Thematic Study 01 · 3 November 2026
Report overview
SRL Swiss’s first monthly thematic study examines nine cases of deprivation of liberty linked to journalism and human rights advocacy. Complementing our weekly human rights monitoring, it brings together experiences from different countries to examine how reporting, access to documents and civil society activities are used in criminal proceedings.
The central question is which specific activity forms the basis of an accusation and how the resulting restriction of liberty is justified. Court judgments, United Nations opinions and civil society sources are considered together. The study distinguishes arrest, pre-trial detention, house arrest, detention pending extradition and immigration detention. It does not assign the same outcome or type of violation to every case.
The Matsadaash case in Egypt illustrates how the everyday operation of a newsroom can become the basis of accusations. In the questioning reported by EIPR, news coverage, editorial choices, salary payments and professional correspondence were prominent. In Cumhuriyet, the European Court of Human Rights found that journalistic activities did not establish reasonable suspicion justifying detention. The Kyrgyzstan example shows how imprisonment and house arrest within one investigation restricted journalists’ work.
For Mehmet Baransu, the March 2015 detention in Istanbul and the Mersin GMO trial are examined as separate proceedings. The study considers the relationship between public-health reporting and charges concerning the acquisition and disclosure of documents. In Julian Assange’s case, it also distinguishes the sentence for failing to surrender from detention pending extradition. The shared issue is criminal pressure on people disclosing information in the public interest, while each case’s charges and decisions remain distinct.
Mario Guevara’s immigration detention after the local charges arising from his protest coverage were dropped shows how deprivation of liberty can continue through another legal process. The comparison also includes the finding of no freedom-of-expression violation in Finnish photojournalist Markus Pentikäinen’s case. These contrasting outcomes underline the importance of examining the circumstances and reasons for an intervention alongside the journalist’s professional activity.
The Osman Kavala and Rasul Jafarov judgments provide examples in which an aim of silencing human rights defenders was judicially established. The study considers these findings alongside safeguards for source protection, freedom of expression and the prohibition of arbitrary detention. Pressure can affect not only those deprived of liberty but also sources, other journalists and the public’s access to information.
SRL Swiss unequivocally condemns the silencing of journalists and human rights defenders for political purposes and the punishment of public-interest reporting. The study’s common finding is that criminal proceedings that interrupt reporting and advocacy also narrow society’s ability to scrutinise public power. Our opposition to the injustice inflicted on Mehmet Baransu forms part of our defence of journalists’ liberty, source protection and the public’s right to receive information.
Stay informed on human rights
Read our weekly Human Rights Monitor in English. Subscribe to receive it by email.
Published in Turkish, English, German, French and Italian.