Columbia Global Freedom of Expression seeks to contribute to the development of an integrated and progressive jurisprudence and understanding on freedom of expression and information around the world.  It maintains an extensive database of international case law. This is its newsletter dealing with recent developments  in the field.

In November 2025, our colleague Anderson J. Dirocie De León, CGFoE’s Senior Legal & Policy Consultant, made history in the Dominican Republic. Together with constitutional law specialist Patricia M. Santana Nina, he led a legal challenge that culminated in a landmark ruling by the Constitutional Court, protecting LGBTI rights and advancing equality.

“Backlash is often a sign that a structural barrier is being challenged,” Santana Nina, the first female lawyer promoting strategic litigation for the defense of human rights in the Dominican Republic, told CGFoE. With resistance from conservative and religious groups mounting, the Court’s decision laid bare the country’s deep-seated social and institutional anti-LGBTI discrimination.

This week, in an interview opening our new Jurisprudence in Focus series— conversations with legal professionals on significant court rulings—we asked Anderson J. Dirocie De León and Patricia M. Santana Nina to reflect on their legal challenge, the backlash it faced, and the renewed hope it offers in the ongoing struggle for LGBTI rights. Below is an abridged excerpt. Read the full interview on our website.

Anderson J. Dirocie De León is a human rights lawyer, legal scholar, and Senior Legal & Policy Consultant at CGFoE. Patricia M. Santana Nina is a constitutional law specialist, human rights defender, and member of the Advisory Council of the Ibero-American Network of Women Mediators. Photo: Dirocie De León and Santana Nina on the day of the hearing.

CGFoE: Following the ruling, what kinds of reactions did the two of you encounter?

Anderson & Patricia: We received strong support from everyone within the legal community who recognized the decision as a historical milestone and a long-overdue affirmation of constitutional equality and human dignity. For many, the ruling represented a symbolic break with decades of institutionalized discrimination.

We also faced a coordinated backlash from conservative and religious sectors, as well as from some actors within the police and the military. This included public narratives framing the decision as a threat to discipline, morality, or national security, and, more concerningly, statements by senior officials suggesting they would continue applying internal disciplinary codes despite the ruling.

Finally, we observed attempts to reduce the scope of the judgement to a “moral debate” rather than a constitutional matter and instill fear among judges and public servants about the consequences of enforcing the decision, confirming that criminalization was not merely a legal rule, but a mechanism for maintaining exclusion through stigma and institutional power.

Read the full interview here. To learn more about the judgment, see this backgrounder.

United Nations Human Rights Committee
Pernalete López v. Venezuela
Decision Date: March 18, 2025
The United Nations Human Rights Committee held that Venezuela violated the procedural dimension of the right to life of Juan Pablo Pernalete Llovera by failing to carry out an effective investigation into his death, which occurred during a protest in Caracas, Venezuela, in April 2017. Juan Pablo, a 20-year-old university student, died after being struck by a tear gas canister fired by an agent of the Bolivarian National Guard while he was participating in mass protests calling for the restoration of democratic order. His parents alleged that the use of force was disproportionate and that, thereafter, the authorities obstructed the criminal investigation. Venezuela argued that the protests had not been peaceful and that the use of force had been proportionate. Although the Committee declared the substantive allegations concerning freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly inadmissible due to inconsistencies in the petitioners’ account, it concluded that, after almost eight years of proceedings without an effective judicial response, Venezuela had failed to comply with its procedural obligations under Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Accordingly, the Committee ordered the State to proceed without delay with an exhaustive, independent, and impartial investigation and to sanction those responsible if their culpability were established.

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
Maria Corina Machado v. Venezuela on precautionary measures
Decision Date: November 5, 2024
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights ruled that conditions of seriousness, urgency, and risk of irreparable harm continued to exist in Venezuela, justifying the maintenance and strengthening of precautionary measures in favor of María Corina Machado. Ms. Machado argued that her prominence as an opposition leader, along with her public denunciations and political mobilization efforts, exposed her to an increasingly serious risk to her life and personal integrity. She cited threats, harassment, surveillance, attacks, sabotage, and a broader context of potential criminalization—including domestic rulings disqualifying her from political participation and announcements of criminal investigations—which, she contended, forced her to adopt private security measures and eventually go into hiding. Venezuela failed to respond to the Commission’s requests and did not comply with previously ordered precautionary measures. The Commission emphasized the country’s weakened rule of law and ongoing patterns of persecution and stigmatization against dissenting voices. It also noted that the risks faced by Ms. Machado intensified following the 2024 electoral process, with potential chilling effects on the opposition and public debate. Consequently, the Commission required the State to adopt measures to protect Ms. Machado’s life and personal integrity; ensure she can continue participating in political life free from threats, harassment, or violence; agree on the necessary measures with her and her representatives; and investigate the reported incidents with due diligence, including examining possible involvement of State agents.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Capriles v. Venezuela
Decision Date: October 10, 2024
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) held that Venezuela violated Henrique Capriles’s right to freedom of expression during the 2013 presidential elections, where state dominated public media coverage overwhelmingly favored Nicolás Maduro and Capriles received minimal, predominantly negative exposure. After Capriles denounced the misuse of state resources and sought a broader audit of the vote, the National Electoral Council rejected his request, and the Supreme Court declared his challenge inadmissible, fined him, and referred him for possible criminal prosecution. Mr. Capriles filed a petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), which later submitted the case to the IACtHR. The Inter American Court held that democratic elections require an equitable informational environment and that the right to freedom of expression reinforces States’ obligations to ensure fair access to public media and to protect the electorate’s right to receive information. It also held that the State’s conduct impaired Capriles’s opportunity to present his proposals and voters’ access to diverse information and viewpoints. It further maintained that the fine lacked legal clarity and a justification, and that resorting to criminal law to protect the honor of public officials entailed a risk of intimidation and a chilling effect, in violation of Capriles’ right to freedom of expression. The Court ordered the annulment and reimbursement of the fine, compensation, and structural guarantees of non-repetition to prevent the abuse of State resources and public media and to strengthen independent electoral and judicial oversight.

At CGFoE, we are always seeking new judicial decisions to include in our database. If you are aware of a case that would be a strong fit and have access to the relevant legal documents, we invite you to get in touch with us at globalfreespeech@columbia.edu. The CGFoE Team will review all submissions.

● IACHR: Concern over Armed Incursion in Venezuela, Call for Respect for International Law and End of Repression. Responding to the United States’ recent “armed raid” into Venezuela, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) urges full respect for international law. Underscoring its 25-year-long documentation of Venezuela’s grave human rights record, the Commission points to the country’s further shrinking civic space, worsened by, most recently, the detention of journalists, armed groups patrolling the cities, and the enactment of Decree No. 5,200, which establishes severe restrictions on speech through “provisions authorizing the search for and detention of persons accused of promoting or supporting the events.”

“The erosion of Venezuela’s democratic system can clearly be traced through the Venezuelan cases incorporated into our database, from Ríos (2009) to López (2025). The three analyses featured this week bring the trend into sharper relief, focusing on the state’s information manipulation, persecution of opposition leaders, and the suppression of protests,” Lautaro Furfaro, Senior Legal Researcher at CGFoE 

● Venezuela: UN Fact-Finding Mission on Release of Political Prisoners. The UN Venezuela Fact-Finding Mission welcomes the recent release of political prisoners but notes that the state still fails to meet its international human rights obligations. Only 50 political prisoners—out of around 800—seem to have been released, while reports indicate new detentions based on political opinions. The Mission demands that the Venezuelan authorities end their systematic use of arbitrary detention as a tool of oppression and prioritize transparency: “Public information must be provided on plans for further releases, including the criteria applied, timelines, and numbers.”

● Venezuela: After Maduro’s Ouster, Press Braces for Renewed Repression, by Silvia Higuera. LatAm Journalism Review reports on the fears of journalists in Venezuela that the state’s crackdown on the press will only intensify. At least 16 media workers were detained in the days following the United States’ military operation; one of them, Luis Carlos Vélez of Univision Noticias, publicly alleged that he and his team had their phones searched and journalistic footage erased by the Venezuelan authorities. “These detentions reflect an effort to intimidate the press and block independent reporting,” José Carlos Zamora of the Committee to Protect Journalists told Silvia Higuera.

Uganda: November 2025—ongoing

This Thursday, January 15, Uganda holds a presidential election in a restrictive climate as President Yoweri Museveni seeks to extend his 40-year rule. Election-related rallies have been targeted with repression and intimidation.

Demands: The rallies of the past months have expressed support for the opposition party, the National Unity Platform (NUP), and its presidential candidate, Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu, better known as Bobi Wine.

Background: At the time of the 2021 election in Uganda, more than 50 people were killed, and hundreds of Bobi Wine supporters were arrested at spontaneous protests in Kampala. In early January 2026, Bobi Wine warned that he would call for mass protests if President Museveni were to steal this year’s election.

State response: Over 400 people have been arrested for participating in the NUP’s recent rallies, during which security officers used disproportionate force; some protesters have reported being tortured while in detention. In the days before the election, the authorities banned “live broadcasting of riots,” deployed the military to the capital, suspended the work of several press freedom groups, and imposed an internet shutdown.

Toll: At least one attendee of an opposition rally, Miseach Okello, died due to what appeared to have been the unlawful use of force.

FoE Violations: Amnesty International has condemned Uganda’s brutal suppression of the right to freedom of association and peaceful assembly through excessive force, arbitrary arrests, torture, and other ill-treatment. Reporters Without Borders has called on the authorities to restore internet access and guarantee journalists’ right to report.

● Nothing Is Secure, by Maddy Crowell. Columbia Journalism Review covers the case of Hannah Natanson, a Washington Post journalist who reported on current and former federal workers (and has recently been in touch with nearly 1,200 sources). On January 14, the FBI searched Natanson’s home and seized her devices. Discussing this latest escalation in the targeting of the press by the Trump administration, Maddy Crowell speaks to digital security expert Runa Sandvik.

● European Media Freedom Act: Can it Stop the Democratic Backsliding?, by Gemma Horton and Antonia Assersen-Skadberg. Published in the Journal of Media Law, this article unpacks the European Media Freedom Act’s promise to safeguard media freedom across Europe, asking: Amid autocratic threats and rapid spread of disinformation, is the Act robust enough to protect journalists and their sources?

● Calls for Nominations:

– Front Line Defenders 2026 Award for Human Rights Defenders at Risk—send your submissions by January 23.

– The 2026 ICFJ Knight International Journalism Award—the International Center for Journalists welcomes nominations by February 8.

This newsletter is reproduced with the permission of Global Freedom of Expression.  For an archive of previous newsletters, see here.