DEFENDING DEMOCRACY IN EXILE Policy Responses to Transnational Repression from particular regions of the world, fall under the mandates of existing mechanisms. UNHRC working groups and special rapporteurs, collectively called special procedures, devote attention to transnational repression. Agnes Callamard, the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary killings, published an extensive investigative report into the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, implicating high-level Saudi government officials and shedding light on the extensive resources and planning behind the murder.96 Special rapporteurs also published multiple statements on the Iranian regime’s targeting of employees of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) Persian service and other Farsi-language news outlets. A March 2020 statement said in part, “Harassment, surveillance, death threats against journalists, within and outside domestic boundaries violate international human rights law, including the right to physical integrity, the right to life, and the right to freedom of expression.”97 The statement called on the governments of countries where targeted journalists live to warn and protect them and their families. The current piecemeal and incidental pattern of documentation does not capture the scale and significance of the threat. The WGEID and the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) produce regular reports and other communications that often describe incidents of transnational repression. In October 2018, following Khashoggi’s assassination at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, WGEID chair Bernard Duhaime highlighted the emergence of a “new and very worrisome practice of extraterritorial abductions” before the UN General Assembly.98 He pointed to the working group’s latest report, which noted the pattern of extraterritorial abductions by Turkish authorities.99 While it is laudable that the WGEID and Duhaime drew special attention to the trend of cross-border targeting, calling it a new phenomenon demonstrates a lack of awareness of the global scale and history of transnational repression. Prominent offenders have used these tactics 24 @FreedomHouse for decades: Rwandan president Paul Kagame’s government has targeted exiles since shortly after coming to power in the 1990s, extraterritorial assassinations have been a staple of the Iranian regime since the 1979 revolution, and the Soviet Union infamously assassinated Leon Trotsky in Mexico in 1940.100 The WGEID’s 2021 annual report marked an evolution of the working group’s approach to documenting extraterritorial violence, as it included a new section on “enforced disappearances in the context of transnational transfers.”101 Traditionally, the WGEID has assigned responsibility for a disappearance involving two states to the state where the incident occurred. The approach highlighted the fact that insecurity was an issue within a given state’s borders. In 2018, the WGEID belatedly acknowledged cross-border campaigns by foreign states to detain individuals. The latest report, published in August 2021, specifically recognized how states “resorted to extraterritorial transfers … with the participation, support or acquiescence of other states, in an attempt to capture their nationals.” International courts also provide important documentation of transnational repression. Freedom House identified more than 30 incidents of transnational repression in cases heard at the ECHR. The court provides important visibility for transnational repression, which could in turn be leveraged to develop appropriate policy responses and advocate for members of targeted groups. However, countries agree to submit to the jurisdiction of international courts and can leave that jurisdiction whenever they chose. In March 2022, for example, following the invasion of Ukraine, Russia was expelled from the Council of Europe—and therefore from the ECHR. This jeopardizes future opportunities for documentation, accountability, and protection in the region.102 Similarly, the International Criminal Court (ICC) faces challenges related to jurisdiction and participation. Influential countries like the United States and China are not signatories to the court’s founding Rome Statute. The US absence undermines the court’s influence by signaling that the world’s most powerful democracy is not committed to accountability for human rights violations. China’s nonparticipation is a barrier to justice for the Chinese Communist Party’s atrocities against Uyghurs.103 Activists are trying creative workarounds to bring the issue before the court, including a focus on Uyghur deportations from Tajikistan, which is an ICC member state.104 It was unclear at the time of writing whether such tactics would prove successful. #TransnationalRepression