Wave of attacks on migrant rights activists; At least two protesters injured

Introduction

In September and October 2024, during its 57th session, the UN Human Rights Council reviewed the Dominican Republic during the third cycle of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). The UPR is a UN process that reviews the human rights records of all member states. Notably, the country received some recommendations on civic space freedoms, such as:

• Take measures to prevent threats, harassment and attacks against human rights defenders.
• Investigate all allegations of the use of excessive force by law enforcement officials and ensure that they receive training on the appropriate use thereof.
• Decriminalise defamation and incorporate it in the Civil Code, in accordance with international standards.
• Continue efforts to promote freedom of expression and ensure the protection of journalists and human rights defenders.
• Ratify the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean (Escazú Agreement).

Association

Escalating risks for human rights defenders

Between September and November 2024, civil society organisations reported a pattern of stigmatisation, arbitrary detention, disinformation campaigns, and failure of state institutions to provide adequate protection.

On 5th September 2024, a Dominican newspaper published misleading content about human rights defender Wendy Osirus, including a photograph of another person in what civil society groups considered an attempt to discredit his work. Osirus, founder of multiple organisations in Haiti and the Dominican Republic, leads the Movement for Human Rights, Peace and Global Justice (Movimiento por los Derechos Humanos, la Paz y la Justicia Global, MONDHA). This was followed by peaceful protests on 23rd September in Santo Domingo against racial discrimination, after which reports emerged of increased hostility towards migrant rights defenders and people of Haitian descent.

On 2nd October 2024, President Luis Abinader and the Dominican Republic’s Security and National Defence Council publicly announced the immediate enforcement of a mass deportation plan, targeting over 10,000 people per week considered to be in an irregular migration situation. Civil society organisations documented allegations of human rights violations linked to the plan, including the deportation of unaccompanied children, confiscation of identity documents, and overcrowding in detention centres.

Six days later, anti-migrant groups gathered outside the headquarters of the Sociocultural Movement for Humanitarian and Environmental Work (MOSCTHA)—an organisation that advocates for migrants’ rights—issuing anti-Haitian slogans. Despite requests, no effective protection was provided by police authorities.

On 12th October 2024, authorities arbitrarily detained and falsely accused activist Franklin Dinol of using forged documents. He was released shortly thereafter. Dinol is the coordinator of Reconoci.do, a movement advocating for the rights of Dominicans of Haitian descent, particularly young people. These events occurred in a context of continued hostility. Civil society organisations recalled a 2022 unlawful raid on the offices of the Dominican-Haitian Women’s Movement (Movimiento de Mujeres Dominico-Haitianas, MUDHA).

On 5th November 2024, a coalition of civil society organisations released a joint statement denouncing the lack of public protection policies for human rights defenders. It urged the state to comply with its international obligations to ensure a safe and enabling environment to defend human rights.

Peaceful Assembly

Protesters injured amid dispute over mining expansion in Cotuí

On 8th January 2025, a group of peasants and community leaders sought to block the transit of trucks transporting heavy machinery for the construction of the dam in Las Tres Bocas, Cotuí, located in Sánchez Ramírez province. The protest began peacefully but escalated when members of the armed forces and the national police intervened to disperse protesters, resulting in multiple injuries. Among those injured was Catholic priest Jhonny Durán, who had been mediating between community members and security forces. According to media sources, Father Durán criticised the conduct of the security forces, including their use of tear gas and the alleged entry into private homes.

On 19th February 2025, community members in Cotuí organised a subsequent protest, reiterating opposition to the planned expansion of the tailings dam. Protesters used slogans expressing concern about environmental degradation and the perceived risks associated with the mining project.

Protests have arisen in response to the 2022 expansion of the mining operations of the Canadian company Barrick Gold. The construction of a new tailings dam in the Zambrana district has reportedly led to the planned resettlement of over 400 families.

The dispute relates to disagreements regarding the compensation criteria applied by the company in assessing land, housing, and agricultural crops—reportedly including nine types of crops—within the area earmarked for expansion. Residents of the communities of El Higo, El Rayo and Las Tres Bocas have opposed the resettlement. They have also raised questions about the structural safety of the proposed tailings dam and its potential impact on the local ecosystem and the safety of neighbouring communities in the event of a collapse.

Police use force against striking truck drivers

On 16th January 2025, National Police officers injured a truck driver during a strike organised by the Land Transport Union at the Caucedo Multimodal Port, located in the municipality of Boca Chica, Santo Domingo Province. The truck drivers protested delays of up to 15 hours in unloading and collecting goods from DP World, one of the country’s main logistics providers.

Video footage shared on social media showed police officers using tear gas and firing weapons while dispersing the protest. In the video, one officer grabs a truck driver by the vest, and another strikes him with a firearm. As the driver attempts to break free, the same officer fires several rounds from what appears to be a pellet gun. One of the projectiles hits the driver in the leg, causing him to fall to the ground.

Expression

Unfounded accusations against journalists, alleging ties to USAID

In February 2025, at least six journalists—Juan Bolívar Díaz, Huchi Lora, Marino Zapete, Mariasela Álvarez, Altagracia Salazar and Edith Febles—faced unfounded accusations on social media and digital platforms, which claimed they worked for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

Notably, journalist Huchi Lora rejected the stigmatising campaign and identified its origin in a political sector that includes individuals accused of corruption. He stated that the campaign constitutes a “campaña injuriosa” promoted by someone allegedly facing corruption charges who may face conviction. Lora explained that the accusations rely solely on a message posted on platform X and disseminated from abroad: “I have never received money from USAID or from any source other than the media outlets where I have worked during my 58 years of professional practice,” he emphasised.

The Dominican College of Journalists (Colegio Dominicano de Periodistas, CDP) and the National Union of Press Workers (Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Prensa, SNTP) publicly affirmed their solidarity with the journalists. CDP President Aurelio Henríquez urged those making the accusations to present verifiable evidence. He further warned that, in the absence of such proof, those promoting the allegations contravene the Dominican Constitution, Law No. 61-32 on Expression and Dissemination of Thought, and the Code of Ethics of Dominican Journalism.

Concerns raised over the judicial branch’s new data protection policy

On 14th November 2024, the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) approved a new Data Protection Policy, applying to all decisions issued by the SCJ and other courts across the country. According to the SCJ, its purpose is to establish clear rules for the anonymisation of personal data within the judicial sphere and to allow judicial authorities to determine, prior to issuing rulings, which personal data should be withheld from public judicial documents based on the sensitivity of the information involved.

The SCJ further explained that the policy aims to protect essential personal data in judicial decisions by enabling courts to omit sensitive information when publishing rulings. According to the President of the Court, this discretion forms part of an approach that promotes “effective judicial protection”, whereby the judiciary itself evaluates and determines which data may be excluded to safeguard the privacy of the parties involved.

The recent decision by the SCJ to adopt a new data protection policy has raised concern among media organisations, who cautioned that it may negatively affect the right to access public information and unduly restrict freedom of expression. The Dominican Society of Newspapers (SDD), an association representing the country’s main print media outlets, publicly criticised the measure. In its statement, the SDD characterised the policy as a “unilateral restriction” that could hinder judicial transparency and obstruct the media’s role in promoting public accountability.

The SDD contended that the decision is inconsistent with constitutional guarantees of public access to judicial proceedings, citing Article 69.4 of the Constitution of the Dominican Republic, which enshrines the right to a public, oral, and adversarial trial as part of due process. It further questioned the SCJ’s competence to adopt measures of this nature, arguing that the policy exceeds the judiciary’s normative authority and may result in arbitrary redactions. The organisation underscored that the absence of external oversight, coupled with the broad discretion afforded to judges, could diminish public confidence and impair democratic oversight of the judiciary.

The SCJ’s resolution provides that anonymisation will apply to all decisions, unless public interest justifies disclosure. In such cases, judges must offer a written justification. Nonetheless, critics asserted that the resolution’s language remains imprecise, and the criteria for invoking public interest exceptions lack clarity. The manner in which courts interpret and apply these provisions remains uncertain.

While the policy does not constitute an explicit violation of the freedom of expression at this stage, continuous scrutiny will be necessary. Effective implementation must ensure that access to information is not compromised by unregulated judicial discretion.

Constitutional Court annuls law establishing the National Intelligence Directorate

On 7th December 2024, the Constitutional Court struck down Law No. 1-24, which established the National Intelligence Directorate (Dirección Nacional de Inteligencia, DNI), citing fundamental breaches of the Constitution.

The ruling (TC/0767/24) followed several direct actions of unconstitutionality brought by opposition parties—including Fuerza del Pueblo, the Dominican Liberation Party (PLD), and the Dominican Revolutionary Party (PRD)—alongside the Dominican Bar Association. The Court concluded that the law’s scope and legislative process violated constitutional standards, rendering it null and void.

As previously reported by the CIVICUS Monitor, Law No. 1-24, signed in January 2024 by President Luis Abinader, created the National Intelligence System and empowered the DNI with sweeping surveillance and operational authorities. Among its controversial provisions, Article 9 authorised the agency to monitor and counter activities deemed threatening to national interests, internal order, or constitutional governance. Organisations have criticised the legislation for undermining professional confidentiality and for blurring the line between national security and internal dissent. Critics contended that the law’s broad and ambiguous language posed serious risks to freedom of expression.

The DNI was also tasked with evaluating threats to the constitutional order, dismantling criminal organisations, ensuring cybersecurity, and protecting critical infrastructure from espionage, sabotage, or cyberattacks. According to the Court, these expansive functions entrenched the DNI within the framework of national security and state defence—areas that the Constitution designates as requiring an “organic law”, subject to more rigorous legislative procedures. However, Law No. 1-24 was enacted as an ordinary statute, bypassing essential constitutional safeguards.

The Court did not address the remaining constitutional challenges raised by the claimants, citing its own precedent that procedural defects alone warranted annulment. The ruling entered into force upon its publication and has the effect of removing Law No. 1-24 from the legal system.