Mr. President, dear Members of the FFM, 

It is difficult to describe Sudan’s tragedy with words. Two and a half years after the current conflict star­ted, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and their allied for­ces con­tinue to show utter disregard for international law. Your report details a litany of atrocities, inclu­ding sexual and ethnic-based attacks, some of which constitute crimes under international law. Tho­se responsible have forfeited any role in shaping Sudan’s future.

All efforts must be directed at stopping the fighting, protecting civilians, and centering accounta­bi­li­ty and justice. These objectives are not mutually incompatible; they rein­force each other. 

Mr. President,

Over 100 civil society organisations have urged states to support a man­date extension for the FFM to allow it to continue collecting and preserving evi­dence and identifying tho­se responsible. Beyond our call for a two-year extension, we highlight avenues to en­hance global atten­tion to Su­dan and advance the accountability agenda — through both enhanced interactive dialogues and mobilisation of the Ge­ne­ral Assembly and Security Council.

Irrespective of the next resolution’s details, the bottom line is we need an ambitious UN response.

To help end this conflict, the warring parties, who are inflicting this misery on the Sudanese people, must be held accountable. We urge states to listen to victims’ and survivors’ voices, meet with Suda­nese human rights defenders present in Geneva this week, and do the right thing by voting ‘Yes’ on the FFM’s mandate extension. 

Thank you. 

PDF version

Link to video recording of the debate 

Mr. President, Mr. High Commissioner, 

We remain deeply concerned about the human rights situation in Ethiopia. Multiple armed conflicts are raging across the country, with civilians and aid workers paying the price. As grie­vances related to previous rounds of violence and internal displacement remain unaddressed, aggressive rhetoric, including by Prime Minister Abiy, increases the tensions.

Meanwhile, the transitional jus­tice process has effectively been stalled. This shows the utter dere­lic­tion of duty by national institutions in delivering justice and accountability.

The run-up to 2026 elections is marked by instability and insecurity, as the crackdown on civic space is reaching systemic closure levels. Because of risks for their physical integrity, journa­lists, acade­mics, and human rights defenders (HRDs) are forced to leave the country. A proposed re­vi­sion of the Civil Society Proclamation, which would grant the state sweeping powers to intervene in NGOs’ inter­nal affairs, is of utmost concern as it would annihilate the very concept of civil society.

In 2023, this Council gave Ethiopia the benefit of the doubt. Now, there is no doubt anymore. Ending the mandate of the International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia (ICHREE) was a mis­take. Collective action on Ethiopia, leading to a new resolution, is needed. 

Mr. President,

In Tanzania, we reiterate our condemnation of the treatment meted out to observers who tra­velled to the country to attend a court hearing. To date, and despite the commitment expressed by H.E. the Ambas­sa­dor of the United Republic of Tanzania in a right of reply to a statement we delivered at the last ses­sion, there have been no investigations into allegations of torture and sexual abu­se against Ugandan journalist Agather Atu­haire and Kenyan acti­vist Boniface Mwangi. Nor has any report been pub­lished on enforced disappearances in the country.

We join our voice to that of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), which in a resolution (ACHPR/Res. 640 (LXXXIV) 2025) expressed concern over a range of violations and called on authorities to investigate, prosecute those responsible, protect civil so­cie­ty actors, and cre­ate con­ducive conditions for peaceful, free, fair and transparent elections. We urge both states and the High Commissioner to pay close attention to developments in Tanzania. 

Thank you. 

PDF version

Link to video recording of the debate / end 

[Statement delivered in French] 

Mr. President, Mr. Special Rapporteur, 

This session marks ten years since the Council’s first meaningful response to the crisis that erupted in 2015. It is the last session before the tenth anniversary of the Special Session on Burundi (17 Dec­ember 2015).

Ten years on, risk factors of atrocity crimes remain present. Serious violations continue with wide­spread impunity. They include extra­judicial exe­cutions, enfor­ced disappearances, arbitrary arrests, tor­tu­re, sexual and gender-based vio­lence, severe restrictions on civic space, and violations of eco­nomic, social and cultural rights. National institutions are unable and unwilling to address these vio­lations. The CNI­DH’s lack of inde­pendence is a stain on the repu­ta­tion of GANHRI and other A-status accredited NHRIs. It should be downgraded to B-status.

UN experts recently raised the alarm about an increase in serious human rights violations and elec­tion violence. In its own letter, civil society warned that, as a long elec­toral cycle has opened and the ruling CNDD-FDD party has closed avenues for pea­ce­ful transition through free and fair elections, there are actually more, not fewer, concerns than one year ago.

In this context, inter­national scrutiny remains vital. We urge the Council to extend the Spe­cial Rap­por­teur’s man­date.

Mr. President, 

There is no “conspiracy” against Burundi. Many of us, civil society actors, have been in exile for ten years. We have not chosen this life but have been forced to live away from our country, because of the weaponisation of the judiciary against independent voices as well as risks to our safety. 

Mr. Zongo:

You have our full support. How can Burundi’s membership obliga­tions be leveraged to push autho­rities to resu­me their cooperation with the Council’s mecha­nisms?

Thank you. 

PDF version (French + English)

Link to video recording of the debate

[Statement delivered in French] 

Mr. President,

We reiterate the need for this Council to correct the mistake it made by ending the mandate of the International Commission of Human Rights Ex­perts on Ethiopia (ICHREE). Ethiopia being absent from the Council’s agenda is an anomaly.

We are alarmed by the volatile situation in South Sudan. The Council should stand ready to respond to any developments.

Mr. President,

We are deeply concerned about the situation in Tunisia, where Sherifa Riahi and other human rights and migrants’ rights defenders are arbitrarily detained or harassed. At this point, we are not talking about backsliding anymore: attacks against the rule of law, checks and balances, and independent voices are pointing to the country’s full regression into authoritarianism. Tunisia’s diplomatic part­ners should urgently re-prioritise human rights in their bilateral relations.

We urge the Council and regional mechanisms to pay close attention to human rights in the Sahel region, in particular Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger. In the first two, civilians are trapped in a spiral of violence and instability. They can legitimately expect that authorities uphold their human rights obli­gations instead of blaming all issues on terrorism or foreign powers and enabling abuses by Rus­sian mercenaries.

Finally, Mr. President,

We condemn the disproportionate use of force, including lethal force, against protesters in Mozam­bique, in relation to the 2024 election results, and in Togo, in relation to recent consti­tu­tional chan­ges. We urge independent, impartial, and effective investigations into all those sus­pec­ted of having per­petrated violations, irrespective of their rank, affiliation or status, and up the chain of command.

Thank you. 

PDF version

Link to video recording of the debate 

[Statement delivered in French] 

Mr. President, Madam Assistant Secretary-General, 

We welcome the Secretary-General’s report, but once again have to publicly express regret over the disappearance of unresolved cases. Removing these cases from the report rewards offenders and sends the wrong mes­sa­ge. Me­tho­do­lo­gical constraints should be addressed to avoid a situation in which cases of ongoing reprisals disappear from public reporting.

In this regard, we remain deeply concerned about the safety and well-being of Kadar Abdi Ibrahim in Djibouti. In April 2018, Kadar parti­ci­pated in Uni­ver­sal Periodic Review (UPR) pre-sessions – one of the only opportunities to draw attention to Djibouti’s human rights situation – and paid a heavy price for it. For seven years, he has been without a passport, which means that he is subjected to a de facto travel ban outside due process. This travesty must stop.

Mr. President,

We condemn reprisals exercised by Algeria, Burundi, Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Egypt, and Sudan.

Last, Mr. President, we take the opportunity of this debate to denounce the pattern of restrictions civil society faces at the UN Office at Geneva (UNOG), including to access the Palais. It is not NGOs – and certainly not those who support human rights defenders in interacting with, and providing infor­mation to, UN bodies – that pose a security threat, but rather states that engage in inti­mi­dation and reprisals, including through transnational repression.

Thank you for your attention. 

PDF version

Link to video recording of the debate 

[Video statement] 

Mr. President, 

We welcome Kenya’s acceptance of 233 out of the 339 recom­men­dations it received du­ring its fourth UPR review, but we flag that this rate of acceptance (69%) is mediocre. Kenya noted recom­men­da­tions offered by states from all regional groups, inclu­ding on ratifying international instruments, such as the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from En­forced Disappearance. We regret Kenya’s refusal to accept a recommendation on “[adop­ting] com­pre­hen­sive anti-discri­mi­na­tion legislation, covering all its forms, including those based on economic status or disability” (no. 56.50, offered by Cameroon).

On the positive side, we welcome the government’s acceptance of recommendations pertaining to:

• Investigations. These include recommendations to “investigate allegations of extrajudicial exe­cu­tions, enforced disappearances and excessive use of force by security agents” (54.27, offered by Colombia) and “conduct impartial and effective investigations into the exces­sive use of for­ce against protesters and bring those responsible to justice” (54.44, offered by Swit­zerland).
• Civic space. These include recommendations on “[bringing] legislation and practices gover­ning peaceful assembly into full conformity with the [ICCPR]” (54.68, offered by Montenegro) and “[res­pecting] the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly and [taking] con­crete mea­sures to protect those exercising these rights, including human rights defenders, from phy­si­cal attacks, harassment and intimidation by police” (54.61, offered by Norway).

We are concerned, however, about the disconnect between the official dis­course and the practice. When we examine details of the government’s replies, we understand that it prioritised broad, vague recommendations over specific, action-oriented, measurable ones. To take two examples: the gov­ern­ment noted a recommendation (no. 56.68, offered by Sweden) to “establish an independent me­cha­nism to in­ves­tigate violence against peaceful protestors, disappearances and abductions with a view to hold­ing those responsible to account.” It also refused to “fully implement the National Co­ro­ners Service Act 2017 to provide a framework for addressing enforced disappearances and holding perpetrators accountable” (recommendation no. 56.73, offered by the Netherlands).

This leads us to question the authorities’ commitment to ensuring full accountability. In a context in which June 2024 protests against a Finance Bill, protests that took place a year later, as well as “Saba Saba” protests, were met with brutal force, resulting in dozens of killings and the use of terrorism-related offences against protesters under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2012, this is of utmost con­cern – all the more since impunity for these acts remains complete.

Kenya’s membership in the Human Rights Council should be an opportunity not only to reconsider its position on rejected UPR recommendations, but also, and more fundamentally, to change course and uphold its citizens’ rights.

Thank you for your attention. 

PDF version

Link to video recording of the debate / end 

[Video statement] 

Mr. President, Madam Independent Expert, 

We thank you for your report. We salute your work in support of the Somali people and government. This mandate is one of the longest standing. We acknowledge Somalia’s cooperation with the Coun­cil and its mecha­nisms and the government’s will to move on to another approach.

However, we stress the ongoing need for scrutiny, including through public reporting and debates. In this sense, the move away from a special procedure cannot be considered to be a “graduation” that reflects a clear improvement in the situation or in the government’s service delivery to its population. We take note of the mandate’s termination and resolution’ bi-annualization, and thank Madam Dyfan and her predecessors for their work, in difficult conditions, with minimal support (with not even one full-time Human Rights Officer).

We are concerned about the widespread insecurity and ongoing grave violations in the country. We condemn abuses by terrorist group Al Shabaab, including attacks against human rights defenders and journalists, but also viola­tions by authorities, including harassment of independent actors by the National Intelligence and Security Agency (NISA). We urge all actors to urgently address the appalling situation for women and girls. 

Mr. President,

We call on OHCHR to transparently and comprehensively report on Soma­lia’s human rights situa­tion. This may include a call, if and when necessary, for the re-establishment of a multilaterally-man­dated mechanism.

We stress the need to strengthen the National Independent Human Rights Commission. 

Madam Dyfan:

How can we ensure that the mandate’s legacy will be preserved? How can work on benchmarks and indicators continue? 

Thank you. 

PDF version

Link to video recording of the debate