Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1345

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1345

Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1346

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1346

Notice: Undefined index: et_template in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1347

SOUTH KOREA: Objection to military service to be on the U.N. agenda

SOUTH KOREA: Conscientious objection to military service to be on the agenda of the United Nations

HRWF (24.01.2023) – On 26 January, the human rights record of the Republic of Korea will be examined by the United Nations in the framework of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). The NGO “Conscience and Peace Tax International” filed a submission about conscientious objection to military service.


Executive Summary

  1. This submission, prepared in July 2022, deals with the situation in the Republic of Korea with regard to conscientious objection to military service.
  2. Since the last UPR Cycle, the Republic of Korea has taken a praiseworthy step forward by at last recognising the right and by ceasing the automatic imprisonment of conscientious objectors, for which it formerly had, numerically, the worst record of any State.
  3. The latest provisions however fall short of international standards in a number of respects.
  5. Military service, now of 18 months is obligatory for all male citizens of the Republic of Korea.
  6. For many years, the Republic of Korea refused to acknowledge the right of conscientious objection to military service, arguing that the security situation necessitated that all able-bodied males, without exception, should bear arms in the defence of the State. In a series of rulings, the Constitutional Court had upheld the supremacy of the duty of national defence over the freedom of conscience.
  7. All conscientious objectors were formerly tried under Article 88.1 of the Military Service Act, which stipulates that “If a person who has received a draft notice for active duty (…), without justifiable cause, does not report for service within the period specified (…) or refuses the summons, then he shall be sentenced to a prison term of three years or less…”. Until the year 2001, those charged under this article were tried in military courts and following imprisonment could face repeated call-up and conviction. From 2001, trials took place in civilian courts, and those who served sentences of 18 months or more were released from the obligation to perform military service; thereafter almost all were sentenced to exactly eighteen months’ imprisonment.
  8. In most years, upwards of 500 conscientious objectors, most but not all Jehovah’s Witnesses (1), were sentenced, with the result that at any one time the Republic of Korea had more currently-imprisoned conscientious objectors than the rest of the world together. The Jehovah’s Witnesses calculated that since 1950 over 19,000 of their members alone suffered imprisonment for their conscientious objection.

Legislative developments

  1. In June 2018 the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Korea, dramatically overturning its previous jurisprudence, ruled that the failure to offer alternative forms of civilian service to conscientious objectors was unconstitutional. Furthermore, in November that year, the Supreme Court rendered a decision which decriminalized conscientious objection, holding that moral and religious beliefs are valid reasons to object to military service.
  2. In response, the National Assembly in December 2019 amended the Military Service Act and passed a new Act on the Transfer and Service of Alternative Service, which came into effect at the beginning of 2020. Under Article 3 , a person wishing to apply for alternative service on grounds of conscience must apply for “transfer to an alternative role”. Applications are examined by a commission set up for the purpose.
  3. The UN Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Opinion and Expression and Freedom of Religion or Belief, in a communication of 28th November 2019 (2) expressed concern that the new legislation does not unequivocally guarantee the right of conscientious objection to military service:
  4. “First, there is a concern on the terminology used. Nowhere does the draft bill recognise a right to alternative service. Instead, [Article 5] gives conscientious objectors a right to apply for alternative service A plain reading of the draft bill therefore suggests that there could be circumstances where an individual is a conscientious objector but nevertheless is denied the right to perform alternative service.”
  5. “Second, (…) Article 13 (2) seems to allow the Alternative Service Committee to disregard the opinions of the individual himself or herself by a vote. This competence is not subject to further conditions. (…) The standard set by the Human Rights Committee is that the belief is genuinely held. Therefore, giving the Alternative Service Committee competence to disregard testimony by the individual concerned is likely to lead to results contrary to [ICCPR] Article 18 (1).”
  6. Moreover, “Article 6 (1) of the draft bill precludes individuals who have previously withdrawn their application from resubmitting an application. There might be many reasons for individuals to withdraw their application, one of which is the persistent and well-documented stigma regarding conscientious objection in the Republic of Korea”.
  7. They also “raise particular concerns with respect to Article 25 of the draft bill, which provides for cancellation of transfer to alternative service. Out of the 7 circumstances in [Article 25 (1)] which determine when a transfer shall be cancelled, only one of them raises no concerns, namely the voluntary cancellation in subparagraph 7. The rest (…) provide for cancellation of transfer where the individual has breached the rules of procedure and/or the rules applicable, but where the individual might legitimately be a conscientious objector.”

Alternative service arrangements

  1. Conscientious objectors accepted for alternative service are assigned for 36 months to an “alternative service training centre” within a “correctional facility”. In effect they are still sent to prison, with only their nominal status distinguishing them and their work from convicts. It has been argued that the service is thus in its very nature punitive (3).
  2. In the communication already quoted, the Special Rapporteurs express concerns aboutthe nature of the alternative service:

“As indicated by the Human Rights Committee, the alternative service must be a real service to the community and compatible with respect for human rights. While it is not contested that service in penitentiaries, detention centers, [etc] constitutes work of real service to the community, we express certain concerns relating to the exclusive emphasis on places of detention. In particular because many conscientious objectors might be transferred from a situation of incarceration to a situation where they perform service in prisons. Furthermore, despite draft article 17 (2) 1 excluding activities which require the use of arms or weapons, activities which entail the use of force against other individuals is not excluded. [In its reply dated 12th February 2020, the State answered this by reference to Article 16.2.] We note that in order to ensure that alternative service is of real service to the community and ensure the dignity of alternative service members, alternative service should take into consideration the competencies and preferences of the alternative service member.”

  1. We therefore suggest that Article 17 be amended, for example in the following way:
    “(1) Alternative service members shall perform services in the public interest. These services shall not entail the use or management of weapons or the use of force, or that would otherwise be contrary to international human rights law. (2) In the assessment of the placement of alternative service members, including the agency and post of the service member, the competencies and preferences of the alternative service member shall be taken into consideration. (3) Agencies which may receive alternative servicemen shall be designated by Presidential Decree”
  2. They note also that the duration f alternative service, twice that of military service, is also punitive. “There does not seem to be any objective justification [for this discrepancy] To be compatible with the Covenant, any unequal treatment on the basis of belief must be based on objective grounds, and be necessary and proportionate. The failure to provide such a justification is not only contrary to Article 26 of the Covenant, but also considered a punitive measure in violation of Article 18 (1).” (4)

The State justifies the duration by reference to the non-military service already performed by, for instance, medical personnel. This would seem to imply rather that the duration of such service is also discriminatory and punitive, and ought to be reconsidered.

  1. Various aspects of the conditions of service are also questionable. Everyone is accommodated in dormitories, without the exceptions made for the health difficulties or family responsibilities of those performing military service.. There are very strict restrictions on freedom of movement; during the first month objectors may not leave the facility at any time – thereafter limited numbers may be granted a few hours leave, but in no case beyond 9.30pm. Their access to communication with the outside world is severely restricted, and they have no right to privacy – even during medical consultations a prison official must be present. It is also unclear what, if any remuneration is attached to the service, or what facilities there are for receivng visits.
  2. Although objectors are assigned to the prison service, not the armed forces, the arrangements are not free from military control. Applications are considered by the Military Manpower Administration of the Ministry of Defence. Moreover, those performing alternative service are required to wear uniforms similar to those of prison staff. Many objectors view such requirements as detracting from the exclusively civilian nature of the service.
  3. Finally, the procedures for assignment to alternative service are to be suspended in a time of general mobilisation. It is not clear what practical effect this would have, but it is worth recalling the observation of UN Human Rights Committee member Sir Nigel Rodley, in an individual case from the Republic of Korea, “…It is precisely in time of armed conflict, when the community interests in question are most likely to be under greatest threat, that the right to conscientious objection is most in need of protection, most likely to be invoked and most likely to fail to be respected in practice…” (5)

22 The first centre opened on 26th October 2020; by the end of that year the first 106 objectors had started alternative service, from a total of 1,962 applicants, 730 of whom had been recognised. By the end of the year 2021, 2,022 conscientious objectors had been recognised, from a cumulative total of 2,536 applications and 654 had commenced alternative service (6) (By 1st March 2022, according to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, 749 of their members had been assigned to seventeen facilities. 7) It is not reported how many of the 514 applications unaccounted for were still pending and how many had been definitively rejected. However the Jehovah’s Witnesses point out a structural flaw in that the number of placements is far from adequate for the number of applicants; they estimate that by 2023 only about half of some 3,200 applicants can be accommodated.

  1. As of 1st March 2022, according to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, a total of 44 complaints against the alternative service arrangements had been lodged with the Constitutional Court and seven others submitted to the National human Rights Commission.


  1. By December 2018, all but thirteen of more than five hundred conscientious objectors in prison earlier that year had been released. The thirteen were those of whose conscientious motivation the State was, rightly or wrongly, not convinced. Anticipating the Constitutional Court ruling, lower courts had already put on hold many pending cases, and the Supreme Court had unprecedentedly found for two conscientious objectors on appeal. The State was subsequently able to report that in November 2019 there were no conscientious objectors .in prison. (8)
  2. Nevertheless, conscientious objectors whose claims are not accepted by the Commission continue to face imprisonment if they persist with their refusal of military service, and it is alleged that those whose objections are not of a religious nature are particularly at risk. As of March 2022, however, even two Jehovah’s Witnesses remained in prison as conscientious objectors and the cases of ten more were still pending.
  3. The Republic of Korea also criminalises the refusal of reserve service. The penalty for such refusal may be a short prison sentence, but is usually a fine. However this does not discharge the responsibility; conscientious objectors who are reservists may be subjected to repeated call-ups and repeated penalties over an eight-year period. As the Human Rights Committee has observed, this “may amount to punishment for the same crime if (the) subsequent refusal is based on the same constant resolve grounded in reasons of conscience,” thereby breaching the principle of ne bis in idem (9). Twenty such Jehovah’s Witnesses cases were pending in March 2022.
  4. In its List of Issues prior to the Republic of Korea’s Fifth Periodic Report under the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, (10)“ the Human Rights Committee refers back to its previous Concluding Observations and as well as asking for information on progress with the then current proposed legislation on alternative service, asked the State to report on the steps taken to “expunge the criminal records of conscientious objectors, provide compensation to those individuals and ensure that their personal information is not publicly disclosed”
  5. The State reply was relatively encouraging: “The Government has taken necessary measures including expunging criminal records under the applicable laws such as the Act on the Lapse of Criminal Sentences. When a case is finalized with acquittal, the suspect may claim compensation for the detention period against the Government and apply for the announcement on the intent of the not guilty decision to restore his impaired reputation via Internet, etc. under the procedure provided in the Act on Criminal Compensation and Restoration of Impaired Reputation.

“The Government granted 1,879 conscientious objectors a special parole (…) releasing [them] 1,878 from disqualification for appointment as an executive or a public official (11).” This had previously been precluded under Article 76 of the Military Service Law. These numbers must however be seen in the context of the tens of thousands who had over the years been imprisoned as conscientious objectors.

  1. Finally, without stating whether Article 81.2 of the Miitary Service Law, introduced in 2015, has been repealed, it reports that “The Military Manpower Administration (…) no longer discloses the list of conscientious objectors (12).”

UPR Recommendations

  1. In its examination during the Third Cycle of the UPR, the Republic of Korea received a total of thirteen recommendations on this issue from twelve States: (13)

Decriminalise conscientious objection (Germany, USA, Argentina, Portugal)
Introduce alternative service (Mexico, Panama), of a genuinely civilian nature (Germany, USA), under civilian control (Australia, Switzerland), compatible with the reasons for conscientious objection, of a non-combatant or civilian character, in the public interest and not of a punitive nature (Croatia) and of a non-punitive length (Canada, Australia, France)

Release those imprisoned for refusing to perform military service (Germany, Panama ; and consider expunging the corresponding charges from their criminal records (Croatia, Costa Rica / examine thesituation of individuals who are currently imprisoned (…) with a view to offering them an alternative civilian service (France);

  1. Although at the time the State expressed support only for expunging of criminal records (14), it subsequently acted on all of these recommendations. Nevertheless, as reported above, there are concerns about the nature and duration of the alternative service, and that, although far fewer than in the past, imprisonments of conscientious objectors have not completely ceased.

Suggested recommendations:

  1. While applauding the progress made by the Republic of Korea since the last review with regard to recognising and implementing the right of conscientious objection to military service, recommendations might be made:

that, taking into accounts the comments of the Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Opinion and Eypression and Freedom of Religion ad Belief in their communication of November 2019, it review the current alternative service provisions with a view to ensuring that they all aspects of the arrangements are completely civilian in nature and control, compatible in each case with the reasons for the objection, available without discrimination to all conscientious objectors, irrespective of the grounds of the objection, and that by comparison with military service alternative service is neither punitive no discriminatory in any way.


(1) Of the first 237 current “draft evaders” whose details were notoriously made public by the Government in 2016, 160 were known to be Jehovah’s Witnesses.

(2) KOR 4/2019, page 4.

(3) Amnesty international, “South Korea: Alternative to military srvice is new punishment for conscientious onbjectors”, 27th December, 2019.

(4) Ibid.

(5) Views adopted on Communications 1642/2007 to 1741/2007, Min-Kyu Jeong et al v Republic of Korea, 24th March, 2011 (CCPR/C/101/D/1642-1741/2007, issued 5th April 2011, Appendix II, paras 14,15


(6) Submission (dated 24th March, 2022), from the Republic of Korea for the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to the 50th Session of the Human Rights Council on conscientious objection to military service (A/HRC/50/43)


(7) Submission from the Jehovahßs Witnesses for A/HRC/50/43


(8) CCPR/C/KOR/5, 21st August, 2021, para 169.


(9) Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32 (CCPR/C/GC/32, 23 August 2007), para 55.


(10) CCPR/C/KOR/QPR/5, 21st August 2019, para 21.


(11) CCPR/C/KOR/5, paras 170 and 171. (The Human Rights Committee is not due to examine the report until after the forthcoming UPR Session.)


(12) Ibid, para 174.


(13) A/HRC/37/11, 27th December 2017, paras 94 – 106, inclusive.


(14) A/HRC/28/11, 28th February 2018.

Photo: United Nations Geneva – Palais des Nations

Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1345

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1345

Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1346

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1346

Notice: Undefined index: et_template in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1347

INDONESIA : Religious freedom issues raised at the UN in Geneva

Religious freedom issues raised at the UN in Geneva

HRWF (15.11.2022) – On 9 November, Indonesia’s human rights report was reviewed in the framework of the UN Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in Geneva. The issue of religious freedom was particularly raised by Christian Solidarity Worldwide in a submission filed ahead of the UPR process. Here is an excerpt of it:

Rising religious intolerance

23. While Indonesia’s tradition of religious pluralism does have limitations which should be addressed, including the lack of protection for adherents of religions outside the six religions recognised by the constitution and for those of other beliefs, it was designed to protect pluralism in a Muslim-majority nation.

24. Rising religious intolerance, however, threatens to destroy these achievements and poses a threat not only to the country’s religious minorities, but to all Indonesians who value democracy, human rights, peace and stability.

25. There has also been a decline in state-sponsored violations of FoRB. However, there continues to be growing religious intolerance in society, as evidenced by the instrumentalization of religion in the 2019 elections.

Attacks on religious minorities

26. Incidents of violence against religious minorities, particularly Christians, Ahmadiyyas, Shi’as and adherents of religions or beliefs not recognised by the state, including indigenous traditional beliefs, continue periodically within a climate of impunity.

27. In September 2020, UCA News reported that Reverend Yeremia Zanambani, a Protestant pastor and Bible translator, had been shot dead in Indonesia’s restive Papua region.4 There was some dispute over whether he had been killed by the Indonesian military or by members of a local separatist group, however in October 2020 Indonesia’s human rights commission (Komnas HAM) reported that a fact- finding team believed Pastor Zanambani had been tortured and killed by the military, who were hoping to extract information on stolen military weapons.5

28. On 30 November 2020, IS-linked Islamic militants carried out an attack on a Salvation Army outpost in Lemban Tongoa village in Indonesia’s Central Sulawesi province. Four people were killed, one of whom was beheaded, and several homes were burnt down, including a house used for prayers.

Attacks on places of worship

29. Various places of worship have been attacked during the reporting period, including Christian churches, Ahmadiyya mosques and Buddhist temples.

30. One of the darkest days for religious minorities in the country occurred on 13 May 2018 when three churches in Surabaya, Indonesia’s second largest city, were attacked within minutes of each other by a family of suicide bombers. Three individuals received prison sentences for their suspected involvement in the bombing in March 2019.

31. On Palm Sunday, 28 March 2021, suicide bombers attacked a Catholic Church in Makassar, South Sulawesi, leaving at least 14 people injured. 6

32. In March 2020, 15 Indonesians filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court arguing that the closure of thousands of places of worship was being done under a discriminatory law, the 2006 Religious Harmony regulation.7

Ahmadiyya Muslim community

33. The Ahmadiyya Muslim community has existed in Indonesia since 1925, and claims a population of approximately 500,000 across 330 branches throughout the country. The Ahmadiyya consider themselves to be Muslims but are regarded by some other Muslims as heretical.

34. Since 2005, the community has experienced serious violations of FoRB, including incidents of violence. A Joint Ministerial Decree introduced in 2008 by the Minister of Religious Affairs, the Attorney General and the Minister of Home Affairs prohibited promulgation of Ahmadiyya teachings. In 2011, the then Minister of Religious Affairs repeatedly called for an outright ban on the Ahmadiyya, and in 2013 the governor of West Java said that there would be no violence against the Ahmadiyya if there were no Ahmadiyya teachings or practices, describing Ahmadiyya Islam as “a deviant belief.” The “problem,” he added, “will disappear if the belief disappears.”

35. Although there has been, according to Ahmadi representatives, “some improvement” under the government of President Joko Widodo, intimidation of the Ahmadiyya continues and Ahmadiyya activities continue to be restricted to date.

36. On 14 January 2022, UCA News reported that a district chief in Indonesia’s West Kalimantan province ordered the demolition of an Ahmadi mosque that had been damaged in a September 2021 attack by Muslim extremists.8 The order was issued days after the perpetrators of the attack were jailed for four months.



4 UCANews, ‘Protestant Pastor shot dead in Indonesia, 21 September 2020 https://www.ucanews.com/news/protestant-pastor- shot-dead-in-indonesia/89597
5 CNN Indonesia, ‘Investigasi Tim Kemanusiaan: Pendeta Yeremia Ditembak TNI’, 30 October 2020 https://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20201029125036-20-563926/investigasi-tim-kemanusiaan-pendeta-yeremia- ditembak-tni

6 BBC, ‘Indonesia bombing: Worshippers wounded in Makassar church attack‘, 28 March 2021, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-56553790

7 Twitter, tweet by Andreas Harsono, 5 March 2020, https://twitter.com/andreasharsono/status/1235707989459337216 8 UCANews, ‘Indonesian district to demolish Ahmadi house of worship’, 14 January 2022 https://www.ucanews.com/news/indonesian-district-to-demolish-ahmadi-house-of-worship/95731

Further reading about FORB in Indonesia on HRWF website

Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1345

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1345

Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1346

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1346

Notice: Undefined index: et_template in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1347

ALGERIA : Religious freedom to be scrutinized at the UN

Religious freedom to be scrutinized at the United Nations

HRWF (07.11.2022) – On 11 November, Algeria’s human rights report will be examined by the UN Human Rights Council in the framework of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). The last review dates back to 8 May 2017. A few NGOs have submitted a report about religious freedom, such as ADF International and the European Center for Law and Justice (See their full submissions at https://bit.ly/3fD2zZL). See as well HRWF’s Database of FORB News (2020-2022) at https://hrwf.eu/newsletters/forb/.

Hereafter an excerpt from the report and recommendations of ADF International.

Legal Framework Relating to Freedom of Religion or Belief

  1. Algeria’s Constitution was formally amended in November 2020.5 Its Article 2 declares Islam as the country’s official religion.6
  2. Article 51 of the new Constitution recognizes freedom of opinion and of religious practice (cultes), however no longer formally protects freedom of conscience. Viewed in of Article 10, which prohibits practices “contrary to Islamic morals,”7 the constitutional guarantees afforded to freedom of religion are greatly limited. It also guarantees the protection of places of worship from political or ideological influences.8
  3. Article 144-bis-2 of the Algerian Penal Code criminalizes “anyone who offends the prophet (peace be upon him) and the messengers of God or denigrates the dogma or precepts of Islam”, with punishments of up to five years in prison and a fine of up to 100,000 Algerian dinars (approximately $720).9
  4. Article 11 of Algeria’s 2006 Ordinance on the Conditions and Rules of Practice of Faiths other than Islam (the “Law 06-03”) punishes anyone who “incites, constrains, or utilizes means of seduction tending to convert a Muslim to another religion; or by using to this end establishments of teaching, education, health, social, culture, training…or any financial means.” It also criminalizes anyone who “makes, stores, or distributes printed documents or audio-visual productions or by any other aid or means, which has as its goal to shake the faith of a Muslim.” The penalty is up to five years in prison, and a 1,000,000 dinar fine (approximately $7,200).10
  5. Additionally, Law 06-03 stipulates that non-Muslim associations must obtain permission from the National Commission for Non-muslim Religious Groups to utilize a building for worship. Unregistered religious activities or groups are banned. The justifications given for rejecting applications are reportedly extremely vague, allowing for arbitrary denial of registration, effectively prohibiting the functioning of certain religious groups.11 Additionally, in practice, the Commission has failed to respond to any applications by Christians groups, forcing them to make unofficial and unreliable arrangements with local officials.12

Blasphemy and proselytism cases

  1. In 2018, Hamid Soudad, an Algerian Christian, was convicted to a five-year prison blasphemy sentence for circulating an allegedly offensive image against Islam on social media.13
  2. In February 2021, a court in Oran convicted pastor Rachid Seighir and one of his colleagues to two years imprisonment and a fine under Article 11 of Law 06-03 for “shaking the faith” of Muslims. This was due to the presence of Christian books in their bookstore.14 On appealing the judgement, in June 2021, this was reduced to a one-year suspended sentence and a lower fine. That same week, Rachid’s church, along with two others in the province, were closed for being unlicensed under Law 06-03.15
  3. In November 2020, an Ahmadi activist, Yacine Mebarki, was sentenced to one year in prison and a fine of 50,000 Algerian dinars (approximately $385) in Khenchela for allegedly “insulting Islam” in a social media post, in which he had expressed criticism of a religious scholar.16
  4. In July 2021, officials in Ain Defla sentenced Foudhil Bahloul, a Christian convert, to six months in prison and a fine of 100,000 Algerian dinars (approximately $720). Bahloul was arrested in April 2021 after his house was searched and certain Christian materials were seized. During his trial, witnesses were not allowed to testify and Bahloul did not have legal representation. His sentence was for receiving an “unauthorized donation” of 200 euros from a friend in Germany, which officials claimed were funds received for his Christian beliefs.17
  5. In September 2021, it was reported that Christian activist and Muslim convert Slimane Bouhafs, an Algerian living in Tunisia with refugee status, was allegedly abducted and forcibly returned to Algeria.18 Family members witnessed the abduction of Bouhafs from Tunis by three men before he was imprisoned and appeared before a court in Algiers.19 The specific charges against him remain unknown but it has been reported that there are multiple charges related to so- called terrorist activity.20 Bouhafs spent almost two years in prison in Algeria after he was charged with blasphemy for a Facebook post in 2016 where he criticized Islam. In his trial in 2016, he was denied basic rights of due process and was not provided with a lawyer.21 During his time in prison, he faced aggression from other prisoners because he was known to be a Christian.22

Church closures and religious registration barriers

  1. Protestant Christian communities (including the Église Protestante d’Algérie, or the “EPA”) have been systematically targeted by restrictions to their freedom of worship, notably by prohibiting access to church buildings. Since January 2018, Algerian authorities have sealed 13 Protestant churches affiliated with the EPA, and 49 places of worship have been threatened with closure.23 These closures constitute direct violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief, which includes the right to worship in community with others, as well as freedom of association and assembly.
  2. In October 2019, members of a Protestant congregation of the Full Gospel Church of Tizi-Ouzou protested peacefully against the closure of their church, the largest Christian church in Algeria, which was sealed by police officers. The protesters were beaten by authorities while others were arrested. Two more churches were sealed the day after the Full Gospel Church was closed. The pastor of the Full Gospel Church had tried to comply with the authorities and the requirement to register under Law 06-03 of 2006, but the National Commission has completely ignored repeated requests to renew registration.24
  3. In addition, Protestant Christian churches in Algeria faced discriminatory restrictions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. From March 2020, Protestant churches were ordered to remain closed for “safety measures,” while mosques and Catholic churches were permitted to reopen.25
  4. The Ahmadi community in Algeria is not recognized by the government, and faces considerable pressure and harassment, including from state officials.26 In January of 2020, a group of Ahmadis were interrogated about their religious beliefs and authorities confiscated their passports before they were prosecuted for forming an illegal association. They were eventually acquitted of the charges against them but their passports were never returned.27


1 The Association of Religion Data Archives ‘Algeria’ https://www.thearda.com/internationalData/countries/Country_4_2.asp.
2 Open Doors International ‘Indonesia: Full Country Dossier’ (December 2021) World Watch List 2022 <https://odusa-media.com/2017/12/Full-Country-Dossier-Algeria-2022.pdf>, 6-7.
3 European Parliament ‘European Parliament Resolution of 28 November 2019 on the situation of freedoms in Algeria’ 2019/2927(RSP), https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2019-0072_EN.html, 4.
4 M. Rubio et al. ‘Letter to The Honorable Antony Blinken’ (9 July 2021) United States Senate https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/d83757e6-53f5-4263-854c-836a74b330f5/3FA54880 3F4C8D00DEDED4C1D16FA16F.algeria-religious-freedom.pdf.
5 E. Goldstein ‘The Right That Vanished from Algeria’s Constitution Freedom of Belief Article Dropped — and All Pretense of Respecting It?’ (15 February 2021) Human Rights Watch, https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/02/15/right-vanished-algerias-constitution.
6 2021 Constitution of Algeria, https://www.joradp.dz/TRV/FConsti.pdf, art. 2.

7 Id., art. 10.
8 Id., art. 51.
9 Algerian Penal Code, https://www.equalrightstrust.org/sites/default/files/ertdocs//code_penal.pdf, art. 144-bis-2.
10 Human Rights Without Frontiers ‘Freedom of Religion or Belief Algeria’ (October 2020) https://hrwf.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/2020-FORB-Algeria.pdf, 2.
11 Human Rights Watch ‘Algeria: Crackdown on Protestant Faith, Churches Sealed; Worshipers Beaten’ (24 October 2019) https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/10/24/algeria-crackdown-protestant-faith. 12 Middle East Concern ‘Algeria’ https://www.meconcern.org/countries/algeria/.
13 International Christian Concern ‘Algerian Christian Prison Sentence Upheld’ (26 March 2021) https://www.persecution.org/2021/03/26/algerian-christian-prison-sentence-upheld/.
14 Middle East Concern ‘Algeria: Pastor faces prison term’ (2 March 2021) https://meconcern.org/2021/03/02/algeria-pastor-faces-prison-term/.

15 Morning Star News ‘Pastor in Algeria Receives Suspected Sentence and Fine’ (6 June 2021)https://morningstarnews.org/2021/06/pastor-in-algeria-receives-suspended-sentence-and-fine/.
16 Amnesty International ‘Algeria 2020’ (2021) https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and- north-africa/algeria/report-algeria/.
17 Amnesty International ‘Algeria: Quash conviction of Christian convert and overturn repressive law used to prosecute him’ (7 December 2021) https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/12/algeria- quash-conviction-of-christian-convert-and-overturn-repressive-law-used-to-prosecute-him/.
18 Amnesty International ‘Tunisia: authorities must come clean over abduction of Algerian activist’ (3 September 2021) https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/tunisia-authorities-must-come-clean- over-abduction-algerian-activist.
19 A. Bajec ‘Slimane Bouhafs: Inside Tunisia’s extradition of an Algerian political refugee’ (14 September 2021) The New Arab, https://english.alaraby.co.uk/analysis/tunisias-mysterious- extradition-algerian-dissident.
20 Amnesty International ‘Tunisia: authorities must come clean over abduction of Algerian activist’ (3 September 2021) https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/tunisia-authorities-must-come-clean- over-abduction-algerian-activist.
21 Human Rights Watch ‘Algeria: 3-Year Sentence for Insulting Islam’ (7 September 2016) https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/09/07/algeria-3-year-sentence-insulting-islam.
22 World Watch Monitor ‘‘Finally my father is home’ – Slimane Bouhafs released after 18 months in jail’ (3 April 2018) https://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/2018/04/finally-my-father-is-home-slimane- bouhafs-released-after-18-months-in-jail/.

23 Middle East Concern ‘Algeria: Another Church Closed by Government’ (14 January 2020)https://meconcern.org/2020/01/14/algeria-another-church-closed-by-government-2/.

24 J. Casper ‘Who Will Save Algeria’s Closed Churches: the UN, US, or Hirak?’ (22 February 2021) Christianity Today, https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2021/february/algeria-christians-closed- churches-united-nations-epa-hirak.html.

25 International Christian Concern ‘With No Churches Left to Close, Algerian Government Turns to Individuals’ (18 May 2021) https://persecution.org/2021/05/18/no-churches-left-close-algerian government-turns-individuals/.

26 A. Garcia ‘Algeria continues persecution of the Ahmadi Community’ (23 December 2020) https://atalayar.com/en/content/algeria-continues-persecution-ahmadi-community.

27 Amnesty International ‘Algeria 2020’ (2021) https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and- north-africa/algeria/report-algeria/.

26 A. Garcia ‘Algeria continues persecution of the Ahmadi Community’ (23 December 2020) https://atalayar.com/en/content/algeria-continues-persecution-ahmadi-community.
27 Amnesty International ‘Algeria 2020’ (2021) https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and- north-africa/algeria/report-algeria/.

Photo : istock.org

Further reading about FORB in Algeria on HRWF website

Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1345

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1345

Notice: Undefined index: et_header_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1346

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1346

Notice: Undefined index: et_template in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1347

BENIN: HRWF files Benin report to UN’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) over detention of opposition figures

Press release

HRWF files Benin report to UN’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) over detention of opposition figures

19 July 2022

Human Rights Without Frontiers (HRWF) has filed a report with the United Nations Universal Periodic Review (UPR) for Benin, in which the organisation outlined its concerns over human rights abuses in Benin, with particular regard to the imprisonment of opposition figures Reckya Madougou and Joël Aivo and the fact that they were not included in a list of 17 detainees  due to be temporarily released after a 13 June 2022 meeting between President Patrice Talon and Thomas Boni Yayi, former President of Benin (2006-2016).

The submission by HRWF included details about the case of Reckya Madougou who was sentenced at the end of 2021 to 20 years in prison for allegedly financing terrorism. She had been arrested in March 2021 accused of wiring thousands of dollars to a military officer for the purpose of killing unnamed authorities. Her candidacy had earlier been rejected by the electoral commission. HRWF went on to detail that Ms Madougou was the leader of the opposition party, Les Démocrates, and a presidential candidate. HRWF’s statement also described Ms Madougou’s civil society campaign — “Don’t touch my constitution” — that rallied against leaders seeking to extend their rule under the guise of constitutional reform. The movement spread across West Africa, gaining her a high profile.

The HRWF report to the UPR also gave details about the case of Joël Aivo and his December 2021 sentencing by the controversial Economic Crime and Terrorism Court (CRIET) to 10 years in prison for plotting against the state and laundering money. HRWF explained in their submission that Mr Aivo is a law professor who challenged Talon in the 2021 election. He was held for eight months ahead of sentencing and pleaded not guilty to the charges of plotting against the state and money laundering.

Willy Fautré, Director and Co-Founder of HRWF, commented: “Our organisation has been monitoring the backsliding that has been taking place around human rights in Benin since 2016. We were especially dismayed to see that Reckya Madougou and Joël Aivo were not on the June 2022 list of 17 detainees to be temporarily released. Ms Madougou and Mr Aivo should be fully released immediately. The persecution and detention of opposition figures has no place in a democracy and we are concerned for the welfare of these two politicians.”

See full report here

For more information, please contact

HRWF: international.secretariat.brussels@hrwf.org or w.fautre@hrwf.org

Notice: Undefined index: et_footer_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1395

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1395

Notice: Undefined index: et_footer_layout in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1396

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1396

Notice: Undefined index: et_template in /home/hrwfe90/domains/hrwf.eu/public_html/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/pdf-print.php on line 1397