On the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists , the International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) warns that killings, threats, censorship and the weaponisation of legal and administrative powers against journalists are contributing to a global crisis.
Despite clear protections for journalists under international law, those responsible for attacks on them continue to evade justice, while governments increasingly deploy restrictions to prevent independent reporting and suppress scrutiny of their conduct.
The IBAHRI calls for urgent action to end impunity
As the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists is observed today, 2 November 2026, the IBAHRI calls on governments, parties to armed conflicts, international organisations and the wider international community to take urgent and coordinated action.
The IBAHRI asserts that the protection of journalists must be treated as an essential obligation under international law, and that states must ensure:
- an end to the use of violence, intimidation, legal retaliation and administrative restrictions to silence journalists;
- that those responsible for attacks are investigated and prosecuted; and
- that journalists can undertake their work independently, without fear of reprisal.
The IBAHRI's Co-Chairs and Director emphasise that the threats confronting journalists are not confined to individual cases or regions, but they represent a wider assault on freedom of expression, democratic accountability and the rule of law.
Mark Stephens CBE, IBAHRI Co-Chair, stated: 'A murdered journalist is not only a voice silenced, but a public blinded. Journalists are the witnesses power would sometimes prefer not to have. That is why impunity matters: every killing that goes unpunished lowers the price of the next one. Governments must understand that threatening, imprisoning or killing journalists is not a means of avoiding scrutiny. It is precisely what should bring the scrutiny of the world upon them.'
Hina Jilani, IBAHRI Co-Chair, commented: 'Every journalist killed, threatened or forced into silence represents a profound loss to society. In Gaza, Lebanon, Sudan, Ukraine and elsewhere, journalists are risking their lives to document events that the world has an urgent need to understand. Their deaths cannot be allowed to become statistics, and their investigations must not disappear with them. The failure to investigate attacks and prosecute those responsible sends the devastating message that journalists can be targeted with impunity. States must act on their legal obligations, protect those who bear witness and ensure that the deliberate silencing of journalists never becomes an accepted feature of conflict or political life.'
Baroness Helena Kennedy LT KC, IBAHRI Director, said: 'We have seen the devastating consequences that can follow when investigative journalists are subjected to sustained legal intimidation and harassment. Daphne Caruana Galizia was murdered after exposing corruption and powerful political and business interests in Malta. Her case remains a stark reminder of what is at stake when those who investigate abuses are left vulnerable. Furthermore, I am appalled by the threats directed at Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor for their work on the film NAZA. Their documentary seeks to bring allegations about the use of artificial intelligence (AI)-powered military systems and the killing of civilians in Gaza into the public domain. Rather than addressing the serious issues their investigation raises, the response from senior Israeli political figures has included threats to strip the filmmakers of their citizenship and calls for punitive increases in defamation damages. Such threats are profoundly dangerous as they seek to make the personal security and legal status of journalists conditional on whether those in power approve of their reporting. Governments everywhere must protect journalists such as Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, not punish them for doing their work. A free press is an essential tenet in a democracy.'
Why journalists matter: the public's right to know
Journalists are indispensable to democratic societies. Through independent investigation, documentation and reporting, they expose corruption, scrutinise the exercise of political and economic power, reveal human rights violations, document atrocities and give a voice to individuals and communities whose experiences might otherwise remain invisible.
Their work enables the public to understand how decisions are made, assess the conduct of those in authority, participate meaningfully in public life and demand accountability when rights are violated. In situations of armed conflict, independent journalism can provide vital evidence of violations of international humanitarian law, war crimes and other serious abuses.
Without journalists, the public would be increasingly dependent on information controlled by governments, armed groups and other powerful interests. Evidence of abuses could disappear, corruption could flourish without scrutiny and disinformation and propaganda could fill the information vacuum. Victims would lose essential witnesses to their experiences, while perpetrators would face fewer obstacles to concealing their actions.
The consequences extend far beyond individual journalists and media organisations. When journalists are silenced, society loses an essential safeguard against abuses of power. When they are killed with impunity, the message to others is that reporting the truth may carry a fatal price.
The IBAHRI warns that this is no longer a collection of isolated incidents. Around the world, journalists are being killed, threatened, detained, prosecuted, surveilled, denied access to information and subjected to increasingly sophisticated forms of legal and administrative intimidation. These practices undermine the public's right to information and the foundations of democratic accountability.
A global crisis: journalists killed, threatened and silenced
The scale of the crisis is particularly stark in armed conflicts. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists , 2025 was the deadliest year on record for journalists and media workers, with at least 130 recorded killings in its database. The High Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom has similarly identified an unprecedented surge in violence against journalists and restrictions on independent reporting in conflict zones.
The dangers are evident across multiple regions. Since October 2023, at least 210 journalists in Gaza and at least 15 journalists in Lebanon have reportedly been killed while covering hostilities with Israel. Recent investigations into the killing of Lebanese journalist Amal Khalil and the wounding of her colleague Zeinab Faraj in an Israeli strike in southern Lebanon have raised serious concerns that the attack was targeted and may constitute a war crime. Particularly troubling are reports that Israeli troops prevented rescue vehicles from reaching the scene for approximately two hours.
In Ukraine, journalists documenting Russia's full-scale invasion continue to face grave risks. At least 16 media professionals have been killed while undertaking journalistic work, while more than 180 have reportedly been targeted.
In Sudan, more than 30 journalists have been killed since the civil war began. In Somalia, the targeted killing of 23-year-old journalist Bashir Mohamed Abdullahi, who sustained fatal gunshot wounds while reporting on clashes in Baidoa, further illustrates the dangers faced by journalists documenting violence and instability.
Each killing represents a life cut short, a family devastated, a professional voice silenced and an important source of independent information removed from public view.
The crisis is compounded by the extraordinary failure to secure justice. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization has reported that approximately 86 per cent of killings of journalists remain unpunished. This entrenched impunity creates an environment in which perpetrators can act with little fear of investigation or prosecution, emboldening further attacks.
The murder of Maltese investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, killed in a car bombing in October 2017 after investigating corruption, business dealings and political connections, remains a powerful example of the dangers of investigative journalism and the difficulties of securing accountability. The September 2026 acquittal of Maltese businessman Yorgen Fenech, who had been accused of ordering her murder, has further highlighted the challenges and limitations of accountability in cases involving powerful interests. Mr Fenech denied all charges.
The law is clear: journalists are entitled to protection
The widespread attacks on journalists stand in direct contradiction to established international legal obligations with states and other actors persistently failing to respect, implement and enforce them.
Under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. This protection is reinforced by Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which imposes binding obligations on States Parties.
Restrictions on freedom of expression must satisfy a strict three-part test: they must be provided for by law, pursue a legitimate aim recognised under international law and be necessary and proportionate. Governments cannot invoke national security, public order or other broad justifications as a pretext for suppressing legitimate journalism and preventing scrutiny of public authorities.
In armed conflicts, international humanitarian law provides additional protections. Journalists are civilians and must be respected and protected as such, provided they are not directly participating in hostilities. Article 79 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions expressly recognises these protections. Parties to a conflict must not make journalists the object of attack and must take all feasible precautions to avoid incidental injury or loss of life.
The UN Security Council has reinforced these obligations through Resolutions 1738 and 2222 , which condemn attacks against journalists and media professionals in situations of armed conflict and call for investigations and accountability.
The UN Human Rights Council has also emphasised states' responsibilities to protect journalists, investigate attacks, prosecute those responsible and provide appropriate remedies, including through Resolution 33/2 on the safety of journalists .
These obligations do not disappear during armed conflict. International human rights law and international humanitarian law apply concurrently, and the protection of freedom of expression remains essential precisely when independent scrutiny is most urgently needed.
Importantly, journalists cannot generally be denied access to conflict zones on the basis of safety concerns alone. Safety concerns must be assessed against the applicable legal requirements. Any restriction must satisfy the requirements of legality, legitimate aim, necessity and proportionality. Authorities cannot rely on generalised assertions of risk to justify blanket exclusion or an information blackout.
This does not mean that access to every area must be unrestricted regardless of circumstances. It means that restrictions must have a lawful and properly justified basis, rather than allowing safety to become a convenient justification for preventing independent reporting.
The silencing of journalists extends beyond physical violence
Increasingly, governments and other powerful actors are employing a range of measures to restrict reporting without necessarily resorting to direct violence. These include arbitrary arrests, criminal proceedings, defamation claims, excessive damages, threats to revoke citizenship, withdrawal of accreditation, visa restrictions, censorship, internet shutdowns, surveillance and the denial of access to conflict zones and public information.
Such measures can be just as effective in suppressing independent journalism as direct physical intimidation. They create an environment in which journalists are forced to consider the personal, professional and financial consequences of reporting on sensitive issues.
The chilling effect extends beyond those directly targeted. When journalists are threatened, prosecuted or killed for their work, colleagues may self-censor, media organisations may withdraw from sensitive investigations, and aspiring journalists may decide that entering the profession is simply too dangerous. The result is a progressively narrower public sphere in which fewer people are willing or able to challenge official narratives.
The threats against Israeli journalist and filmmaker Yuval Abraham and filmmaker Rachel Szor, whose documentary NAZA examines allegations concerning the use of AI-powered systems in Israeli military operations in Gaza, illustrate this wider pattern.
Drawing on anonymous interviews with Israeli intelligence officers and soldiers, the documentary investigates allegations concerning the use of AI-powered systems in military operations and the mass killing of civilians in Gaza. It has attracted international attention, including recognition at the Venice Film Festival, but has also prompted a hostile reaction in Israel.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has threatened to revoke the citizenship of anyone who defames Israeli soldiers and suggested increasing statutory damages for defamation twentyfold. Israel's Minister of Culture, Miki Zahor, has also called for the citizenship of the filmmakers' to be revoked, accusing them of treason against the state.
The IBAHRI is deeply concerned that such threats seek to punish journalists for investigating matters of profound public interest. Arbitrary deprivation of nationality would also violate Article 15 of the UDHR, which protects the right to a nationality and prohibits arbitrary deprivation of nationality.
Threatening journalists with the loss of citizenship, punitive damages or accusations of disloyalty does not address the substance of their reporting. Instead, it risks turning legal and administrative powers into instruments of intimidation and censorship.
When independent newspapers are forced to close: the case of Novaya Gazeta
The closure of independent media organisations provides another illustration of how freedom of expression can be systematically dismantled through legal and administrative measures.
Novaya Gazeta, a Russian independent newspaper, will officially shut down its operations and cease publication on 9 November 2026 following reports of an intense, multi-year pressure campaign by Russian authorities. On 30 October 2026, the outlet's editorial board announced that the newspaper has been forced to close permanently. Editor-in-Chief Sergei Sokolov has confirmed that the paper will publish one final edition before turning off its servers and vacating its long-time central Moscow offices.
Reportedly, the definitive closure was triggered by a rapid escalation of state pressure. This included the police detention and questioning of Mr Sokolov, the arrest of journalist Oleg Roldugin, a sudden eviction notice from their premises and Russian banks blocking the outlet's ability to receive donations from readers.
Fearing that the editorial team would be targeted with severe 'extremist organisation' charges - which carry heavy prison sentences - the management chose to shut down completely to protect its remaining staff.
Weaponising immigration and visa powers to restrict journalism
Administrative controls are also increasingly being used to obstruct journalists' ability to work across borders. Visa and immigration arrangements, which should facilitate legitimate professional activity, risk becoming instruments through which governments exert pressure on foreign correspondents and restrict independent scrutiny.
The United States provides a particularly concerning example. In 2026, the US administration introduced proposed changes to visa rules for foreign journalists that would limit the duration of their stays in the country to 240 days, replacing the more open-ended arrangements for international correspondents that have been in place since 1985.
Following a legal challenge brought in August 2026, a federal judge issued a nationwide injunction preventing the new rules from being implemented while the case proceeds. However, these changes have raised serious concerns about the potential weaponisation of journalists' immigration status. Uncertainty over whether a journalist may remain in the country, renew their status or continue reporting can undermine the independence and continuity of foreign correspondents' work. It may also discourage journalists from undertaking sensitive investigations into US government policies and conduct.
The concern is not limited to the United States. Around the world, journalists face visa delays, refusals, accreditation withdrawals and arbitrary administrative requirements that obstruct their ability to report. In Sudan, for example, foreign journalists have encountered significant difficulties obtaining visas to cover the country's devastating civil war.
When immigration powers are used to make journalistic work conditional on political approval, they undermine the independence of the media and risk turning access to a country into a privilege granted only to those whose reporting is considered acceptable.
Restricting access is restricting the public's right to know
Physical exclusion and bureaucratic restrictions are increasingly compounding the dangers facing journalists.
In Gaza, Israel has continued to exclude international journalists from entering the territory independently and has restricted the entry of essential press equipment since 7 October 2023. The resulting lack of independent international access has made it exceptionally difficult to verify events and document the experiences of civilians.
In southern Lebanon and parts of Beirut, Hezbollah has operated a permit system for journalists and imposed filming restrictions, creating additional obstacles for independent reporting.
In Pakistan, following protests in Pakistan-administered Kashmir in which authorities reportedly killed more than 30 protesters, the government introduced restrictions requiring foreign media personnel, including Pakistani nationals working for international media organisations, to obtain permission to report from areas outside Islamabad, Karachi and Lahore. Authorities also retain powers to withdraw accreditation for conduct considered contrary to broadly defined concepts such as the country's ideology, sovereignty, security or public order.
Although states may impose certain restrictions to protect legitimate national security or public order interests, such restrictions must satisfy the requirements of international law. Vague or undefined grounds cannot be used to grant authorities unfettered discretion to determine which journalists may report and which subjects may be investigated.
The IBAHRI stresses that journalists' access to information and conflict-affected areas must not be subject to arbitrary political or administrative control. A government cannot claim to protect the public while systematically preventing independent scrutiny of the very events affecting that public.
The cumulative effect damaging democracy
Independent journalism is a fundamental safeguard against the concentration and abuse of power. It enables voters to make informed decisions, allows civil society to scrutinise public institutions and ensures that allegations of misconduct can be investigated and brought into the public domain.
When governments silence journalists, close independent media outlets, restrict foreign correspondents or allow attacks to go unpunished, they undermine the mechanisms through which democratic societies hold power to account.
The consequences are particularly severe in times of war and political instability. Without independent reporting, governments and armed groups can control the information available to the public, obscure civilian suffering, deny responsibility for violations and manipulate the narrative surrounding events.
An environment in which journalists are intimidated into silence is one in which corruption, human rights abuses and violations of international law can flourish with reduced scrutiny. It is also one in which public trust in democratic institutions and the rule of law is progressively eroded.
The High Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom: a framework for action
The IBAHRI underscores the importance of the work of the High Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom, for which the IBAHRI provides secretariat support.
The Panel's work provides authoritative legal analysis and practical recommendations to governments, international organisations and other stakeholders on protecting media freedom and strengthening accountability. Its May 2026 Advisory Note, Protection of Journalists in Armed Conflict Zones , is particularly relevant. In addition to examining the international legal framework meant to protect journalists in armed conflict, it identifies the escalating threats and restrictions confronting media professionals and sets out concrete recommendations for states and the international community.
In conclusion, a critical crisis has emerged at the intersection of these four factors:
- the extensive international legal protections that already exist;
- the systematic failure to implement those protections;
- the increasing use of state machinery to obstruct journalism; and
- the consequences for democratic accountability and the public's right to know.
