JPTi has published a comprehensive institutional assessment of Volker Türk’s (@volker_turk) first mandate as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the standards by which his second mandate should be judged. The central conclusion is direct: the international human rights system does not principally suffer from a shortage of reports, recommendations, communications, opinions or databases. Its most serious weakness is the absence of a reliable process that converts authoritative United Nations outputs into domestic investigation, protection, adjudication, institutional reform, reparation and independently verified implementation. The Insight therefore asks a practical question: after a United Nations human rights mechanism has made a finding or recommendation, who secures implementation, who verifies it independently, and what happens when the State does not act? Through case studies concerning Julian Assange (@JulianAssange), Fungayi Jessie Majome (@JessieFMajome) and the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission, the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church and Metropolitan Evgenii, Tayeb Benabderrahmane, Xinjiang and the Uyghurs, and Gaza, the publication examines how very different international interventions can encounter the same systemic obstacle: findings are issued, but responsibility for follow-up becomes fragmented, domestic institutions are not consistently activated, victims remain without verified remedies and persistent non-implementation produces few predictable consequences. The assessment also examines uneven thematic visibility, the structural impunity gap in transnational repression, United States emergency powers and sanctions, weaknesses in technical cooperation and field presences, and the distinction between governmental reporting and genuinely independent national verification. JPTi proposes an implementation architecture centred on enhanced dual reporting. National Mechanisms for Implementation, Reporting and Follow-up should coordinate and report on governmental implementation, while constitutionally independent National Human Rights Institutions should investigate, verify and report separately. Their distinct outputs should feed into the work of Special Procedures, treaty bodies and the Universal Periodic Review, while also activating courts, lawyers, prosecutors, parliaments and domestic protection mandates. The publication further proposes a standing Joint Task Force of the Coordination Committee of Special Procedures and GANHRI to address urgent threats against NHRIs, Ombudsman institutions, their leadership and personnel. OHCHR should provide the necessary administrative and secretariat support without directing independent mandate holders or displacing GANHRI’s representative role. Mr Türk cannot command Governments, courts, treaty bodies, Special Procedures, NHRIs or GANHRI. He can, however, use OHCHR’s administrative capacity, technical cooperation, diplomatic access, public voice, convening authority and reporting mandate to defend authoritative findings, connect them with domestic institutions, expose persistent non-implementation and support effective protection and remedy. The measure of the second mandate should therefore not be the number of reports published, speeches delivered, meetings held or databases populated. It should be whether findings are implemented, victims obtain remedies, NHRIs are protected, Governments receive credible implementation support, and continued refusal to act becomes visible and consequential. This is the necessary movement from reporting to protection. Read the full JPTi Insight: jpti.ch/post/from-reporting-… #JPTi #JPTiInsights #FromReportingToProtection #VolkerTurk #OHCHR #HumanRights #HumanRightsImplementation #Accountability #SpecialProcedures #UPR #TreatyBodies #NHRIs #NMIRFs #ParisPrinciples #TransnationalRepression #RuleOfLaw #ProtectionAndRemedy

Estonia: JPTi calls for Metropolitan Evgenii’s dignified return and the protection of religious autonomy On 2 October 2026, Justice pour Tous Internationale (JPTi) transmitted an open letter calling on Estonia to enable Metropolitan Evgenii’s dignified and lawful return and to protect the religious autonomy of the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church (ECOC) and the Pühtitsa Convent. The appeal concerns not only a religious leader’s return, but also the community’s collective religious life. Recognising Estonia’s responsibility to protect national security, the letter stresses that concerns about individual conduct require specific evidence and an individualised assessment, rather than assumptions based on canonical affiliation alone. It calls for a fair reassessment of the immigration obstacles and restrictions on clergy eligibility. The letter also invites the Chancellor of Justice, as Estonia’s independent national human rights institution, to assess the case, publish findings and recommend effective remedies. It emphasises that cooperation with State authorities must preserve the institution’s independent assessment and public voice, distinct from governmental reporting and actions. Recalling Estonia’s international support for religious communities’ freedom to choose their leaders without State interference, JPTi calls for consistent protection of religious autonomy in domestic practice. The organisation remains available for constructive dialogue with the authorities and religious communities concerned. The appeal follows JPTi’s Human Rights Council side event, organised with the support of Public Organization “Public Advocacy”. It is endorsed by Dr Ján Figeľ, First Special Envoy for the promotion of freedom of religion or belief outside the European Union, First Slovak European Commissioner and President of the Forum for Religious Freedom–Europe (FOREF); Thierry Valle, President of CAP Liberté de Conscience; and Hugues Noumbissie, International Consultant and former senior United Nations official. Read the publication: jpti.ch/post/jpti-appeal-met… #Estonia #FreedomOfReligionOrBelief #ReligiousAutonomy #HumanRights #JPTi

New JPTi Publication 120 | Uzbekistan’s Ombudsman: independent assessment of compliance with the Paris Principles Justice pour Tous Internationale (JPTi) has published an independent assessment of whether the Office of Feruza Eshmatova, Ombudsman of the Oliy Majlis of the Republic of Uzbekistan, presently exercises its protection mandate in conformity with the Paris Principles. The assessment is current as of 24 September 2026. JPTi will update it if the Office’s performance changes. The Office is not presently ready to seek an upgrade from B status to A status. GANHRI, not JPTi, decides accreditation. In the case of Abdulaziz Razzokov, an imprisoned innocent Uzbek lawyer, the Ombudsman did not assess the alleged human rights violations. Deputy Ombudsman B. Narimanov forwarded the submission to the Supreme Court. JPTi and the representatives learned of that official correspondence only up to 50 days later. Forwarding is not protection. Justice delayed is justice denied. The handling shows ignorance bordering on incompetence. The allegations are not treated as established violations. The finding concerns the absence of an assessment, the forwarding of the file, and the delay in informing JPTi and the representatives. Read JPTi Publication 120, in English, French, Russian and Uzbek: jpti.ch/post/uzbekistan-ombu… #Ombudsman #ParisPrinciples #GANHRI #NHRI #HumanRights #Uzbekistan #JPTi

New JPTi Publication 119 | Drone Warfare and the Protection of the Wounded Justice pour Tous Internationale (JPTi) has published a substantially expanded analysis and open public call to the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission (IHFFC) concerning the protection of wounded persons, medical personnel and evacuation activities in contemporary drone warfare. JPTi does not undertake this initiative in support of either party to the Russia-Ukraine armed conflict. Our objective is systemic and preventive: to identify a developing gap in the practical promotion and protection of international humanitarian law and to encourage corrective action before avoidable suffering recurs. Available international and domestic material already provides an important factual basis. UN mechanisms have documented drone attacks involving seriously wounded soldiers from both parties, while Russian and Ukrainian authorities have accumulated substantial investigative and evidentiary material concerning drone incidents, including attacks affecting medical and emergency services. At the same time, publicly available information remains much more limited concerning attacks on already wounded combatants who may be hors de combat, and concerning how such incidents are translated into lessons for operators and commanders. JPTi therefore invites the IHFFC to consider an urgent preventive study, drawing on verified open sources, available official material and, where cooperation permits, relevant confidential information. The focus should be practical: IHL training for drone operators, recognition of protected status, rules of engagement, abort procedures, command supervision, preservation and review of strike footage, and the implications of increasingly automated and AI-enabled systems. The initiative also returns to the original humanitarian purpose of the Geneva tradition: not only accountability after violations, but reducing suffering during war and protecting those who are wounded, sick, surrendering or caring for them. Under Rule 37 of the IHFFC Rules of Procedure, communications containing information of interest to the Commission may be registered and brought to its members’ attention. Technology has changed. The humanitarian obligation has not. Read JPTi Publication 119: jpti.ch/post/drone-warfare-p… #InternationalHumanitarianLaw #IHL #DroneWarfare #IHFFC #HumanitarianProtection #HorsDeCombat #MedicalProtection #ArtificialIntelligence #AI #Geneva #JPTi

Good governance requires independent oversight and effective protection against corruption. At the Human Rights Council’s 63rd session, Justice pour Tous Internationale (JPTi) has called for the restoration of language recognising corruption’s harmful impact on human rights in the draft resolution on good governance. JPTi’s submission also seeks explicit recognition of national human rights institutions, in their diverse domestic forms, as independent public institutions capable of scrutinising government conduct, identifying systemic failures and following up on recommendations. Country examples show why institutional diversity and independence matter. Slovakia and Czechia illustrate complementary human rights and specialised protection mandates. Italy demonstrates the contribution of regional civic defenders and independent detention oversight, while Brazil combines constitutional rights protection with public legal assistance. Uzbekistan illustrates the roles of parliamentary, children’s and business ombudsman institutions, alongside the National Centre for Human Rights. The Republic of Korea connects human rights protection with anti-corruption work and administrative remedies. Ukraine demonstrates the importance of safeguarding investigative independence when scrutiny may reach powerful public authorities. These responsibilities extend to artificial intelligence, surveillance, public procurement and public-private arrangements. Effective oversight requires transparent appointments, security of tenure, adequate resources and protection against interference and reprisals. Publication 118 explains JPTi’s proposed amendments and their practical significance. It complements Publication 117, which addressed the separate draft resolution on national human rights institutions: one initiative strengthens the institutions themselves; the other seeks to embed independent human rights oversight in good governance. On 21 September 2026, the next informal consultation offers an opportunity to strengthen the text. JPTi encourages the Core Group and participating delegations to restore the omitted anti-corruption language and recognise independent oversight as an essential condition of good governance. Read Publication 118, JPTi’s submission and the zero draft: jpti.ch/post/good-governance… #HumanRights #GoodGovernance #AntiCorruption #NHRIs #HRC63 #JPTi

JPTi has published Publication No. 117: “Strengthening Independent National Human Rights Institutions.” The publication reflects JPTi’s engagement during the 63rd session of the Human Rights Council, where we submitted concrete amendments to the draft resolution on national human rights institutions. A central part of the publication is the case of Fungayi Jessie Majome, Chairperson of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission. Her case demonstrates why formal accreditation and legal guarantees are not enough if the international system cannot respond effectively when the independence, leadership or functioning of an NHRI comes under pressure. JPTi’s proposals therefore go beyond accreditation. They call for stronger safeguards against arbitrary removal, reassignment, political interference, reprisals and unjustified institutional pressure; meaningful access to UN human rights mechanisms irrespective of accreditation status; independent follow-up to UN recommendations; and a stronger collective protection role for GANHRI, supported by the OHCHR Secretariat. The publication also raises a broader institutional question: when an NHRI leader is targeted precisely because she is exercising an independent mandate, who protects the institution that is expected to protect others? The international architecture surrounding NHRIs must protect the institutions it asks to protect others. Read the full publication here: jpti.ch/post/strengthening-i… #NHRI #Zimbabwe #ZHRC #GANHRI #OHCHR #HumanRightsCouncil #HRC63 #ParisPrinciples #Ombudsman #HumanRights #JPTi #Geneva

From signing the MoU to remedy: internal rules that make protection real On 20 August 2026 in Tashkent, the Uzbekistan Ombudsman and Justice pour Tous Internationale (JPTi) signed a Memorandum of Understanding. The purpose of the cooperation is practical: to help convert the existing mandate and reported results into consistent internal procedures that protect people from the first appeal or visit through to an implemented remedy. An Ombudsman and a National Preventive Mechanism cannot rely on individual good practice alone. Protection depends on written, consistently applied and reviewable standard operating procedures. The main criteria include: - safe and accessible intake across written, digital, hotline and in-person channels; - timely registration and jurisdictional screening; - identification of urgent risks, including reprisals; - impartial assessment against domestic law and international human rights standards; - reasoned dispositions that state the issue, the finding and the action taken; - follow-up until a remedy is implemented or non-compliance is recorded; - planned and unannounced visits to places where liberty is restricted; - confidential interviews conducted without the presence of staff of the institution; - clear rules on access, records and protection measures; - statutory responses where shortcomings are identified; - systematic tracking of whether recommendations are implemented; - identification of thematic issues for thematic reports. JPTi will not supervise the Ombudsman, decide complaints or speak in its name. At the institution’s request, JPTi can assist methodologically in developing an internal rulebook covering jurisdiction, triage, inspections, confidentiality, referrals, reasoned decisions, systemic cases and implementation follow-up. Reported figures already show scale: 26,372 appeals and 954 preventive visits in 2025; 521 monitoring visits and 1,751 confidential interviews in the first half of 2026. SOPs exist, but they require review and publicity. The next test is consistency. The same standards must apply in the central office, among regional representatives and during every visit. Recognition of progress and the writing of internal rules are not contradictory. Without SOPs, results remain episodic. With SOPs, they become demonstrable protection. JPTi Publication 116: jpti.ch/post/from-signing-th… #Ombudsman #NPM #SOPs #ComplaintHandling #PreventionOfTorture #ParisPrinciples #GANHRI #HumanRights #Uzbekistan #JPTi

Protection before accreditation: effective remedies at the centre of Tashkent’s digital human rights debate On 20–21 August 2026, Justice pour Tous Internationale (JPTi) participated in the international conference “Human Rights in the Context of Digital Transformation: Contemporary Approaches” in Tashkent, bringing together Ombudsman institutions, national human rights institutions (NHRIs), United Nations actors and representatives from more than 25 countries. JPTi’s contribution went beyond participation. We delivered the keynote intervention “Digital Equality Requires an Effective Remedy: The Role of Ombudsman Institutions,” moderated the international session on youth rights, internet safety, cyberbullying and personal data protection, and joined the second-day institutional dialogue with Uzbekistan’s parliamentary and constitutional institutions. Our central message was straightforward: protection comes first. GANHRI accreditation is important, but accreditation cannot substitute for the daily exercise of an independent and effective protection mandate. The real test of an Ombudsman institution or NHRI is whether an individual whose rights have been affected can obtain an explanation, have a complaint independently investigated and ultimately secure an effective remedy. The publication also looks beyond accreditation to a broader question about the international architecture surrounding NHRIs. GANHRI is a global membership alliance, not a supranational human rights watchdog. JPTi considers that its representative role should increasingly include defending the independence and operating space of national institutions and helping ensure that their protection experience reaches the United Nations, including where institutions hold B status or have not yet obtained accreditation. The same principle applies to digital transformation. Artificial intelligence, automated decision-making and digital public services can expand opportunity, but human rights protection requires transparency, meaningful human review and an accessible route to correction when technology causes harm. From international recognition to effective domestic protection, the question is ultimately the same: can the institution deliver a remedy when a person needs it? Read JPTi Publication No. 115: jpti.ch/post/protection-befo… #HumanRights #Ombudsman #NHRI #DigitalRights #ArtificialIntelligence #EffectiveRemedy #GANHRI #UnitedNations #Uzbekistan #Tashkent #JPTi

On 2 July 2026, on the margins of the 62nd session of the UN Human Rights Council, Justice pour Tous Internationale (JPTi), in collaboration with Public Organization “Public Advocacy,” convened a side event at the Palais des Nations on: “Emergency Powers, Human Rights and the Rule of Law in the United States: Article 4 of the ICCPR, Transnational Repression and Extraterritorial Accountability.” The discussion examined the human rights implications of U.S. emergency powers, sanctions, extraterritorial enforcement, transnational repression, due process, international justice, media restrictions, religious freedom, business and human rights, and the upcoming U.S. Universal Periodic Review. Speakers stressed that emergency powers must not become permanent tools of executive discretion, and that no State, however powerful, should stand above international human rights review. JPTi called for the U.S. emergency framework to be brought into conformity with Article 4 of the ICCPR, with strict time limits, due process, judicial review, effective remedies and accountability for extraterritorial human rights impacts. Read more: jpti.ch/post/hrc62-side-even… #HRC62 #HumanRightsCouncil #ICCPR #Article4 #EmergencyPowers #RuleOfLaw #TransnationalRepression #Sanctions #ExtraterritorialAccountability #UPR #SpecialProcedures #BusinessAndHumanRights #FreedomOfReligionOrBelief #JPTi

On 2 July 2026, Justice pour Tous Internationale (JPTi) will co-organize a side event on United States emergency powers and international human rights during the 62nd session of the Human Rights Council at the Palais des Nations in Geneva. The speakers will include Professor George Katrougalos, Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order; Professor Attiya Waris, Independent Expert on foreign debt and human rights; Mr. Abdel Wahab Hani, independent human rights expert and former member of the UN Committee Against Torture; Mr. John Packer, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Ottawa; Mr. Stefan G. Ziegler, humanitarian practitioner, Associate Professor and filmmaker; Ms. Merna Shalash, President of Partners for Transparency; and Mr. Sharof Azizov, Executive Director of Justice pour Tous Internationale. The event will be moderated by Ms. Matilde Pacheco, Human Rights Officer at JPTi. Organized by Public Organization “Public Advocacy” in collaboration with JPTi, the event will examine United States emergency powers, Article 4 of the ICCPR, transnational repression, extraterritorial accountability and the rule of law. The discussion will address the continuing gap between the United States’ domestic emergency framework and its international obligations under the ICCPR. Particular attention will be given to the National Emergencies Act of 14 September 1976, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 28 December 1977, the absence of Article 4(3) notifications to the United Nations Secretary-General, and the need for safeguards of necessity, proportionality, temporality, non-discrimination, judicial review and effective remedies. The event will also consider the United States’ non-cooperation with the Human Rights Council and the Universal Periodic Review process. The UPR is universal, equal and non-selective. Executive Order 14199 may direct United States officials not to participate in the Human Rights Council, but it cannot remove the United States from the Universal Periodic Review. President Trump and the United States administration have an opportunity to demonstrate good faith toward the United Nations, the international community and the global promotion of human rights by engaging constructively with the UPR process. JPTi believes that the United States review should proceed during UPR53 in November 2026 on the basis of available United Nations information and stakeholder submissions, whether or not an official delegation is sent. Accountability cannot depend on voluntary participation alone. The integrity of the international human rights system requires that all States, including powerful States, remain subject to equal scrutiny. We invite Permanent Missions, United Nations experts, civil society organizations, legal practitioners, academics, journalists and all participants with access to the Palais des Nations to join this important discussion. Read more here: jpti.ch/post/jpti-to-co-orga… #JPTi #HRC62 #HumanRightsCouncil #UNHumanRights #ICCPR #Article4ICCPR #EmergencyPowers #RuleOfLaw #UPR #UniversalPeriodicReview #UPR53 #UnitedStates #HumanRights #InternationalLaw #Accountability #TransnationalRepression #ExtraterritorialAccountability #Geneva

JPTi has published a legal review of China’s Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress in light of international human rights standards. The review does not replace legal analysis with political slogans. It asks a precise question: will “ethnic unity” be implemented as rights-protective integration, or as pressure toward involuntary assimilation? The strongest legal conclusion is safeguard-oriented. The law should not be used to suppress minority languages, religious autonomy, cultural preservation, family transmission of identity, peaceful advocacy, academic work, journalism or diaspora expression, including in relation to Uyghur communities and other ethnic minorities. The review also addresses the extraterritorial dimension of the law. Diaspora organisations, refugees, scholars, journalists, religious figures and human rights advocates should not face legal vulnerability for peaceful expression, cultural preservation, religious activity, academic work, testimony before international mechanisms or lawful criticism. The review applies a universal legal standard rather than a selective one. It compares the PRC law with other contexts where State policies on language, integration, secularism, national security, education, child protection, sanctions or public order may affect minority identity, including Indigenous assimilation policies in the United States, Canada and Australia; minority-language education reforms in Estonia and Latvia; language and religious-affiliation measures in Ukraine; secularism and overseas-territory issues in France; and self-determination concerns in Greenland and Bonaire. The review also discusses Uzbekistan as a constructive comparative example. Uzbekistan’s framework shows that promotion of a State language and national unity can coexist with visible community-based minority cultural institutions. In particular, Uyghur cultural identity has lawful and public expression through the Uyghur National Cultural Center in Tashkent and Uyghur cultural activity at regional and local levels, including Andijan. This example shows that Uyghur identity, like any minority identity, does not need to be treated as separatism, extremism or disloyalty when expressed through peaceful cultural, linguistic and community institutions. The purpose is not to equate all situations. The purpose is to apply the same legal test everywhere: States may respond to concrete unlawful conduct, but they must not treat language, religion, culture, historical memory, community association or diaspora identity as evidence of disloyalty. The core principle is simple: A State may promote unity, but it must not erase identity. Read the full review: jpti.ch/post/is-china-s-law-… #JPTi #HumanRights #InternationalHumanRightsLaw #MinorityRights #UyghurRights #DiasporaRights #IntegrationNotAssimilation #LanguageRights #CulturalRights #CulturalSurvival #FreedomOfReligionOrBelief #FreedomOfExpression #NonDiscrimination #NonRefoulement #TransnationalRepression #RuleOfLaw #DueProcess #EthnicMinorities #MinorityProtection #China #PRC #Uzbekistan #Estonia #Latvia #Ukraine #France #Greenland #Bonaire #UnitedNations #OHCHR

On 1 July 2026 in Geneva, PILF launches with the screening of “The Mandate” by Stefan G. Ziegler, a film asking a question the world cannot avoid: who acts when international law is ignored? JPTi strongly supports this initiative: jpti.ch/post/why-the-screeni… #TheMandate #PILF #FilmForLaw #InternationalLaw #RuleOfLaw #HumanRights #InternationalJustice #Multilateralism #Geneva #HRC62 #GenevaConventions #Accountability #JPTi

Religious freedom is under threat in Estonia. JPTi’s legal review addresses the 8 June 2026 Riigikohus en banc judgment in Case No. 5-25-49, which upheld the KiKoS amendments despite serious human rights concerns. Read: jpti.ch/post/religious-freed… #ReligiousFreedom #FoRB #Estonia #HumanRights #RuleOfLaw #UPR52 #HRC63 #USCIRF #KiKoS #JPTi

JPTi participated in the Third International Uyghur Forum 2026 in Berlin, where more than 200 participants discussed accountability, forced labour, family separation, transnational repression and sustainable activism. JPTi’s Executive Director Sharof Azizov (@SharofAzizov) co-facilitated Roundtable 3 with Dr. Rishat Abbas (@DrRishatAbbas). Read more: jpti.ch/post/jpti-participat… #JPTi #IUF2026 #UyghurRights #HumanRights #Accountability #EastTurkistan

youtube.com/post/UgkxgFPRZ7r… via @YouTube

JPTi has submitted a supplementary update to the UN on the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission (@zhrc365) case. The update argues that the President’s reliance on “reassignment” cannot bypass constitutional safeguards, the Paris Principles, or security of tenure protections for NHRI leadership. JPTi urges urgent international intervention to protect the ZHRC’s independence, restore Ms. Fungayi Jessie Majome (@JessieFMajome) to the full exercise of her mandate, and prevent reprisals against human rights institutions. Read more: jpti.ch/post/jpti-submits-su… #BringMajomeBack #Zimbabwe #ZHRC #NHRI #ParisPrinciples #SecurityOfTenure #UNSpecialProcedures #OHCHR #GANHRI #JPTi

On 28 May 2026, at the Rome 2026 International Ombudsman Conference, JPTi called on the UN and GANHRI to effectively protect Ombudsman institutions under pressure. Accreditation must not replace urgent action when institutions face removal, intimidation or reprisals. Read more here: jpti.ch/post/jpti-calls-on-t… #HumanRights #Ombudsman #GANHRI #UnitedNations #RuleOfLaw #CivicDefence

On 28-29 May 2026, JPTi will participate in the International Ombudsman Conference - Rome 2026, organised by the Difensore Civico della Regione Lazio, Dr Marino Fardelli (@marinofardelli), and the National Coordination of Italian Ombudsmen. JPTi will call for stronger protection of Ombudsman institutions and NHRIs, and practical safeguards in the Rome Declaration 2026. Read more: jpti.ch/post/jpti-to-partici… #Ombudsman #NHRIs #HumanRights #CivicDefence #RomeDeclaration2026 #GANHRI #OHCHR #RuleOfLaw #Accountability #JPTi

JPTi has published a public assessment on selective humanitarian concern. Western leaders and media must not allow the language of humanitarian law to become selective, including in reactions to Starobilsk and the night attack on Kyiv. Read: jpti.ch/post/selective-human… #HumanitarianLaw #IHL #GenevaConventions #CivilianProtection #HumanRights #Ukraine #Kyiv #Starobilsk #WesternMedia #Accountability #WesternLeaders #Russia #War