Reports for journalists and human rights defenders start from the appellant's own output: what they published or campaigned on, where, and how widely it was seen. The country evidence is then applied to that record, because risk depends heavily on subject matter and visibility.
In Bangladesh the report addresses how the August 2024 change of government has affected journalists on both sides of the previous divide. In India it covers prosecutions and harassment of reporters working on sensitive subjects such as Kashmir, Manipur and Hindu nationalism, including the use of the UAPA.
Sri Lankan and Nepali cases are assessed on the same basis. Counsel should provide copies or links to the appellant's work, any threats received, and any legal proceedings started against them.
Legal tools used against reporters: Bangladesh and India
Reports explain how sedition, digital security and anti-terror laws have been applied to journalists and activists, and compare those cases with the appellant's own work.
Related Case Types
Questions solicitors ask
- Why does the report need the appellant's published work?
- Risk for journalists depends on what they covered and who noticed. Seeing the work allows the report to compare it with the reporting that has led to arrests or attacks on others.
- Does the report address security and anti-terror laws?
- Yes. Where relevant it explains how laws such as India's UAPA or Bangladesh's digital security legislation have been used against journalists and activists, and what that means for the appellant.