his capacity as defense lawyer for 3 of the defendants.  Following his arrest, authorities held him in incommunicado for detention 48 hours before his pre-trial detention was ordered. Amnesty International has documented a concerning pattern of the misuse of counter-terrorism laws to crackdown on peaceful dissent and a growing trend of targeting lawyers representing activists and political opposition groups in Tunisia.  

For instance, lawyer Dalila Msaddak faces trial on 25 November 2025 with journalist Borhene Bsaies for comments made on his TV show two years ago defending her clients detained in the notorious “conspiracy case”. In the November 2023 interview, Msaddak said the charges against her clients were unfounded and the case was “fabricated.” Two days later, prosecutors opened an investigation against Msaddak and Bsaies  under Decree-Law 54 accusing them of spreading “false news,” and then referred them to trial.    

Tunisian authorities have the legal obligations including under Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the country is a state party to ensure the right to a fair trial includes the right to be defended by counsel of one’s choosing.  

Similarly, under Principle 16 of the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, lawyers “shall not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics.”  Principle 20 provides that, “lawyers shall enjoy civil and penal immunity for relevant statements made in good faith in written or oral pleadings or in their professional appearances before a court.” 

The post Tunisia: Authorities must immediately release detained lawyer Ahmed Souab  appeared first on Amnesty International.

Climate change is getting worse and so are the threats it poses to human rights. The right to adequate housing is being violated on a massive scale, as homes, particularly those in informal settlements, are destroyed by the effects of climate change.

For example, South Africa has experienced devastating extreme weather and flooding over the past few years. People living in informal settlements – which are often built in low-lying, flood prone areas – are among the worst affected . These residents already face the challenges of living in poverty and a lack of access to essential services. Now they must confront additional threats to their human rights posed by climate change.

States have human rights obligations, which means they have the duty to upgrade informal settlements to help realize the right to housing. However, in many cases, this duty is not being met. It’s up to us to speak out and hold governments accountable.

What are informal settlements?

Informal settlements are residential areas where people do not have secure tenure over the land or housing they occupy. These homes are not legally recognized, which puts residents at higher risk of forced evictions. They also have limited or no access to essential services and infrastructure, including access to water, sanitation, waste collection, street lighting, electricity, playgrounds, schools, healthcare centres and open green spaces.

Housing in informal settlements is usually inadequate and might not comply with planning and building regulations. Homes are often made of corrugated metal sheets, or lightweight panels made from wood and other recycled materials.

Informal settlements are often situated in hazardous areas, like wetlands, and have poor soil conditions. It can be difficult for emergency vehicles to access these areas because of where they are located and how they are built. Often living in poverty, residents of informal settlements are highly vulnerable to homelessness if their homes are destroyed.

In 2022, 1.1 billion people – almost a quarter of the world’s urban population – were living in informal settlements. This number is expected to triple within 30 years.

Why do people live in informal settlements?

There is not enough affordable formal housing to meet the population’s needs. This means many people must find other places to live which exist outside planning and building regulations. To many, informal settlements are the only affordable means of living close to work opportunities.

Informal settlements lay bare the failure of governments to guarantee adequate and affordable housing. They are a product of poverty and discrimination that exclude people from formal housing. People living in informal settlements are sometimes victims of past and present segregation. Informal settlements are therefore spaces where people facing racial and/or socio-economic discrimination are often concentrated. Informal settlements are also home to migrants, internally displaced people and refugees.

Many informal settlements have been around for decades and provide shelter, opportunity and collective support to people living in poverty in cities. Despite the challenges – their worsening living conditions, neglect from the authorities, discrimination and stigmatization – residents in these neighbourhoods have created spaces that foster strong social bonds and economic activity.

What is it like living in informal settlements?

The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Housing has highlighted that the living conditions in informal settlements are one of the most pervasive and widespread violations of human rights globally.

The living conditions of different informal settlements around the world may vary. Most people living in these areas don’t have adequate access to clean drinking water, plumbing or electricity. There also isn’t adequate waste collection, creating huge sanitation and hygiene problems impacting the right to health.

Some people have to walk long distances to use the toilet or bathe. Many living in informal settlements only have access to communal toilets and bathing facilities, shared by multiple households. These facilities are unclean, lack proper drainage and are often broken.

Informal settlements are overcrowded and unplanned. They often lack tarred roads, making them inaccessible to emergency vehicles.

What is it like for people who face multiple intersecting forms of discrimination?

While all residents are impacted by the lack of adequate housing and essential services, the suffering is borne disproportionately by groups at risk of multiple and intersectional forms of discrimination.

For example, women and girls are particularly affected by a lack of adequate access to sanitation facilities for toilets and bathing. Women have additional physical needs compared to men – for example, related to menstruation – and have a greater need for privacy when using toilets and when bathing. Inadequate and inaccessible toilets and bathrooms, as well as the general lack of effective policing within settlements, makes women even more vulnerable to crime and gender-based violence.

The lack of access to essential services is also particularly difficult for children, older people and people with disabilities, especially those who have limited mobility.

What impact is climate change having on the residents of informal settlements?

Due to poverty and inequality in access to essential services, residents of informal settlements are also disproportionately vulnerable to extreme weather events made worse by climate change.

In rare cases, homes in informal settlements are made of bricks and mortar. But for most people, homes are made of corrugated metal sheets, light-weight wooden panels  or other recycled material, assembled out of necessity, not choice. These materials do not provide sufficient protection from heavy rain, extreme heat or high-speed winds. Living in informal settlements also means having to contend with waterlogging and flooding, due to a lack of proper drainage.

What are the human rights obligations of states to people living in informal settlements?

States have a duty to take concrete steps to ensure that residents of informal settlements can also enjoy the rights to housing, water and sanitation. They have a duty to use the maximum of available resources, both financial and technical, to fulfil these rights.

This includes the duty to:

• Recognize the right to housing and prohibit forced evictions in national laws.
• Provide security of tenure that gives residents legal guarantees to stay in their homes.
• Adopt housing policies and strategies that prioritize a basic level of housing for everyone and set out time-limited goals to progressively improve housing conditions, and ensure the participation of people, particularly disadvantaged groups in the formulation of such a strategy.
• Ensure that there is sufficient housing stock that is affordable to all, including to people in lower-income groups
• Ensure that everyone has safe and adequate access to all essential services including water, sanitation, waste collection, and energy for cooking, lighting and heating
• Set-up effective mechanisms for monitoring all authorities, at national and local levels, to ensure that they act consistently with the state’s international obligations.
• Ensure that people are able to participate in and are consulted over decisions that will affect their lives.
• Provide for effective remedies and reparations to all people, whose right to adequate housing has been violated, including through recourse to the courts where necessary.

What makes informal settlements and underserved areas more vulnerable to flooding?

Informal settlements are often located in environmentally high-risk zones including flood plains and low-lying areas. This is because these are the only areas available for people to set up their homes.

Added to this, informal settlements and other underserved areas do not have infrastructure like embankments that can stop rivers from overflowing, and drainage systems that can channel water away from the area. Failure to regularly collect and dispose waste in informal settlements also sometimes blocks the natural flow of the water leading to flooding and waterlogging.

For these reasons, informal settlements are disproportionately impacted by flooding when rivers and streams overflow but also when there is heavy rain and there is no way for the water to flow away from the area.

How do these floods affect people’s lives?

When floods hit these areas, residents not only lose their homes, but also their livelihoods. Many of them have to sacrifice their income, forfeiting their daily wage work to stay back and salvage their belongings, clean their homes and repair the damage. Missing work means missing out on critical income.

Flooded pathways in settlements can sometimes make it difficult for people to leave their homes. Depending on how severe the floods are, residents may be required to relocate temporarily.

Residents also often lack sufficient savings or other assets. In the absence of robust social protection measures such as unemployment or pension payments, coping with disasters including floods is very difficult for them.

How does the climate crisis make it worse?

Human-induced climate change, caused mainly by the burning of fossil fuels, like coal, oil, and gas, leads to extreme weather events. This includes more frequent and more intense floods, heatwaves, wildfires, cyclones and storms which can devastate lives and livelihoods. While not every flood is the result of climate change, with the continuing climate crisis, floods are only going to get worse and happen more frequently.

For example, World Weather Attribution, a group of researchers and scientists from key institutions around the world quantifying how climate change influences the intensity and likelihood of extreme weather events, found that the 2022 floods in KwaZulu-Natal and eastern South Africa were a result of record-breaking rainfall. They further concluded that, “… the probability of an event such as the rainfall that resulted in this disaster has approximately doubled due to human-induced climate change. The intensity of the current event has increased by 4-8%.”

What can states do to protect people in informal settlements?

States can uphold their human rights commitments by providing the necessary resources and policies to upgrade the infrastructure around informal settlements. These upgrades should do more than just fix or replace existing infrastructure. They should aim to tackle the root causes of the problems faced by those living in informal settlements and be designed to allow the full enjoyment of residents’ human rights.

When possible, this upgrade work should be carried out in a way that doesn’t require residents to leave their homes. Relocation to an area nearby should be considered as a last resort and carried out in full compliance with international human rights safeguards against forced evictions, including genuine consultation and adequate notice.

Upgrading of informal settlements should always be carried out with the active participation of the affected people and should build in strong accountability mechanisms to ensure timely implementation.

What should be included in these upgrades?

A holistic upgrading of an informal settlement should provide residents with security of tenure – legal protections to prevent people from being arbitrarily or forcibly evicted – of the land they live on. It should also include the building and provision of public structures and services such as water pipelines, sanitation systems, electricity connections, street lighting, paved roads and waste collection; and structural improvements to housing so that it is safe and habitable.

Upgrading also includes measures to support access to other essential services such as schools, health centres and, places of work, including by improving transport connections; and constructing or improving communal facilities such as playgrounds and community centres.

With the ongoing climate crisis, it is important that upgrading of informal settlements builds in climate change adaptation measures to protect residents from the impacts of disasters.

These measures must not only address current risks but also ensure future proofing against the likelihood of worsening conditions in the coming years. In the case of flooding, these measures include functioning storm water and other drainage systems, roads, electricity, and improved sanitation. Nature based solutions such as restoration of wetlands and, reducing erosion through planting trees are also important. Adaptation measures must be suitable in the local context and planned and implemented with the involvement of the local community. 

What can we do to make sure that governments fulfil their obligations towards residents of informal settlements?

We should raise our voices and seek accountability from our governments at the local, provincial and national levels for their failure to provide sufficient stock of truly affordable housing.

We should call on governments to commit to upgrading informal settlements in a manner that complies with human rights standards, including through budgetary and policy commitments.

We should call on all states in a position to do so to complement existing climate justice initiatives, including massively scaled up financial and other support for adaptation and mitigation, just transition and loss and damage, so that people, including those living in informal settlements are able to enjoy their human rights. Wealthier states that have contributed the most historically to carbon emissions have a particular responsibility to assist others to adapt and address loss and damage.

The post How do we protect the right to housing amid the growing threat of climate change? appeared first on Amnesty International.