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.
“Arshad Sharif was threatened in Pakistan, charged in 16 fabricated cases, and his show was taken off the air,” journalist and activist Javeria Siddique told CGFoE about her late husband, a prominent Pakistani journalist, fatally shot while in exile in Kenya in October 2022. “Why are those responsible for hatching his murder still free?”
This Tuesday, February 3, Pakistan’s Federal Constitutional Court disposed of the case concerning Sharif’s murder—without a thorough investigation. The Court held that, in light of the Kenya-Pakistan law-enforcement cooperation on the matter, there was “no need for any judicial interference.” “I am in extreme grief and disappointed,” Javeria Siddique told CGFoE.
For the past four years, Siddique has been pursuing justice for the death of Sharif relentlessly: through legal action—in two courts, in two countries—and public advocacy. In 2024, the High Court of Kenya found the journalist’s killing unlawful and condemned the authorities’ failure to conduct a timely and independent investigation.
In this week’s Jurisprudence in Focus, CGFoE Senior Communications Manager Marija Šajkaš asks Javeria Siddique about her tenacious cross-border fight for justice and the backlash—targeted harassment, both online and in real life—she has faced for speaking out. Below is an abridged excerpt. Find the full version on our website.
Journalist Javeria Siddique and her late husband Arshad Sharif, a prominent Pakistani journalist, fatally shot while in exile in Kenya. Siddique has been fighting for justice in his case in the courts of Pakistan and Kenya. Photo: courtesy of Javeria Siddique
Marija Šajkaš: In seeking accountability for Arshad Sharif’s killing, you have had to engage with two very different legal systems. What were the most significant differences in how the cases were handled? How did those differences shape your pursuit of justice?
Javeria Siddique: In Pakistan, I’ve faced significant restrictions, like not being allowed to take my phone inside the Supreme Court, undergoing body and bag searches, and having my identity card taken away, which made me anxious. I’ve been treated more like a suspect than a victim and denied permission to speak multiple times, despite being the victim’s spouse. The court always gave more time to the government. In addition, I always felt that the state lawyers were representing the Kenyan government, as opposed to their own citizen, Arshad Sharif, who was killed on foreign soil.
In contrast, in Kenya, the judge allowed me to speak, and I cried, feeling heard for the first time in years. I’ve attended meetings online, and the judge has listened to me during the one-year hearing. The Kenyan High Court ruled the killing was targeted murder, not due to mistaken identity, and the case is now in front of the Supreme Court. This difference in treatment has shaped my pursuit of justice—I’ve felt more supported in Kenya, while in Pakistan it’s been a struggle to maintain dignity and a voice.
Read the full interview here.
Mexico
Kaiser v. Ramírez
Decision Date: August 7, 2025
The Sixteenth Collegiate Tribunal for Administrative Matters of the First Circuit of Mexico City held that remarks made about journalist and political commentator Max Kaiser Aranda during the federal government’s morning press conferences infringed his fundamental rights to honor, privacy, and intimacy. The case arose from statements made in President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s daily morning briefings and disseminated through the administration’s official YouTube channel and other social media platforms. The Tribunal noted that the videos contained disparaging characterizations and public accusations directed at Kaiser in retaliation for his critical commentary on federal policy. Kaiser filed an amparo petition asserting that the officials’ conduct and omissions both violated his constitutional rights and generated a chilling effect on his speech. Recasting the dispute as a conflict between the State’s duty to inform and an individual’s rights to dignity and private life, the Tribunal applied the standards articulated by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, which require that official communications be of public relevance, truthful, and objectively impartial. Finding these conditions unmet, the Tribunal granted relief, ordered the removal of the videos from official platforms, and instructed public officials to refrain from making similar references in future broadcasts.
Colombia
ANDI v. Petro
Decision Date: July 11, 2025
The Council of State of Colombia held that President Gustavo Petro’s public statements on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter), in which he accused the National Business Association of Colombia (ANDI) of defending “ethnic hatred” and “slavery,” did not violate the association’s constitutional rights to honor and reputation. The ANDI filed a tutela (an application for the protection of constitutional rights) in response to these statements—which the President also directed to specific members of the Antioquia Business Group and the directors of El Colombiano (a Colombian newspaper). The Council reviewed only the expressions directed specifically at the ANDI. It concluded that the terms “ethnic hatred” and “slavery” were hyperbolic expressions used in a polarized political debate to describe the ANDI’s opposition to the government. According to the Tribunal, they were not factual allegations or criminal accusations. Although the Council acknowledged the influence and weight of presidential speech, it found no evidence that the comments caused actual harm to the ANDI’s honor or reputation. Accordingly, the Council of State denied the tutela.
Costa Rica
Ureña v. Chaves
Decision Date: May 23, 2023
The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica held that language used by President Rodrigo Chaves Robles, and then Minister of Health Joselyn Chacón Madrigal, during the January 9, 2023, press conference violated journalist Jason Ureña’s freedom of expression. During the press conference, the officials referred indirectly to Ureña and other journalists using derogatory terms, portraying him as a member “of a band of criminals and political hitmen,” among others. Ureña filed an amparo action, arguing that this stigmatizing language—delivered on an official platform in response to reporting that scrutinized the Minister’s performance in office—constituted an indirect restriction on press freedom by creating a chilling effect. While the Court recognized that public officials may respond, even vehemently, to criticism—and concluded that a large portion of the challenged remarks did not amount to direct or indirect censorship—, it found that certain offensive labels exceeded the bounds of democratic debate, discredited journalistic work, and constituted a reproachable use of official speech that injured freedom of the press and adversely affected access to public information. Accordingly, the Court partially granted the amparo as it did not award monetary compensation at this instance. Nonetheless, it expressly preserved Ureña’s right to pursue claims for damages through ordinary judicial proceedings.
CGFoE thanks Maria Antonia Cohen, Project Coordinator for the UNESCO Chair on Freedom of Expression at Universidad de Los Andes, for her indispensable contribution to the case analyses.
● Pakistan: Human Rights Lawyers Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha Imprisoned. Amnesty International demands the release of prominent Pakistani human rights lawyers Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha, who received ten-year prison sentences on January 24. The charges against them are “cyber terrorism” and “false information” under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, based on their social media posts in support of Baloch and Pashtun activists and in disapproval of the Pakistan military. Amnesty underscores multiple violations of the lawyers’ rights during the trial, including the consistent denial of “the right to cross-examine witnesses and bring evidence against them.” On February 4, UN experts condemned the lawyers’ conviction, stressing violations of international standards.
● Pakistan: Blatant Legal Persecution of Journalist Sohrab Barkat. In another case involving baseless accusations under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, journalist Sohrab Barkat has been behind bars since his arrest in November 2025. Demanding his release, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) states that the multiple charges Barkat is facing—“hate speech”, “defamation,” “cyberharassment,” “cyberterrorism”, “false information”—are linked to his criticism of the authorities, as well as his coverage of protests in Kashmir and human rights activist Mahrang Baloch’s nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize. Barkat’s most recent bail hearing has been repeatedly postponed, “arbitrarily extending his deprivation of liberty,” notes RSF. More on journalists in Pakistan today: IFEX cites recurring attacks on reporters during political rallies.
● Pakistan: Transnational Repression Escalates. The Committee to Protect Journalists traces Pakistan’s surging use of in absentia convictions and arrest warrants against journalists living abroad. This January alone, four Pakistani journalists and commentators based overseas—Sabir Shakir, Shaheen Sehbai, Wajahat Saeed Khan, and Moeed Pirzada—were convicted and given life sentences for allegedly “inciting violence during the 2023 protests and spreading hatred against state institutions.” In another case, ARTICLE 19 urges the UK to urgently ensure the safety of Roshaan Khattak, Pakistani filmmaker, human rights activist, and researcher at the University of Cambridge, who has been receiving direct threats. Shahzad Akbar, another Pakistani dissident, was recently physically attacked in Cambridge.
Under the cover of an internet blackout, the Iranian regime carried out the deadliest crackdown on protests in the history of the Islamic Republic. Reports of the bloodshed point to fatalities possibly as high as 30,000. Despite being forced into silence, many Iranians have shown defiance and turned funerals of protesters into a form of dissent.
Demands: Having begun with bazaaries protesting as the national currency collapsed, the discontent spread to all of Iran’s 31 provinces and grew to voice longstanding frustrations with corruption, poor governance, and repression.
State response: In what appeared as a sign for security forces to suppress the protests, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said, “Rioters must be put in their place,” on January 3. The imposition of a nationwide internet shutdown on January 8 preceded the escalation: the security forces used lethal force, including close-range gunshots, killing thousands. Even the state TV acknowledged the mass deaths, broadcasting morgue scenes; still, the regime set out to obscure the true scale of violence, extorting large sums of money out of the grieving families and ordering “subdued” burials. Mass arrests have totaled at least 50,842 as of February 4. Internet disruptions are still in place.
Toll: “Everyone seemed to know someone who had been shot at or injured or killed,” Salar Abdoh wrote about the aftermath of January 8-9 for Equator. Human Rights Activists News Agency has confirmed 6,883 deaths, while 11,280 remain under review.
Resistance: Some Iranians have carried their protest—or a form of it—to the funerals of those killed: there have been reports of festive music and dancing during burials, in celebration of the protesters and in defiance of the ruling Islamic regime.
Gross Human Rights Violations: The internet shutdown obscures the evidence of likely crimes against humanity; nevertheless, the UN Fact-Finding Mission has gathered witness and victim accounts of “unnecessary and disproportionate use of force, resulting in arbitrary killings and severe injuries, torture, sexual and gender-based violence, arbitrary arrest and detention, and forced confessions.”
● Call for Applications: 2026 Sakharov Fellowship. Up to 14 human rights defenders from non-EU countries will be selected for intensive training on June 7-20, 2026. Apply by February 15 here.
● Call for Applications: re:constitution Fellowships 2026/27. 15 fellowships related to democracy and the rule of law in Europe will be awarded to early-/mid-career scholars and practitioners. Apply by March 5 here.
This newsletter is reproduced with the permission of Global Freedom of Expression. For an archive of previous newsletters, see here.
Leave a Reply