For the past nine months, we have been documenting pro-democracy protests around the world. As authoritarianism, corruption, conflict, and public distrust spread, people turn to protest to demand accountability and political change. By recording both the protests and the state responses they provoke, the CGFoE Protest Monitor builds an evidentiary record that supports accountability, advocacy, and scholarship.
“Governments are increasingly treating protest as a security threat—restricting assemblies, stigmatizing protesters, imposing disproportionate penalties, shutting down communications, and, in some cases, responding with violence,” said CGFoE Associate Director Dr Hawley Johnson. “As UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk recently observed, the rights to peaceful protest, expression, and information are ‘a bridge between frustration and dialogue; between aspirations and change’.”
This week, we bring an inside look at how the CGFoE Team is documenting the state of those rights globally. In this interview, Project Leads Anastasiia Vorozhtsova and Ibrahim Sabra explain the CGFoE Protest Monitor, the work that goes into it, and the emerging trends they have been noticing. “Many of the most important assembly and expression cases start on the street,” said Sabra. “The CGFoE Protest Monitor shows which legal questions are coming.”
The cases we are featuring below illustrate that link. They cover protest-related rights violations—from obstruction of protest itself and the work of journalists reporting on it to the deployment of facial recognition technology—in Georgia, Nigeria, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, and the United States. All five states have been restricting protests over the past months, which the CGFoE Protest Monitor reflects.
“One of the things that struck us as we began following protests was how difficult it was to find sustained, reliable information about them,” added Dr Johnson, noting that while major protests might make national headlines, smaller or more localized movements could disappear almost entirely from view. “Without a sustained record, it becomes difficult to appreciate the scale of public mobilization—or to see patterns in how governments are responding. The Protest Monitor is our effort to fill that gap.”
Protest against the far-right party Alternative for Germany (AfD) in Hamburg on September 12, 2026, when around 25,000 people participated. Across Germany, around 150,000 reportedly protested against the AfD that day.
Photo 1 (left): The sign says, “Never again is now.” Photo 2 (right): The sign says, “There is no difference between people and people. Hamburg remains colorful.” Protesters also hold signs “Grandmas against the right.”
United States
Accountability NOW USA v. Griess (D.D.C.)
Decision Date: June 29, 2026
A United States District Court permanently enjoined the National Park Service (NPS) from acting against an association’s demonstrations calling for President Trump’s removal. The association had brought a challenge under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution after the NPS branded two of its signs unprotected obscenity and treated a flag as a criminal threat against the President, threatening to withdraw the demonstration permit if the signs and flag were not removed. The Court held that signs accusing the President of raping a minor are not obscene, whether judged by the general standard or by the variant applicable to minors, and that the flag constituted neither a true threat nor incitement; all of the material was core political speech protected by the First Amendment, and the content-based restrictions imposed on it failed the strict scrutiny test.
European Court of Human Rights
Karchava v. Georgia
Decision Date: June 23, 2026
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that Georgia’s authorities unlawfully restricted an individual’s freedom of expression and peaceful assembly under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by interrupting his solo protest and prosecuting him for it. Psychotherapist Zurab Karchava formally notified the local police that he planned to set up a tent in a public square and initiate a hunger strike to protest the lack of free lunches in public schools in Georgia during the academic year. As he was setting up his tent, the police forcibly removed Karchava from the public square, arrested and detained him for 24 hours, and subsequently convicted him of an administrative offense. While Karchava was subject to a verbal reprimand, a considerably “insignificant” judicial penalty, the ECtHR determined that the interference was not just the minor verbal reprimand but also stemmed from how the police physically removed him from the protest site and arrested and detained him. The Court considered that these measures had a “chilling effect” and violated Article 10, read in light with Article 11, of the ECHR.
Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States
Jide v. Nigeria
Decision Date: June 22, 2026
The Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS Court) held that the Federal Republic of Nigeria violated a journalist’s right to freedom of expression by assaulting and unlawfully detaining him while he was covering a demonstration and directed the State to pay 10 million Naira (approx. USD 7400) as compensation. Journalist Oyekunle Jide was detained and assaulted by the police while covering a protest in Abuja, Nigeria, in 2024. He was detained for over 8 hours on charges of invasion of property and illegal assembly. The ECOWAS Court reiterated that freedom of expression, including freedom of the press, is a fundamental human right which is essential for democracy and the protection of human rights; however, it is not absolute and can be restricted if the State satisfies the tripartite test, which includes whether the restriction is prescribed by law. The Court relied on Amnesty International Togo v Togo and reiterated that the State bears the burden of proving that its measures were provided by law. Because the State failed to do so, the Court held that the restriction was unlawful and ruled that the Nigerian authorities violated the journalist’s right to freedom of expression under international human rights law, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR).
United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
The Case of Owen Chow Ka-shing
Decision Date: June 12, 2026
The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) held that the deprivation of liberty of Owen Chow Ka-shing by Hong Kong authorities was arbitrary and violated his rights under international human rights law, particularly his freedom of expression under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and his right to take part in public affairs under Article 25. Chow, a pro-democracy activist and nursing student, was arrested and prosecuted under Hong Kong’s National Security Law for his involvement in the July 2020 pro-democracy primaries, including drafting a political declaration, posting on social media, and advocating the use of constitutional powers to advance the protesters’ demands. The Working Group found that his detention lacked a legal basis, resulted from his exercise of freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, association, and participation in public affairs, and involved serious fair-trial violations, including prolonged pretrial detention, solitary confinement, and concerns about the tribunal’s independence and impartiality. It further found that his detention was discriminatory on the basis of his political opinions and status as a pro-democracy advocate. Concluding that his deprivation of liberty fell within categories I, II, III, and V, the Working Group called for his immediate release, compensation and other reparations, an independent investigation into the violations, and reforms to the National Security Law to bring it into conformity with international human rights obligations.
United Kingdom
R (Carlo and Thompson) v. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Decision Date: April 21, 2026
The High Court of England and Wales held that the Metropolitan Police Service’s revised policy on the overt deployment of live facial recognition technology did not violate rights under Articles 8 (right to privacy), 10 (freedom of expression), and 11 (freedom of assembly) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Shaun Thompson, a London resident, and Silkie Carlo, director of Big Brother Watch, challenged the validity of the deployment of this technology by the Met police after Thompson was matched by the system to his brother and detained. They argued that the overt deployment of biometric cameras in public spaces created an impermissible chilling effect on peaceful protestors and political demonstrators. The authorities countered that the technology is a non-intrusive, targeted crime prevention tool backed by law. The Court held that Met police’s policy not only established highly structured constraints on who is placed on a watchlist for live facial recognition and where the technology is deployed, but also considered that the policy’s mandatory three-stage proportionality assessment was a detailed, context-specific guidance that effectively eliminated the risk of arbitrary or subjective decision-making by individual police officers.
Marija Šajkaš: After monitoring protests across different countries, are you seeing any patterns in organizing and how governments respond to dissent?
Anastasiia: Preemptive measures make one concerning pattern in how states respond to protests. Ahead of May Day 2026 protests in Türkiye, the authorities detained dozens, including journalists, and blocked Istanbul’s Taksim Square—the scene of major anti-government protests earlier. This past June, Kenya sought to contain protests with a similar preemptive strategy, followed by allegations of enforced disappearance and torture in custody. Then in July, Tanzania suppressed a mass protest turnout with a ban on rallies, preemptive arrests of activists, and a large deployment of troops and police.
Ibrahim: On the organizing side, three patterns stand out. First, persistence has replaced single mass events. Serbia, Albania, Venezuela, the United States, and India’s youth-led “Cockroach” movement all show mobilization sustained over weeks or months rather than a single day of action. Second, many of these movements are youth-led, decentralized, and born online, sometimes with a satirical or meme-driven identity. Third, grievances that begin as economic or technical, such as exam leaks, power cuts, austerity or tourism development, quickly turn into demands for accountability aimed at the head of government.
Read the full interview here.
Last Wednesday, September 16, in Valletta, Malta, thousands protested after the acquittal of the alleged mastermind behind journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder. On Friday, in Washington, D.C., the US, thousands formed a human chain around the Kennedy Center over Trump’s threats to demolish it. That day in Minna, Nigeria, security forces used tear gas and opened fire at those protesting over the deaths of 37 miners in custody; violence erupted; a 24-hour curfew was imposed. On Saturday in Broadview, Illinois, the US, federal officers pepper-sprayed anti-ICE protesters. On Sunday and Monday in Austin, Texas, the US, police used pepper spray against anti-ICE protesters after an agent shot a Venezuelan man, who was in the country legally. On Sunday across France, thousands marched against the “licence to kill” police use-of-force bill; eight were arrested in Rennes. On Monday in Manila, the Philippines, some protesters were restrained at the Martial Law anniversary rally.
More protests took place over the past week. Find them using our web tool.
On September 15, across the Democratic Republic of the Congo, protesters condemned proposed constitutional changes. Police responded with a crackdown.
Background & Demands: The DR Congo’s constitution limits presidents to two five-year terms. “If the people want me to have a third term, I will accept,” President Félix Tshisekedi, due to complete his second term in 2028, said in a televised address in May. In June, the parliament passed a bill allowing constitutional amendments to be put to a referendum. Opposition parties condemned the proposal and united as “C64,” Coalition Article 64, to oppose what they argue is Tshisekedi’s attempt to remain in power. The country is battling several crises, including an ongoing Ebola outbreak and a renewed escalation of the decades-long conflict in the eastern DR Congo involving the Rwanda-backed M23 rebel group.
Significance: Hundreds reportedly participated in a multi-city day of action organized by a newly unified opposition, divided for years, despite Ebola-related restrictions on mass gatherings. C64 recorded violations in over ten cities.
State Response: Some activists were reportedly detained before the demonstration on September 15. With a large security deployment, the protest in Kinshasa started peacefully, yet clashes between protesters and government supporters erupted; police fired tear gas and warning shots. The authorities prohibited protests in Lubumbashi and Uvira, where demonstrations still took place but were dispersed. Sources conflict on the toll and arrests. C64 says party official Manassé Lomboto Bomengola died after being injured in Kinshasa, with no official confirmation of his death. Numbers of the injured range from 2 to 49; numbers of the detained range between 10 and 100.
FoE Violations: The NGO Actions for Justice, Development and Human Rights denounced “disproportionate repression” against protesters—excessive use of force, arrests, and violence—and called for independent investigations. Restrictions on free expression and assembly in the DR Congo are forming a pattern: this past June, one protester was killed and at least 38 were injured; Human Rights Watch found that security forces used excessive force and failed to protect protesters from a group linked to the ruling party.
What Has a Decade of Protests Taught Us About Art’s Power to Change the World? Politics of Visual Arts in a Changing World, a new anthology edited by former Committee on Global Thought Chair at Columbia University Vishakha Desai, brings together artists, scholars, activists, and museum professionals to examine how art has reflected and shaped our tumultuous era. Order the book, published by Columbia University Press, and get 20% off with this code: CUP20.
This newsletter is reproduced with the permission of Global Freedom of Expression. For an archive of previous newsletters, see here.