Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which countries are currently on the human rights watchlist?
Executive Summary
CIVICUS’s 2025 Watchlists and Amnesty International’s 2025 annual review document a shifting set of countries flagged for serious civic and human rights concerns; CIVICUS lists multiple countries across its March and July 2025 Watchlists, while Amnesty highlights widespread abuses in a broader 150-country survey. U.S. State Department reporting and Human Rights Watch critiques complicate a single “watchlist” picture, revealing differences in methodology, scope, and political framing between watchdogs [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Why CIVICUS’s Watchlist Grabs Headlines — and Which States It Names
CIVICUS’s Monitor Watchlists for March and July 2025 name a rotating set of countries where civic space is deteriorating, explicitly highlighting El Salvador, Indonesia, Kenya, Serbia, Turkey, the United States, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Italy, and Pakistan across those two updates. The July 2025 Watchlist emphasizes serious, recent escalations: El Salvador’s Foreign Agents Law and retaliation against protesters and journalists, Indonesia’s legal revisions and targeted actions against human rights defenders, Kenya’s lethal crackdown on protests, Serbia’s repression of anti-corruption protests, Turkey’s mass arrests and censorship, and the U.S. narrowing civic space through deployments of military forces and arrests tied to protest actions [1] [5] [2]. CIVICUS frames these as immediate threats to civic freedoms rather than a static ranked list, meaning countries appear or reappear based on evolving events and evidence [1].
2. Amnesty’s Annual Survey: Scope, Trends, and Different Emphases
Amnesty International’s April 2025 annual report surveys 150 countries, documenting patterns of armed conflict, repression of dissent, and climate injustice while naming Israel, Gaza, Libya, Myanmar, Russia, Sudan, and the United States among those with significant concerns. Amnesty does not present a short “watchlist” but offers a wide-angle assessment of global trends and hotspots, focusing on systemic abuses and long-term patterns rather than episodic civic-space changes. Amnesty’s methodology produces a bigger geographic sweep and frames issues such as climate injustice alongside repression, which enlarges the set of countries flagged for serious rights concerns beyond the civic-space lens used by CIVICUS [3] [6]. This difference in scope explains why Amnesty and CIVICUS highlight overlapping but non-identical country sets.
3. Official U.S. Reporting and Its Critics: A Competing Map of Concerns
The U.S. State Department’s 2024 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices aims to cover all U.N. member states and many assisted countries but does not produce a single consolidated watchlist, according to available summaries. Human Rights Watch and other critics argue the State Department report suffers omissions and political spin that undermine credibility and can endanger defenders, while CIVICUS and Amnesty place the United States itself under scrutiny for shrinking civic space and repression of protests. The existence of both comprehensive state-produced country reports and NGO watchlists creates competing maps: one bureaucratic and universal in remit, the other targeted and advocacy-driven in selecting and labeling urgent civic-space crises [7] [4] [5].
4. Comparing Timelines and Evidence: March vs July 2025 and Reporting Cadences
CIVICUS updates its Monitor Watchlist at discrete intervals and in response to events, with a March 2025 update naming a set of countries and a July 2025 update showing both continuity and change; this demonstrates an event-responsive methodology. Amnesty’s April 2025 annual report compiles incidents and trends over a longer timeframe and emphasizes structural and conflict-driven abuses. The State Department’s 2024 report, summarized in 2025, follows a statutory annual cadence but faces critique for selective emphasis. These differing timelines explain apparent contradictions: a country may appear on a CIVICUS watchlist in July due to sudden repression but not stand out in Amnesty’s annual report if not part of a sustained pattern, and vice versa [2] [1] [3] [7].
5. Reading Motives and Blind Spots: Who Flags What — and Why It Matters
CIVICUS focuses principally on civic space metrics—protests, media freedom, harassment of defenders—and its watchlists prioritize immediate threats to those spaces. Amnesty centers on human rights across conflict, justice, and climate contexts, producing a broader ledger of abuses. The State Department’s reports serve diplomatic and legal functions and can be shaped by foreign policy considerations, which Human Rights Watch says sometimes leads to omission or downplaying of abuses. These differing mandates produce distinct lists and narratives; users should therefore treat any single “watchlist” as partial and consult multiple sources for a rounded view [1] [3] [4].
6. What Readers Should Take Away: A Practical, Source-Aware Checklist
The practical takeaway is clear: no single authoritative global “human rights watchlist” exists in these materials; CIVICUS’s March and July 2025 updates and Amnesty’s April 2025 annual report offer complementary but different country snapshots, and the State Department reports provide exhaustive but politically contested documentation. For current situational awareness, consult CIVICUS for near-term civic-space alerts and Amnesty for systemic, cross-cutting human rights trends, while treating official reports as comprehensive baselines subject to political critique [1] [3] [7].