“A UN Special Procedures mandate exists to protect victims when domestic justice has failed—not to seek the consent of the State whose conduct is under scrutiny.”
25 June 2026
There is no effective domestic remedy in Eritrea. The country has no independent judiciary, no constitutional court, no free legal profession, no independent parliament, and no free press capable of exposing abuses. Although the 1997 Constitution was ratified, it has never been implemented. As a result, Eritreans who suffer arbitrary detention, torture, enforced disappearance, or other serious human rights violations have no access to justice within their own country.
Regional remedies have also failed. Victims and human rights defenders have exhausted the available mechanisms under the African human rights system by bringing cases before the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. In each case, the Commission found Eritrea responsible for serious violations of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Yet Eritrea has refused to implement any of these legally authoritative decisions.
In Communication 250/2002, Liesbeth Zegveld and Mussie Ephrem v. Eritrea, concerning the arbitrary detention of the eleven former government officials (the G-15), the African Commission found Eritrea in violation of Articles 2, 6, 7(1), and 9(2) of the African Charter, guaranteeing equality before the law, liberty, a fair trial, and freedom of expression. The Commission ordered Eritrea to release the detainees or bring them promptly before an independent court and to provide appropriate compensation. Eritrea has ignored the decision, and many of the detainees remain disappeared or are believed to have died in custody.
In Communication 275/2003, Article 19 v. Eritrea, concerning the arrest and disappearance of eighteen independent journalists following the closure of the private press in September 2001, the Commission found Eritrea in violation of Articles 1, 5, 6, 7(1), 9 and 18 of the African Charter, including the rights to liberty, freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, a fair trial, freedom of expression, and protection of the family. The Commission ordered Eritrea to release the journalists or bring them before an independent court, permit access to lawyers and family members, compensate the victims, and restore respect for press freedom. Eritrea has refused to comply.
In Communication 428/2012, Dawit Isaak v. Eritrea, the African Commission reaffirmed that Eritrea continued to violate Articles 1, 5, 6, 7(1), 9 and 18 of the African Charter by continuing to detain journalist Dawit Isaak incommunicado without charge or trial. The Commission again ordered Eritrea to release him or provide him with a prompt and fair trial, allow access to his family and legal representatives, and provide reparations. Eritrea has ignored this decision as well.
Together, these three decisions demonstrate that victims have exhausted the available regional remedies. They also establish a consistent pattern of Eritrea’s non-compliance with its obligations under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. By refusing to implement the African Commission’s decisions, Eritrea has undermined not only the rights of the victims but also the authority, effectiveness, and credibility of Africa’s own regional human rights system.
The question before Member States is not whether Eritrea welcomes international scrutiny. It is whether the circumstances that justified the establishment of the mandate have changed. They have not. There are still no effective domestic remedies, regional decisions remain unimplemented, victims continue to suffer grave human rights violations, and Eritrea continues to refuse cooperation with international human rights mechanisms. The reasons for establishing the mandate remain the reasons for renewing it today.
Faced with the complete absence of domestic remedies and the failure of regional mechanisms to secure compliance, Human Rights Concern–Eritrea (HRCE), together with other international organisations, brought the human rights situation in Eritrea to the attention of the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2008. In response, the Council established the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Eritrea in 2012. Recognising the gravity and systematic nature of the violations, it established the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in Eritrea in 2014. In 2016, the Commission of Inquiry concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe that crimes against humanity had been committed in Eritrea since 1991.
Rather than cooperating with these independent mechanisms, Eritrea has consistently refused them access to the country, rejected their findings, ignored their recommendations, and failed to implement even the recommendations it voluntarily accepted during four cycles of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). More than a decade after the establishment of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate, the human rights situation remains fundamentally unchanged.
Today, it is estimated that more than 10,000 prisoners of conscience remain in Eritrea’s extensive network of prisons and detention facilities. They include journalists, persons detained because of their religion or belief, former government officials, political prisoners, national service conscripts, and ordinary citizens whose only “crime” was peacefully exercising their fundamental rights. Most have never been charged or brought before a court. Many have disappeared without trace. Reports of torture, inhuman treatment, deaths in custody, enforced disappearances, and indefinite detention continue to emerge.
Despite this continuing situation, the Eritrean Government now calls for the termination of the Human Rights Council’s only remaining country-specific mandate, arguing that it is “politicised” and that it was established without Eritrea’s consent. These arguments cannot withstand scrutiny.
If the establishment of a United Nations Special Procedures mandate depended upon the consent of the State under scrutiny, no country-specific mandate would ever exist. Governments accused of serious human rights violations would simply refuse consent, leaving victims without any effective international protection. The mandate on Eritrea was established through a lawful decision of the Human Rights Council because there were no effective domestic remedies, regional remedies had been exhausted and ignored, and there was credible evidence of widespread and systematic human rights violations.
Membership of both the United Nations and the African Union carries responsibilities as well as rights. Under the Charter of the United Nations, Member States pledge to promote universal respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Likewise, the Constitutive Act of the African Union commits every Member State to promote democratic principles, the rule of law, good governance, and the protection of human and peoples’ rights in accordance with the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. These are not optional political aspirations; they are legal commitments voluntarily undertaken by every Member State.
The primary purpose of government is to serve its people by protecting their lives, dignity, rights, and welfare through the rule of law. No government owns its citizens. The people of Eritrea are not the property of the State. They are rights holders under international law, entitled to life, liberty, dignity, justice, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of movement, participation in public affairs, and protection from arbitrary detention, torture, enforced disappearance, and other grave human rights violations.
When a government systematically violates these rights while refusing domestic justice, rejecting regional decisions, obstructing international mechanisms, and denying accountability, the international community cannot remain silent. The responsibility of United Nations Member States and African Union Member States is not to shield governments from scrutiny but to uphold the principles they have solemnly pledged to defend. Renewing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur is therefore not an act of political hostility towards Eritrea. It is an affirmation that victims matter, that accountability matters, and that the promises contained in the UN Charter, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the Constitutive Act of the African Union apply equally to every Member State.
The people of Eritrea deserve what every human being deserves: freedom, justice, dignity, peace, and a government that governs with the consent of the people and in accordance with the rule of law. Until prisoners of conscience are released, the disappeared are accounted for, perpetrators are held accountable, constitutional government and the rule of law are restored, and meaningful reforms are implemented. The international community has both a moral duty and a collective responsibility to maintain independent scrutiny through the mandate of the Special Rapporteur until there is clear, measurable, and irreversible progress in the protection of human rights in Eritrea.
Human Rights Concern – Eritrea (HRCE)
