# Germany - United States Department of State

- Assistant Secretary Stewart Travels to Germany, Belgium Office of the SpokespersonAssistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, Deterrence, and Stability Mallory Stewart will travel to Garmisch, Germany, and Brussels, Belgium, May 13-18.In Garmisch, Assistant Secretary Stewart will provide keynote remarks at the Senior Executive Seminar at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies.  She will also participate in roundtable discussions and sessions with fellows and faculty.In Brussels, Assistant Secretary Stewart will meet with NATO and EU officials on a range of issues, including on arms control and outer space security.  Additionally, she will lead discussions about key arms control and emerging technology issues to advance Allied security and deterrence.
- Online Press Briefing with Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy Jennifer Bachus Brussels HubMODERATOR:  Okay, and good afternoon from the State Department’s Brussels Media Hub.  I would like to welcome everyone joining us for today’s virtual press briefing.  Today, we are very honored to be joined by Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy Jennifer Bachus. Finally, a reminder that today’s briefing is on the record.  And with that, let’s get started.  Thank you so much for joining us today, and I’ll turn it over to you, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Bachus, for your opening remarks.  MS BACHUS:  Thank you very much.  It’s a real pleasure to be on this call with you all as, if you’ve read my bio, you know I have spent significant time in Europe, so it’s an area I know and appreciate quite well.  I’m also very excited to be able to do this call this week because I hope you all have seen that we released the U.S. International Cyberspace and Digital Policy Strategy this week.  The Secretary of State spoke at RSA and sort of announced this.   To sort of spend a couple of minutes on this before I get into the main purpose of the call today, the strategy is recognizing the growing role that technology and technology policy is playing across foreign policy issues, and it focused on building what we’re calling broad digital solidarity to work with international partners to advance a digital future that is rights-respecting for tech safety and security online and leverages technology to address some of the most profound global challenges.   Essentially, digital solidarity is a willingness to work together on shared goals, to stand together, to help partners build capacity, and to provide mutual support.  It recognizes that all who seek to use digital technologies in a rights-respecting manner are made more secure, resilient, self-determining, and prosperous when we work together to shape the international environment and innovate at the technological edge.  So, we have three guiding principles that are laid out by this strategy and four action areas.  I will not spend more time on that unless you all want to, but just to say that this concept of digital solidarity aligns very closely with what we’re here to talk about today, which is the attack that Germany came to us to – that the United States joined Germany in attributing malicious cyber activity.  Just a little bit of background:  Due to our longstanding close relationship with Germany that’s been built up over a decade of close cooperation, Germany came to us after it detected malicious cyber activity carried out by the Russian group APT28 that was targeting a German political party.  It came to us; it asked us to join in attributing this activity; it gave us information that we were able to verify; and we were very pleased to be able to support this attribution both bilaterally and through NATO.  And as I’m sure you saw in our statement, we came together with the EU and NATO Allies condemning the activity and supporting efforts to counter disruptive cyber activities and hold malicious cyber actors accountable.   I know there are some questions to this extent, but maybe I’ll just start out by saying that APT28, which has a lot of other known acronyms – Fancy Bear, Strontium, Forest Blizzard – is part of the Russian Federation’s General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate, GRU, and is a well-known malicious cyber entity with a very long history of engaging in destabilizing and disruptive behavior.   I think it’s also important to recognize the United States has previously indicted and sanctioned actors associated with APT28 for their involvement in a wide range of malign cyber activities such as the sustained hack-and-leak operations that targeted the World Anti-Doping Agency and cyber activities aimed at interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections.  Of course, these are just a few of the many malign, disruptive, and destabilizing activities associated with APT28.  And we’d just note that this pattern of behavior blatantly disregards the framework of responsible safe behavior in cyberspace, which was affirmed by all UN member states. I will stop there.  I know some of those – some of my opening statement hopefully answers some of the questions you all have, but happy to go into more detail.  MODERATOR:  Okay, thanks very much.  We will now turn to the question-and-answer portion of today’s briefing.  Okay, so the first question goes to Lisa O’Carroll at The Guardian, Europe/UK.  “Have you any knowledge of APT attacks on other countries other than Germany and Czechia in the EU?  How concerned are you about attacks on infrastructure and transport such as jamming air traffic control?”   MS BACHUS:  So we recognize or we understand that there were attacks in Czechia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Sweden that have all been targeted by this malicious cyber actor.  On the question of our concern on critical infrastructure, I will say, broadly speaking, we have seen increasing efforts both by state-sponsored actors such as APT28 as well as non-state actors such as ransomware actors targeting critical infrastructure, and therefore we continue to encourage all critical infrastructure owners to continue to upgrade their basic cybersecurity. I don’t have any specific information on the question of jamming and traffic control.   MODERATOR:  Okay.  Thanks very much.  Let’s move on to one of the next questions.  So, we have Jakub Lucky from Czech Radio.  And the question is: “What kind of cooperation has there been with Czechia?”   MS BACHUS:  So great question.  I served in the Czech Republic for three years, so I can tell you from personal experience have a very close and deep relationship with the Czech Republic on all things cyber related.  We actually held our first cyber dialogue with the Czech Republic – I believe it was last month – which was held on the margins of the 5G Cybersecurity Conference.  So for a long time we, of course, exchanged information, supported the Czech agencies in their own investigations, and just broadly had deep cooperation both at the sort of law enforcement level as well as the diplomatic level.  And so we will – we have and we will continue to have such a strong relationship, recognizing that the Czech Republic itself has very strong cyber actors.   MODERATOR:  Great.  Thanks very much.  Let’s go on to our next question, and it is from Karol Darmoros from Polish Radio in Poland.  And the question is: “Recent North Atlantic Council’s statement concerning malicious activities points directly to Germany and Czechia.  Does the U.S. see specific threats to Poland in this area?  Could you elaborate on this?  Is Belarus, with its relatively strong IT sector, a possible Russian proxy?” MS BACHUS:  We do not have specific information about this threat actor and doing similar to what it did in Germany and Czechia.  But, of course, I think we all need to recognize that there are malicious, persistent cyber actors out there who will continue to seek opportunities to carry out destabilizing cyber intrusions.  And therefore, as I said earlier, it is critically important that every country continues to improve its cyber hygiene, that it continues to undertake the sort of needed basics that are being done. Again, we’ve had very strong, longstanding cooperation with Poland.  My boss, Ambassador Fick, was in Poland a few months ago.  I had a series of engagements with the Polish Government.  We know the Polish Government is taking this very seriously, and we would encourage them to continue to do so.   In terms of the relationship between Belarus and Russia, I personally don’t have any further comment on that.  We see that there are malicious cyber actors that are spread in many countries around the world, and, again, this is why it’s so critically important that every country does the sort of cyber 101 that’s necessary to strengthen its own systems.   MODERATOR:  Okay.  Great.  Thanks very much.  Let’s go to the next question.  So, we have Momchil Indjov from Club Z Media in Bulgaria: “Do you have any information about any cyber attack of the APT28 against Bulgaria?  And if so, could you provide any details?” MS BACHUS:  So, again, I – we do not have specific – in this particular situation we do not have specific information on Bulgaria; but, again, I think that the – that it is a very pernicious actor which is likely to seek any accesses it can, regardless of which country it is.  So, I have no specific information when it comes to Bulgaria, but that doesn’t mean that the APT28 is not active in Bulgaria.   MODERATOR:  Thanks very much.  Okay.  We do have quite a few questions here, so let me go on to another one here.  And we have Llazar Semini, Associated Press out of Albania.  And the question is: “Earlier this week Kosovo suffered a cyber attack from what they said was a Russian hacker.  Are you aware of that incident?  Any specifics?  And is Kosovo considered a target for Russia?”   MS BACHUS:  I am not personally able to attribute the attack in Kosovo to APT28.  Again, we have seen the actor actively engaged in activities throughout Europe, and so it is possible that APT28 has been active in Kosovo.  We have similarly spent significant time and energy trying to support Kosovo in strengthening its cybersecurity, and we will continue to do so.   MODERATOR:  Great.  Thanks very much.  Okay.  So, we have another question here, and this question comes from Stella Venohr from DPA in Germany.  And the question is: “To what extent is cyberspace considered national territory?  So is there a scenario in which a Russian cyberattack could fall under Article 5 of NATO?””   MS BACHUS:  First of all, I would say that we believe that there is a critical importance to the open, interoperable, secure, and reliable internet, which means that information will continue to flow across borders.  The question of whether a cyber attack falls into Article 5 is one that’s been discussed for many years.  I think that ultimately it would depend upon the level of the activity.  There is those that create destabilizing downstream impacts onto, for example, critical infrastructure; there are those that are hack-and-leak operations.  So there is not a one-size-fits-all answer to the question.  It really would depend on what is the actual ultimate activity, what is the outcome of the attack, and what is the impact on civilian or other infrastructure. So again, I know people want answers on when does it reach into Article 5.  I will say this is an ongoing conversation that we have throughout the Alliance.  We do recognize that there is the possibility that significant malicious, cumulative cyber activities might in some circumstances be considered an armed attack that would lead to the invocation of Article 5, but this would be on a case-by-case basis and, again, it would require a real analysis. MODERATOR:  Thanks very much.  And let’s move on to the next question.  We have Alexej Hock from CORRECTIV in Germany.  And the question is: “Could you please provide a few details about how APT28 is disguising its own infrastructure, and how attribution works then?” MS BACHUS:  So, there are a variety of ways that actors such as APT28 disguise their activities.  And essentially, they – in this particular case, APT28 was using the exploitation of a particular cybersecurity vulnerability, which I can name if anyone actually cares.  It’s CBE-2023-23397.  Essentially, what it was, was there was a network of hundreds of small office and home office routers, and these were being used to carry out the attack. So, there was work that was done with the U.S. Department of Justice in Germany to help remediate this network and to block the GRU from regaining access to the remediated devices.  We will continue to take action against APT28 to protect itself   – to protect ourselves, our citizens, and foreign partners, and we will continue to do so. I don’t know if I missed the last part of that question.  I apologize if I did. MODERATOR:  No, I think you did get the whole question, so thanks very much.  I’m going to move to one of the next questions that we have here.  And so we have Maggie Miller from Politico, and the question is this:  “Various European countries are seeing attacks from Russia in recent weeks.  Can you talk about the trend in attacks by Russia against Europe?  And how are you expecting Russian cyber attacks to evolve against Europe this year?” MS BACHUS:  Thank you, Maggie, always good to have questions from you.  I think that, yes, we are seeing an increase in the frequency and type of activity coming out of Russia.  This, I think, aligns with its full-scale invasion and illegal war in Ukraine, and I think we can expect that this will continue to happen. And I think that the reality is, is that Russia does try to calibrate what it’s doing to avoid escalatory impacts, but nonetheless is carrying out destabilizing intrusions into cyber networks around Europe and into the United States, as well.  And so I think this is a trend that we expect will continue.  I think it aligns similarly with what has become a really frightening increase in the amount of ransomware attacks, as well. And again, it just goes to show the importance of addressing known vulnerabilities of the private sector and the public sector, catching these vulnerabilities, working together to find them, to remediate them, and then also just to do the basics when it comes to cyber hygiene.  I think the only way to address this is to continue to up our preventative game. MODERATOR:  Okay, thanks very much for that answer.  We’re going to go now to an actual live question from Lisa O’Carroll from The Guardian Europe/UK. QUESTION:  Thank you for the second chance.  It’s actually a follow-up, really, to that previous question.  What is your nightmare scenario?  There’s an election coming up here in four weeks’ time, and we all know and can see the disinformation is proliferating, and the cyber attacks and ransomware.  Our own company is being – has been a victim of ransomware 18 months ago.  It’s a pretty severe attack.  What is the nightmare scenario that you have in Europe at the moment that you’ve game-planned for? MS BACHUS:  It’s a really good question.  I think I’m always worried about giving a nightmare scenario because, if you give a nightmare scenario, does that then give ideas to our adversaries on what to do? I think, of course, we’re both concerned about influence, operations which we see coming out of Russia, and particularly in this massive election year, both in the UK but also in the United States, in Europe, and elsewhere.  It’s a huge election year for us.  So, I think you have the question of malign influence, and then you have the question, of course, of destabilizing cyber intrusions.  I think we will continue to be concerned, as you noted, both about state-sponsored but as well about ransomware actors carrying out such attacks. And I think that we’ve seen – I mean, in the United States we’ve already seen some really terrible ransomware activity.  The attack against the U.S. health care industry, which essentially brought down the ability of people to make appointments, to receive prescriptions, et cetera, I think these are already some pretty bad scenarios that are impacting our everyday life.  I think we could see that on a large scale, again, not necessarily from state actors, but also potentially from non-state actors.  And I think that it’s critically important that we recognize that these vulnerabilities can be used by both, and that’s why it’s so critically important to address them. So, I guess I would not have a specific nightmare scenario I would want to highlight, but to just say that there’s already a lot of very bad scenarios out there that we need to continue to guard against. MODERATOR:  Okay.  And it looks like we have two more questions, and we have just about enough time to answer two more questions, so that fits well.  So let me get to the first of the final two questions.  And this comes from Novika Mikhailovic from an outlet in the Western Balkans, and the question is:  “How resilient to cyber attacks from Russia are the Western Balkan countries?” MS BACHUS:  I would say the Western Balkan countries have done a lot of work to increase their cyber hygiene, but I think that there is more work to be done – not just in relation to the attack that happened this week in Kosovo, but also to the massive cyber intrusion that occurred in Albania, I guess almost two years ago.  I know Montenegro has also had cyber intrusions that have been quite destabilizing.  I think that there is continued basic work that needs to happen throughout the Western Balkans.   I can tell you the United States and Europe have come together to try to continue to improve the ability of the Western Balkans to protect its own infrastructure; we will continue to do so.  It’s an area that we have devoted significant resources to and that we will continue to do so, again, in close cooperation with the EU and European member states. MODERATOR:  Okay.  And if – if we can, we’ll go to the final question for today’s briefing.  And it’s a question – so a second question from Alexej Hock from CORRECTIV in Germany.  And the question is:  “Are the activities of APT28 hack-and-leak activities?  And do you have any signs that correspondence from the hacked mail inboxes of the SPD in Germany is being used already?” MS BACHUS:  I think that I would defer on that question to Germany.  We – we – our role in this really was to support and to reaffirm Germany’s information.  So, I would recommend you engage with the German Government on that question. MODERATOR:  All right.  And unfortunately, that’s all the time we have for today.  Thank you for your questions, and thank you, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Bachus, for joining us.  But before we close the call, I’d like to see if our speaker has any final remarks or wrap-up thoughts for the group. MS BACHUS:  Thank you very much.  We came here today to talk about what’s really malicious cyber activity.  But I just hope you all walk away recognizing the critical importance that – of the collaboration between the United States and Europe both to address when these types of incidents occur, but also to try to prepare for them, try to prevent them, and essentially to come together around a shared vision of the internet and how we can work together.  I think that this collaboration between the United States and Europe ultimately makes both sides stronger and allows us to continue to stand up for the framework of responsible state behavior in cyberspace, which is a critically important element of our shared commitment to a stable cyberspace.   So, thank you very much for joining us, and thank you very much for your interest in what’s a critically important topic.   MODERATOR:  Great, thank you.  So shortly we’ll send the audio recording of this briefing to all the participating journalists, and we will provide a transcript as soon as it’s available.  We’d love to hear any feedback at TheBrusselsHub@state.gov.  Again, that’s one word, TheBrusselsHub@state.gov.   So, thanks again for everyone’s participation, and we hope you can join us for another press briefing soon.  This ends today’s press briefing. # # # 
- The United States Condemns Malicious Cyber Activity Targeting Germany, Czechia, and Other EU Member States Matthew Miller, Department SpokespersonThe United States strongly condemns the malicious cyber activity by Russia’s General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU), also known as APT28, against Germany, Czechia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Sweden.  We join Germany in attributing specific malign activity carried out by APT28 that targeted a German political party.APT28, also known as Fancy Bear, Strontium, and Forest Blizzard, is a well-known threat actor with a long history of engaging in malicious, nefarious, destabilizing and disruptive behavior.  The United States has previously indicted and sanctioned actors associated with APT28 for their involvement in a wide range of malign cyber activity, including cyber activities aimed at interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections, and sustained hack-and-leak operations targeting the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) that intended to undermine and sow doubt in the integrity of the organization.The U.S. Department of Justice has worked with Germany to remediate a network of hundreds of small office/home office routers that APT28 was using to conceal and carry out malicious activity, including the exploitation of CVE-2023-23397 against targets in Germany.  The DOJ action further blocked the GRU from regaining access to remediated devices.Russia’s pattern of behavior blatantly disregards the Framework for Responsible State Behavior in Cyberspace, as affirmed by all United Nations Member States.  The United States is committed to the security of our allies and partners and upholding the rules-based international order, including in cyberspace.  We call on Russia to stop this malicious activity and abide by its international commitments and obligations.  With the EU and our NATO Allies, we will continue to take action to disrupt Russia’s cyber activities, protect our citizens and foreign partners, and hold malicious actors accountable.
- PEPFAR at AIDS 2024 Munich From July 22-26, PEPFAR is joining partners, advocates, researchers, thought leaders, and others from around the world at the 25th International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2024) in Munich, Germany. The theme of AIDS 2022 is &#8220;Put People First.&#8221;Stay tuned: PEPFAR will release new resources and announcements about the impressive progress the program is making toward ending HIV/ AIDS in the weeks leading to AIDS 2024.
- Department Press Briefing – April 29, 2024 HomeDepartment Press Briefing &#8211; April 29, 2024				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Department Press Briefing &#8211; April 29, 2024																																																					April 29, 2024																																																								1:10 p.m. EDTMR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.QUESTION: Good afternoon.QUESTION: Starting early.MR PATEL: Try – always like to keep you all on your toes. I have a little bit of a hard out today, guys, so I will try to get through as many of you I can, but I’m going to be mindful of the time.Ellen, would you like to kick us off?QUESTION: Sure, thank you. On – Secretary Blinken has made a decision to give Israel more time to rectify the situation with the IDF unit that – after deeming that it was guilty of gross abuses of human rights, and that Israel has not held it accountable. And separately, there are the four other cases where there was, I believe, a staff recommendation, according to ProPublica, that these other groups had also committed gross human rights violations and should – the Leahy Law should apply to them. And Secretary Blinken waited five months, according to the ProPublica article, to make a decision on that.So this – is there – the one unit, Netzah Yehuda, is, according to the Israeli military, still operating, and operating in Gaza sometimes. There’s not much of a sign of urgency from the State Department that there are these Israeli units accused of gross human rights violations, extrajudicial killings, killing – torture, rape, and the death of a U.S. citizen.MR PATEL: Is there a question there, Ellen? (Laughter.)QUESTION: Yes, I’m getting there. There doesn’t seem to be – that there needs to be any urgency to protect the Palestinian civilians who are being exposed to these gross human rights violations, including with the postponed decision on Netzah Yehuda.MR PATEL: So to take a step back, I take it you are referring to some of the things that were publicly reported at the tail end of last week in reference to some correspondence that the Secretary had with congressional leadership? Is that what you’re referring to?QUESTION: Yes. Yes.MR PATEL: Okay. So let’s – I think important that we take a little bit of a step back here. First, when it comes to the Leahy Law, we have a careful and very deliberate process when it comes to implementing the Leahy Law. And I want to reiterate what you’ve heard me, the Secretary, Matt, and others say before, which is that the same standards when it comes to the implementation – or, sorry, the same standards of the application of this law applies to every country that receives U.S. security assistance.What I can say in terms of where the process is right now is that after a careful process, we found five Israeli units responsible for individual incidents of gross violations of human rights. All of these were incidents much before October 7th, and none took place in Gaza. Four of these units have effectively remediated these violations, which is what we expect partners to do. It is consistent with what we expect all countries whom with we have a security relationship with. For a remaining unit, we continue to be in consultations and engagements with the Government of Israel; they have submitted additional information as it pertains to that unit. And we’re continuing to have those conversations consistent with the memorandum of understanding that we have with the Government of Israel that was entered into in 2021.When conclusions are made under actions that fall under the auspices of the Foreign Assistance Act, we are required to consult with officials from the Government of Israel, and that is ongoing. We are engaging with them in a process, and we will make an ultimate decision when it comes to that unit when that process is complete.I would also just want to note that the remediation standard is consistent, and it is the same for all countries. And what we ask of host governments in that situation is effective steps being taken consistent within their processes and systems to bring respective parties to justice. So as it relates to the process here, that’s all of the update that I have for now, but we’re going to continue to engage with the government on that and we will have more to share, I’m sure, at some point in the future.QUESTION: There doesn’t seem to be a sense of urgency in the meantime; concern for Palestinian civilians exposed to these units doesn’t factor into the timeline of &#8212;MR PATEL: Let me just – I would 100 percent dispute the premise of that question. This is a deliberate process, it is a detail-oriented process, and it is a rigorous process. It is easy to sometimes want things to happen as quickly as possible, but it is more important to ensure that these processes are happening in the most robust and rigorous way possible, because we are ultimately dealing with facts, and we want to make sure that we can follow the facts and make sure that we are appropriately engaging with appropriate stakeholders, including, in this case, the Government of Israel. There is a clear process on this that we intend to follow, and that is the same process for determining these things, the standards of which are consistent with all countries.Go ahead, Kylie.QUESTION: I just want to follow up on what you’ve been saying about the standard being a typical process that you follow and remediation being standard across the board. So what is the remediation standard here? How long are you going &#8212;MR PATEL: So that’s the point that I was making, is that the standard of remediation is that the – these respective countries take effective steps to hold the accountable party to justice. And that is different on a country-by-country basis. I’m not going to be prescriptive of that on here, including in this incident. But it is &#8212;QUESTION: So then – I’m sorry, but then it’s not a standard if you’re saying it’s different on a country-by-country basis.MR PATEL: It’s a standard in the sense that we expect to see remediation in – but each country in which we have a security relationship is different. There are different protocols and procedures in place in those respective countries, and those respective countries can speak to what accountability measures they have within their systems. I’m not a spokesperson for those components.QUESTION: So you won’t speak to what the process you’re expecting to play out here is? How long you’re giving Israel for remediation in this?MR PATEL: Correct. Absolutely. I’m not going to get into that, beyond saying that we are engaging with the Government of Israel on these things. And I’m sure we’ll have more to share in the time ahead.QUESTION: And then the Secretary said ten days ago that a determination on the Leahy front with Israel had been made, and that we would see results. So I’m wondering if the determination that he made ten days ago is this determination that you guys are now making public, or if that changed due to engagements with the Israelis.MR PATEL: What we were talking about was the gross violations of human rights. As it relates to this one particular unit, I will say that this process continues to be ongoing, given this additional information that we’re engaging with the Government of Israel consistent with the memorandum of understanding that we have with them.QUESTION: Can I follow up?MR PATEL: Simon.QUESTION: Okay &#8212;MR PATEL: I’ll get to you, I’m sure.QUESTION: So no answer as to if it’s changed?MR PATEL: What – sorry, what?QUESTION: The determination ten days ago. Is this – you won’t say if it’s the same determination as &#8212;MR PATEL: What we were speaking about was the gross violations of human rights. That’s what the – the Secretary was alluding to. I will say that this process, though, with the Government of Israel broadly, continues to be ongoing, especially as it relates to this one unit.QUESTION: Just to clarify &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: &#8212; where we are, because this is a bit complicated: The U.S. Government has concluded that five different Israeli units committed gross human rights violations, but as of now all of those units can still continue to receive U.S. arms, weapons, ammunition.MR PATEL: Well, in the – in four of those instances, as I just said, we have seen remediation of those violations. And that is, of course, what we expect of partners. Beyond that, as it relates to this fifth unit, that is a process that is still ongoing.QUESTION: Right.MR PATEL: But let me just say, Simon, since you gave me the opportunity, when we’re talking about the Leahy Law, what we are talking about are unit and component restrictions when they are found in violation. It does not have bearing on the broader security relationship that we may have with a country, especially a country like Israel in which we have a longstanding security relationship, the provision of bulk assistance that’s gone back many, many years.QUESTION: But as of now, even the fifth unit, where you’re unsure whether there’s been remediation, they are still eligible to receive U.S. arms?MR PATEL: That is – that is – that is the interpretation of the law, correct.QUESTION: Okay, yeah. And to sort of – I wonder, the public might listen to you say that you’ve concluded that that there are gross violations of human rights, but is there any detail you can give us? What are these incidents? What kind of things are we talking about? Some of the reporting has involved sexual assaults, murder. Are these – is there anything you can tell us about what this conclusion is that &#8212;MR PATEL: So I’m not going to get into the specifics of these incidents from up here because overall, the totality of the situation continues to be an ongoing process. But I am – have no doubt that we will have more to share in the time ahead that is consistent with the appropriate congressional pieces as well as the engagements with the host government on this going forward.QUESTION: And you’re not going to tell us – you’re not going to tell us what the units are in question?MR PATEL: Again, that is not something that we generally make public beyond through appropriate consultations with legislative bodies as well as the host government.QUESTION: So the U.S. Government has conducted a process, found these units have conducted grave violations of human rights; that sounds very serious, but you won’t tell us what those violations were, who committed them, and you’re going to continue to send weapons to them?MR PATEL: That is a process that is consistent with the standards that we have with other countries as well. You have to remember, Israel is a country in which we have a longstanding security relationship with. Other countries similar in this grouping, I would say, would include the government – in terms of the kinds of relationship we have – include Ukraine, include Egypt. And in those kinds of countries, there is a proactive vetting of the whole security universe, a constant evaluation in close consultations with our embassies and consulates, NGOs, civil society, media reporting on the ground, as to assess what is happening in those countries. And so consistent with that process, we – not in a place to share publicly the specific components of their security services that – in which this is applicable to.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: Sorry, hold on. Is this on this, or &#8212;QUESTION: On this.MR PATEL: Okay. Let me get to Olivia, then I’ll come to you, Leon. I’m so sorry.QUESTION: Can you talk about within what timeframe this new information from the Israeli Government reached the State Department?MR PATEL: I’m just not going to speak to that specificity on diplomatic engagements. What I can say is that they provided additional information to us, and that is a process that’s going to continue to be ongoing.QUESTION: But was that additional information supplied after the Secretary made his – revealed that some determinations had been made (inaudible) &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m just not going to get into the diplomatic engagements that we have. What I can say is that this is consistent with the memorandum of understanding and which we have with Israel to talk about these things, prior to any conclusions that are made under things that fall under the Foreign Assistance Act.QUESTION: Generally speaking, are governments under Leahy that we have relationships with bound by a certain amount of time &#8212;MR PATEL: They are not.QUESTION: &#8212; with which they need to provide evidence or sort of confirm that they have taken steps on accountability or &#8212;MR PATEL: They are not. They are not.QUESTION: So this is a completely open-ended process &#8212;MR PATEL: Correct.QUESTION: &#8212; and violations can stretch on for an indeterminate amount of time? And at what point then does the department actually take any punitive measures?MR PATEL: Well, again, you have to – it’s important to remember, Olivia, that each country is different, so it’s difficult to talk about these circumstances with a broad-brush stroke. What I can say is that there is not a stipulation on timing, but we’ll continue to have these engagements and we will press directly with governments and countries about sharing applicable information.Again, in the context of Israel, this is a government in which we have a longstanding security relationship with. There is constant around-the-clock evaluation and vetting ongoing as it relates to the security parameters and circumstances on the ground. So we are looking at reports, we are looking at public reporting, we are looking at media reporting, just as we would do in any conflict zone, ensuring that there are no violations of international law, no violations of humanitarian law.QUESTION: But that seems to be at the core of the problem here, is that Israel is a unique country being offered unique treatment in this circumstance.MR PATEL: They are not being offered unique treatment. There is nothing that I have outlined here that is inconsistent with the Leahy process that is – when it comes to the countries that which we have security relationships with.QUESTION: You’ve cited the longstanding security relationship and how it might &#8212;MR PATEL: Because there are some countries in which the relationship we have with them would require us to approach this just slightly differently – Ukraine being an example, Egypt being an example, Israel being another example. But there is not a special treatment. There is not a different standard to &#8212;QUESTION: So what does “slightly differently” mean?MR PATEL: So Israel is a country that – in which we have a longstanding security relationship. There is a lot of bulk assistance that is going whether – to use an example, things like bulletproof vests or something – in which the Government of Israel may choose to want something like that. And then it is then on the central government to disseminate that to specific units or components within their security system.So for countries in which we have that kind of longstanding deep relationship – in Israel’s case, it’s called the Israel Leahy Vetting Forum – there is around-the-clock, proactive, constant vetting and evaluation of the circumstances that are on the ground to assess whether there are international – there – whether there are violations of international humanitarian law, violations of international law. That is a process that is ongoing. There is no such thing as special treatment or double standards here. The standards of the Leahy Law are applied consistently to all countries.Now, in some countries, like the ones that I stipulated, the security relationship is such as that there is this additional forum vehicle, but that is not a double standard or any kind of special treatment.QUESTION: I want to defer to my colleagues, which is – I mean, it just seems hard to countenance there’s no double standard with this as a special arrangement and set of circumstances that Israel &#8212;MR PATEL: It’s not a special arrangement, the standards of which – in fact, it is taking a closer look at the situations on the ground. It’s not a double standard; the standards are the same. It is a forum created to allow for the – for an assessment that is comparable to the kind of security relationship that we have with that particular country. Israel is not the only one that – in which this model exists.QUESTION: My last question on this is that – does the State Department believe that actually taking punitive measures under Leahy in this instance with regard to this one unit would somehow damage diplomatic relations with Israel?MR PATEL: I’m not going to get ahead of that process, Olivia, and we would certainly hope not, because throughout this whole process, we have been clear-eyed and consistent. You’ve heard the Secretary, you’ve heard the President, you’ve heard me, you’ve heard Matt – that throughout the course of this conflict, you have – we have reiterated our unwavering commitment to Israel’s security. That was true then; it is true now. And is Leahy unit-specific. It is not a bearing on the broader security relationship that we have with that particular country.I will also note that this is – continues to be an ongoing process. And if at any point remediation efforts or things like that are found to be inconsistent with the standards that we find, there of course will be restriction on applicable U.S. assistance. We intend to be an administration that’s going to follow the law as prescribed.QUESTION: Vedant?MR PATEL: Tom – oh, sorry, let me go to Leon, because he’s had his hand up, and then I’ll come to you.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)MR PATEL: Said &#8212;QUESTION: Just &#8212;MR PATEL: &#8212; of course you’re going to get a question. Has there ever been a briefing where you’ve not gotten a question on this issue?Leon.QUESTION: Thank you. We agree that all this is pre-October 7 and involves the West Bank, abuses in the West Bank, okay? So quite a while ago – I don’t know exactly how long depending on which of the units you’re talking about, but I find it a little bit strange that in four of those units, you – they have the remediary corrections that they did, and you accept that evidently. And in this fifth unit, what sort of additional information could have come through all of a sudden in the last couple of weeks that would make it that you are not able to make the determination yet?And then second question: What kind of remediary decisions are we talking about? I mean, disciplinary – or what kind of corrections? Can you speak to that?MR PATEL: So on the second point, that’s up to the host government. The standard that we expect is that they bring the relevant parties to justice. We cannot have some kind of prescriptive metric given that each country is different and their procedures as it relates to their own government systems and military systems are different, but our standard for remediation, we expect that of all countries in this case. But beyond that, Simon – I’m sorry, not Simon, Leon – it is an ongoing process so I’m not going to get more prescriptive or specific on the relevant details.Tom, go ahead.QUESTION: To follow up – can I just follow up on that?MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: I mean, I’m confused. Do you know whether or not the Israelis have remediated this unit?MR PATEL: That is – that is essentially what we are engaging with them on as it relates to this. Again, I can say that in these five individual incidents of gross violations of human rights, for four of these units they have effectively remediated those violations, which is, again, something we expect and want from the countries that – which we have security relationships with. It’s what we expect of our partners. As it relates to this remaining unit, the Government of Israel has submitted additional information. We are currently reviewing it, which is consistent with the memorandum of understanding we have with them. We’re engaging with them in a process, and we’ll make a decision from there when that process is complete.QUESTION: Okay. But the answer is you don’t know. You don’t know if they’ve remediated this unit on these places and we don’t know what the cases are because you’re not &#8212;MR PATEL: When I say something is mid-process, it’s safe to assume that. Yeah.QUESTION: Yeah, but the law – the law is really clear. So the law says, “No assistance shall be furnished...to any unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of State has credible information that such unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.” So you’ve made that determination that they have committed a gross violation of human rights. The exception is that that prohibition “shall not apply if the Secretary determines and reports” – to the appropriate congressional committees – “that the government of such country is taking effective steps to bring responsible members of the security forces to justice.” So has the Secretary notified Congress that they are taking effective steps?MR PATEL: So I’m not a legal or technical expert.QUESTION: No, because you don’t – you don’t know, and you just said you don’t know if they’ve remediated so &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m happy to check on the specifics of the legal process for you, Tom, and get back to you.QUESTION: But that is the legal process. So according to the legal process, you’ve determined that they have carried out gross violations of human rights, but you haven’t determined that they’ve remediated. And yet the Secretary said on April the 19th you had made the determinations. So I’m – I’m just really confused about what changed after April the 19th?MR PATEL: As I was pretty clear, what I shared was that the Government of Israel has shared additional information with us, and we are &#8212;QUESTION: But that – according to the law, that is not an effective remediation. So at the moment, you have a situation where you have – you have determined there was a gross violation, but you don’t have remediation. And I can’t see any part of the law which says you might decide over a couple of days that it’s been remediated and therefore keep security assistance going.MR PATEL: So like I said, this is an ongoing process. I’m not going to speak to it more specifically, but consistent with the memorandum of understanding that we have with the Government of Israel, we are engaging with them, consulting with them as it relates to not just this broader process but additional information that they’ve shared. And we’ll have more to share in the time ahead.Said, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you – thank you, Vedant. By the way, did – can you share with us the outcome of the investigation of the death of Omar Assad that was – that actually died while in the custody with this unit, Netzah Yehuda? Do we know what was the outcome of that investigation?MR PATEL: I don’t have any specifics to offer right now.QUESTION: Okay. Could you look into it?MR PATEL: I’m happy to check for you, Said.QUESTION: Yeah, please, thank you.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: The other thing is it seems that Israel has rebuked the United States call or your call the other day for investigating the mass grave, the mass burial and all these things. Do you have any comment on that?MR PATEL: So Said, there has been some – and if you’ll allow me a quick second, I don’t have – make sure this is the right thing here. As it relates to this Said, the IDF has been pretty public in that in its search for Israeli hostages &#8212;QUESTION: Right.MR PATEL: &#8212; they uncovered graves in the area where Palestinians had previously buried their dead.QUESTION: They excavated – you mean excavated – yeah.MR PATEL: There has been some pretty consistent public reporting dating back to January that that is an area that Palestinians had to bury some bodies, but the IDF can speak more specifically about that process. But you heard me speak to this, you heard the National Security Advisor say – and consistently across this administration, I’d say that the facts matter and, of course, if there is any kind of inconsistency that needs to be looked into – but I believe that the IDF has spoken publicly about what this is and what this isn’t.QUESTION: Okay. So you accept their answer? I mean, their answer was we did not do that; we don’t do this. I mean that’s what – and they consider the matter to be over. Do you consider the matter to be over?MR PATEL: Said, I just said if there are in fact any inconsistencies, then that should be looked into. But based on even just the public reporting, the IDF has been clear about what this is and what this isn’t. That being said, we engage with the Government of Israel and the IDF around the clock. This is something we’ll continue to discuss with them if we need to raise any further issues.QUESTION: Okay. A couple more questions, if you allow me. It has reported that the U.S. is working with Israel to prevent any kind of ICC warrant of arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Are you aware of that? Is that true? Can you confirm that?MR PATEL: It’s important to take a step back here, Said, that since this president has come into office, we have worked to reset our relationship with the ICC. And we are in contact with the court on a range of issues, including in connection to the court’s important work on Darfur, on Ukraine, on Sudan as well. But on this investigation, our position is clear. We continue to believe that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over the Palestinian situation.QUESTION: Yeah, but you did welcome the warrant of the arrest for Vladimir Putin, correct? I mean, you welcomed that. I’m just asking. You did.MR PATEL: Said, these are two very different – first of all, I actually – I really – I don’t appreciate &#8212;QUESTION: I’m not making a comparison. I’m &#8212;MR PATEL: You literally are, though. You literally are. There is no moral equivalency between the kinds of things that we see President Putin and his – and the Kremlin undertake in comparison to the Israeli Government, Said.QUESTION: I’m not asking for a justification. I’m saying you did – you did welcome it, right? Okay.MR PATEL: This is also not – the ICC, as you know, is not – we are not party to the Rome Statute on this.QUESTION: Right, that’s true. Let me ask you one last question on the Saudi trip.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: On the Secretary’s trip to Saudi Arabia. It has been said that the Saudis suggested or came up with a proposal that basically said let’s focus on the security issues, arrangement on security issues and the civilian nuclear program, whatever, and leave the normalization, the Palestinian state, to another time when things are more propitious to discuss these things. Can you confirm that to us?MR PATEL: Said, I’m &#8212;QUESTION: Did the Saudis submit a new proposal that delinks &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m not going to get into – I’m not going to set into the specifics of our ongoing diplomatic engagements, but we remain committed to the long-term goal of a more stable and prosperous and integrated Middle East region, including through normalization and of course also including through the advancement of a two-state solution. The Secretary just addressed this in Capri that this is something that we have continued to be working on as part of a potential normalization process between Israel and Saudi Arabia. It’s been something that he himself has been intensively engaged on. But beyond that, I’m – we’ll just defer to our Saudi partners to speak to that.QUESTION: Yeah. As far as your – you know, there has been no proposal delinking these issues, focusing on the security issue versus the Palestinian normalization issue?MR PATEL: Said, we think that an integrated Middle East region should include normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia but also the advancement of a two-state solution as well.Go ahead, Guita.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. On the ceasefire aspect of the Gaza war, the Secretary in Riyadh today said that, and I quote, “...between the people of Gaza and a ceasefire is Hamas,” unquote. He met with the Arab foreign ministers. He met with the Turkish foreign minister there. Does the State Department see a role for the Islamic Republic of Iran on this decision by Hamas that everybody is waiting on whether to take the proposal or not, one way or another?MR PATEL: I cannot think of any actions in the past I don’t know how many years that the Iranian regime has taken that – one, that has been actually beneficial to the Palestinian people. What I would just say broadly, any country is welcome to play a positive role, but actions speak louder than words. And when it comes to the actions of the Iranian regime, the track record is pretty clear: they continue to be one of the largest exporters of terrorism; they continue to be a backer and funder of groups that have been focused on destabilizing and bringing violence to the region. So their actions are pretty clear here.QUESTION: Thank you.MR PATEL: Go ahead in the back. Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you very much. On Friday, State Department strongly commended the attack on the on the Khor Mor gas field in Kurdistan, but my question is how the United States can protect Kurdistan Region from militia groups where there is also U.S. investment in the region.MR PATEL: So we do strongly condemn the attack on the Khor Mor gas field, and we offer condolences to the families of those who were killed, and we wish for a quick recovery of those who were injured. And as we’ve said previously, attacks like this on civilian infrastructure, they’re an affront to Iraqi sovereignty.QUESTION: A follow-up on that?Go ahead, Sam.QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. Let me try to approach the whole Leahy Law thing in one or two different ways. You say that U.S. law is applied systematically throughout. Does Israel have nuclear weapons? Because there is U.S. law that says that there should be a funding cutoff under the Arms Export Control Act and the Glenn-Symington Amendments that says that there shouldn’t be aid to nuclear proliferators, and Israel is a damn sure nuclear proliferator. But last time I asked, you folks won’t even acknowledge the existence of Israel’s massive nuclear arsenal.MR PATEL: Yeah, I don’t – I still don’t have a comment for you on that, Sam.QUESTION: But U.S. law is applied systematically, but you won’t even acknowledge the existence of &#8212;MR PATEL: Of course U.S. law is applied systematically.QUESTION: But you won’t even acknowledge the empirical reality of a nuclear weapons arsenal.MR PATEL: Don’t have anything for you on that.QUESTION: Okay, all right. Let me try a different fact then. Tomorrow there will be a decision issued by the International Court of Justice. Nicaragua invoked the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide – not just simply to punish genocide but to attempt to prevent it in real time. Nicaragua’s lawsuit says that it is, quote, “enabling Israel to  genocidal acts.” Quote, “Germany has provided political, financial and military support to Israel fully aware at the time of  authorization that the military equipments would be used in the commission of  breaches of international law by this State and in disregard of its own obligations.”As I understand it, Nicaragua is doing this against Germany and not the U.S. because the U.S. has a reservation in the Genocide Convention saying that it will not adhere to any judgments by the International Court of Justice. But it doesn’t have to invoke that. My question to you is: Would the United States invoke that; or, if a state wanted to go to the International Court, will the United States actually adhere to international law and say we will not invoke this way of bailing out of the legal system, we will actually abide by a court decision?MR PATEL: Sam, let me say a couple of things there. First, we’ve been incredibly clear on this dating back to a number of months that we find allegations of genocide in this current, ongoing conflict in Gaza to continue to be unfounded. That was the case previously when similar matters were brought before the ICJ, and that continues to be the case. And let me just say when it comes to our partners in Germany, they share our convergence on the importance of doing everything we can to make sure hostages are released, to make sure that there is more humanitarian aid going into Gaza, and that everything can be done possible to make sure that this conflict ends as quickly as we can.QUESTION: But I’m not asking you for your alleged assessment. I’m asking you: Will you adhere to a court ruling from the world court?MR PATEL: I’m just not going to engage in hypotheticals, Sam.Go ahead, Ellen.QUESTION: No, no, it’s not a hypothetical.MR PATEL: Ellen.QUESTION: It’s a “will you adhere?”MR PATEL: Go ahead, Ellen.QUESTION: I was just wondering if the – Secretary Blinken himself has made clear that there is not remediation by this unit. The letter to the House Speaker says that Blinken will work to identify steps to get Israel on a path of remediation for this unit. And as my colleague here pointed out, that’s not in the Leahy Law. The Leahy Law doesn’t say you can enter one – you enter negotiations to try to bring a country into remediation.MR PATEL: First, I would not call it negotiations. We are engaging with the Government of Israel on facts and on information that is consistent with the memorandum of understanding that we have with them. I think it’s also important to remember we want to see remediation when it comes to our partners and countries in which we have longstanding security partnerships with.Rabia, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: On Gaza university protests, which have intensified across American campuses over the past week with the students making several demands, including calls for policy changes and calls for a ceasefire in Gaza, and according to a poll by CNN over the weekend, young Americans under 35 disapprove the administration’s handling of Israel’s war on Gaza. And many countries, including your allies in the region, also expect you to change course and put more pressure on Israel. So are these objections and protests considered on – in policymaking process in this building? And specifically I’m wondering: Will U.S. policy be changed or affected by these protests in any way?MR PATEL: Look, Rabia, when it comes to people protesting and sharing their opinions, making their voices heard, that is something that is consistent with the First Amendment. It is consistent with things we see in this country, and certainly people have every right to do so, including people who may have differing viewpoints on foreign policy that we’re pursuing. The same would be applied to employees of the federal government. They, of course, have every right to express their opinions and points of view. I’ve said a number of times before that the Secretary, at least when it comes to the workforce, he is incredibly receptive to different points of view. He believes that that makes him a stronger policy maker, and the outcomes include better and more well-thought-out policy. And we’ll continue to encourage the mechanisms that we have for people to share their points of view.When it comes to protests, though, people continue to have every right to do so. We would just continue to press that they be nonviolent and that they remain peaceful.QUESTION: But will the U.S. policy be changed or affected in any way by these protests?MR PATEL: When it comes to – when it comes to the policy that we’re pursuing, Rabia, the only real metric for us is what is in the interests for the American people and what keeps the American people safer and more secure.QUESTION: So you don’t take into account &#8212;MR PATEL: And in our point of view – and what – and in our point of view, more humanitarian aid going into Gaza is also good for the United States. The defeat of Hamas is also good for the United States. Ensuring that Gaza can no longer be a springboard for terrorism is also good for the United States. And a two-state solution that brings about greater peace and stability and integration in the Middle East region is also good for the United States.We are pursuing these policies because we believe they are in the interest of the American people. It will bring about greater peace and stability in the region, and it will keep our country and other countries in the region safer. People are allowed to disagree. It is a free country and they have every First Amendment right to express their points of view and to make them heard, and we encourage people to do so in a peaceful and nonviolent way.Diyar, go ahead.QUESTION: Yeah, thank you, Vedant. A question on the attack on the Khor Mor gas field in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, as you could speak of moments ago about it. Last time, in January, when a field – when that field was attacked, you request the Iraqi Government to investigate and bringing to justice those who were responsible. And this time we saw the same statement from State Department on that attack. In your assessment, who was or is responsible for this attack, and have you ever get back by the Iraqi Government why they are not bringing those responsible into justice? And are they willing or they can’t do it? Is that something of your concern?MR PATEL: So I don’t have any assessment to offer when it comes to a responsible actor there, and so I will just refrain from commenting.QUESTION: And one more question on that. As you are pushing or helping or wanting Iraq to get its energy independence from Iran and that’s why you are waivering the sanctions to get electricity from Iran, and this field is one of the alternates for the Iranian energy supply to Iraq, do you think that this attack – these kinds of attack – is a warning to all the stakeholders and parties, including the United States, that getting Iraq independence energy from Iran is not an easy and – it’s not easy to divest Iraq from Iranian independence? Are you considering these attacks in your – into your calculations when you’re speaking of Iraqi independence energy from Iran?MR PATEL: So I’m certainly not going to speculate on why or why not someone chose to strike an electricity – or a gas field. What I can say, though, is that this kind – these kinds of affronts to civilian infrastructure, they are a direct attack on Iraqi sovereignty, and that’s why you saw us condemn them, but I don’t have anything else beyond that.Michel, go ahead.QUESTION: On the normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia, Secretary Blinken said that we’re getting close to an agreement on bilateral things. Can you elaborate on that?MR PATEL: I can’t, Michel. I’m not going to get ahead of the process here, but the Secretary just last weekend in Capri was – laid out that this is something that we’ve been working on, including as part of a potential normalization process between Israel and Saudi Arabia. It’s something that we’ve been intensely engaged on, and we believe that this is something that is key to what is our long-term goal, which is a more stable, prosperous, and integrated Middle East region.Olivia.QUESTION: One quick question on hostages.MR PATEL: Yeah.QUESTION: Public comments by the Secretary this morning – he indicated that a new offer by Israel on the table was extraordinarily, extraordinarily generous. Is there a sense that a deal is closer than it has been in recent weeks, or is Hamas the same unknown that is has been?MR PATEL: So our hope is that – our hope is that – of course that some kind of progress can be made. We remain committed to reaching a deal for an immediate ceasefire that secures the release of hostages and takes some additional steps for the surge of humanitarian aid. To echo the Secretary, a generous deal has been put on the table, and it’s now on Hamas to accept the deal. I will just say that currently what is standing in the way between a ceasefire and some progress for the Palestinian people is Hamas.Go ahead.QUESTION: Can I have a clarification on this one, please? On this?MR PATEL: Go ahead.QUESTION: Now, the Secretary was talking about sustainable calm, sustainable calm. What we heard today from the foreign secretary of United Kingdom, David Cameron, he was – he was talking about 40 days of ceasefire. Could you – could &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m not going to be prescriptive about this process, Said, beyond saying that we’re committed to reaching a deal that includes an immediate ceasefire, that includes the release of hostages and additional humanitarian aid. It’s something that we’re continuing to work towards. As the Secretary said, a generous deal has been put on the table, and really the responsibility now is for Hamas to accept it.QUESTION: But it includes no time, no 30 days &#8212;MR PATEL: I’m not going to be prescriptive about the process, Said.Go ahead. Go ahead.QUESTION: I just want to follow up on Said’s question regarding Omar Assad now. Netzah Yehuda has been cited for violations – gross violations of human rights, including for being responsible for the death of an 80-year-old American citizen, Omar Assad. So that took place almost two years ago, 2022, and now you’re saying that Israel presented new information and that there’s a discussion of – or remediation of that military unit. What kind of new information provided almost two years later could make the family of Omar Assad, an American citizen, feel like they’ve received any kind of justice?MR PATEL: So I’m not going to speak to the specifics of this process because it is ongoing, but remediation is what we want to see in as many of these instances as possible. That is what we expect of our partners and that’s what we expect of countries that we partner with. But beyond that, I’m not going to get ahead of this.I will also note that if at the end of our engagements and discussions in this process with the Government of Israel it is found that processes are inconsistent with what is laid out in Leahy or if information is inconsistent with what is expected under Leahy, there will of course be a restriction on applicable U.S. assistance. As I said to one of your colleagues, we intend to be an administration that follows the law, and that is also true in this case here.Janne.QUESTION: Are you in touch with the family to explain all this to them?MR PATEL: I don’t have any specific conversations to read out.Janne, go ahead.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Two questions on Russia, North Korea, and China. It has been reported that the Russian ship transporting North Korean weapons is using a Chinese port and is currently docked. What measures is the United States taking in response to North – China’s toleration of arms trade with Russia and North Korea?MR PATEL: So look, Janne, we have – this is something that we take incredibly seriously. You saw the Secretary and Matt and myself speak about the closening that – of the relations we are seeing between Russia and the PRC, especially as it relates to ongoing endeavors as it relates to the Russian defense industrial base. We think that that is not just risky to the region, but it is directly an affront to Ukraine. So we’re going to continue to take appropriate steps to hold relevant actors accountable.Alex, go ahead.QUESTION: On China, quick &#8212;MR PATEL: Yeah, go ahead.QUESTION: Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi met with Secretary Blinken last week and urged the United States not to step on the – cross forbidden line against China’s sovereignty. What specifically does the forbidden line on sovereignty mean? Is this Chinese red line?MR PATEL: So this is not a new position of ours, Janne. Over the course of our engagements with the PRC since Russia’s aggressive, unjust, and illegal infringement on Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty, we have made clear – including to the PRC – that any kind of provision of lethal assistance from the country, from the PRC, would be unacceptable to the United States, and we would take appropriate steps to hold them account should that happen. We reiterated that and will continue to reiterate that in every engagement that we have.Alex, go ahead, and then we’re going to wrap.QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Staying on Russia, then I have a couple more on the South Caucasus.MR PATEL: You can get one. Go ahead.QUESTION: Over the weekend – yeah, thanks so much – over the weekend, Russia arrested two more international reporters – one working for AP, another one for Reuters. What do you know about their cases, and do you have any response yet?MR PATEL: So I don’t – I don’t have specifics that I can get into, Alex, again, when – in any of these situations involving detention, we’re dealing with privacy areas as well. But to take a step back, the Kremlin has an egregious track record when it comes to its crackdown on media freedoms, its crackdown on journalists, its detention of journalists. I would point you no further than the case of Evan Gershkovich, who continues to be wrongfully detained by the Russian Federation, and we’re going to continue to do everything we can to ensure the release of both Evan Gershkovich and Paul Whelan.All right, thanks, everybody.QUESTION: (Off-mike.)QUESTION: And then – I have a couple more &#8212;MR PATEL: Thanks.(The briefing was concluded at 1:56 p.m.)						Tags																					China																								Germany																								Iran																								Iraq																								Israel																								Nicaragua																								North Korea																								Office of the Spokesperson																								Palestinian Territories																								Russia																								Saudi Arabia																								The Secretary of State
- G7 Italy 2024 Foreign Ministers’ Statement on Steadfast Support for Ukraine Office of the SpokespersonThe text of the following statement was released by the G7 foreign ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States of America and the High Representative of the European Union.We, the G7 Foreign Ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, and the High Representative of the European Union, strongly condemn Russia’s ongoing war of aggression against Ukraine. We reaffirm our unwavering determination to support democratic Ukraine as it defends its freedom, sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity, within its internationally recognized borders.  We pay tribute to the bravery and resilience of the Ukrainian people, fighting for their freedom and democratic future.Ten years on since Russia’s illegal occupation of Crimea and its setting up of unrecognized proxy regimes in parts of the Donbas and into the third year of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we demand that the Russian Federation immediately, completely, and unconditionally withdraws all of its military forces and equipment from the internationally recognized territory of Ukraine. Russia can end this war today.We call on all countries to uphold international law and in no way to validate or condone Russia’s attempts to acquire territory by force, in violation of the basic tenets of the UN Charter. We will never recognize the legitimacy of so-called “referenda” or “elections”, past or future, held by Russia in the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine, nor their results. Illegally holding Russian Presidential elections in Ukraine’s sovereign territories was an outrageous violation of international law.We will continue to support Ukraine’s right of self-defense and reiterate our commitment to Ukraine’s long-term security. Based on the Joint Declaration of Support for Ukraine we endorsed in Vilnius in July 2023, we are fully engaged on finalizing and implementing specific, bilateral, long-term security commitments and arrangements with Ukraine, which several G7 countries and other partners have already signed. We are stepping up our defense and security assistance to Ukraine and are increasing our production and delivery capabilities to assist the country. We also support efforts to assist Ukraine building a future force capable of self-defense and deterrence against all aggression.We express our resolve in particular to bolster Ukraine’s air defense capabilities to save lives and protect critical infrastructure. We will also work with partners towards this end. In this context we appreciate the Immediate Action for Air Defense Initiative (IAAD) proposed by Germany.Together with international partners, we are determined to continue to provide military, financial, political, humanitarian, economic, and development support to Ukraine and its people. We welcome the EU’s adoption of the Ukraine facility of EUR 50 billion, the EU “Ukraine Assistance Fund” of EUR 5 billion. We also welcome additional support G7 countries have approved, as well as the swift delivery of budget support in the first quarter of 2024 by Canada and Japan. We urge the approval of further support from other international partners.We will continue to help Ukraine repair and restore its critical energy and environmental infrastructure and we re-emphasize our strong support for Ukraine’s energy security, including through the G7+ Ukraine Energy Coordination Group. We express our deepest concern about the reported use of chemical agents by Russia, as a method of warfare.Russia must pay for the damage and devastation it is causing. We condemn Russia’s recent missile and drone strikes against Ukraine’s energy infrastructure and cities across Ukraine. We are determined to ensure full accountability and we support Ukraine in obtaining compensation for the loss, injury and damage resulting from Russia’s aggression. We welcome the launch of the Register of Damage caused by the aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine. Russia’s sovereign assets in our jurisdictions will remain immobilized until Russia ceases its aggression and pays for the damage it has caused.We welcome the adoption by the EU of the legal acts concerning extraordinary revenues held by private entities stemming directly from Russia’s immobilized sovereign assets also in view to exploring ways to maximize the benefit for Ukraine that can be obtained from these revenues.We will continue to explore all possible avenues to aid Ukraine in obtaining compensation from Russia, consistent with our respective legal systems and international law. As requested by Leaders, we will continue our work and advise ahead of the Apulia Summit on all possible avenues and feasible options by which immobilized Russian sovereign assets could be made use of to support Ukraine, consistent with our respective legal systems and international law.Ukraine’s reconstruction, starting with early recovery measures and addressing the current energy emergency, remains key priorities. We will continue to work with the Ukrainian authorities and International Financial Institutions through the Multi-agency Donor Coordination Platform and by leveraging private investments. We welcome the Steering Committee of the enlarged MDCP which took place for the first time in Kyiv on 10 April. We highlight the importance of gender-responsive recovery and the need to address the different needs of women, children and disabled persons as well as other population groups who have been disproportionately affected by Russia’s war of aggression. The reintegration of disabled combatants and civilians remains a priority. Further to the successful Japan-Ukraine Conference for the Promotion of Economic Growth and Reconstruction, we look forward to the Ukraine Recovery Conferences, to be hosted in Berlin in 2024 and in Rome in 2025.We welcome the European Council’s decision in December 2023 to open negotiations for Ukraine’s accession to the European Union. We praise Ukraine’s progress in its reform efforts, especially to reinforce the justice system and the rule of law and to fight corruption. These endeavors are in line with the Euro-Atlantic path Ukraine has embraced. We will continue to support Ukraine as it works to implement further reforms to strengthen its democracy.We reiterate our support for Ukraine’s efforts to promote a comprehensive, just and lasting peace, consistent with international law, including the UN Charter, with respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. We will continue to work to achieve the widest possible international support for the key principles and objectives of Ukraine’s Peace Formula, also in view of the high-level international conference planned in Switzerland in mid-June. Russia’s irresponsible nuclear rhetoric and its posture of strategic intimidation, including its announced deployment of nuclear weapons in Belarus are unacceptable. We reaffirm that any use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons by Russia would be met with severe consequences. In this context, threats by Russia of nuclear weapons use, let alone any use of nuclear weapons by Russia, in the context of its war of aggression against Ukraine are inadmissible.We condemn Russia’s seizure and continued control and militarization of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which poses severe risks for nuclear safety and security, with implications for the broader international community. We support the International Atomic Energy Agency’s efforts directed at mitigating such risks, including through the continuous presence of IAEA experts and its focus on ensuring nuclear safety and security at the site.Despite Russia’s attempts to undermine global food security, Ukraine’s success in securing a corridor through the Black Sea has significantly expanded food exports and continues to help feed the world. We pledge our enduring support to those efforts, including through the EU solidarity lanes and other appropriate mechanisms.We remain committed to fully implementing and enforcing our sanctions on Russia and adopting new measures as necessary. We will continue to counter, in close cooperation with third countries, any attempts to evade and circumvent our sanctions and export restrictions. We call on financial institutions to refrain from supporting Russia’s defense industrial base and we will take appropriate steps, consistent with our legal systems, to disrupt and deter this behavior. We will impose additional sanctions on companies and individuals in third countries who help Russia acquire tools and other equipment that aid Russian weapons production or military-industrial development.We will continue to apply significant pressure on Russian revenues from energy and other sectors. We call on all countries to reduce their imports from Russia which are supporting its war. We will continue to take steps to tighten compliance and enforcement of the oil price cap. While working to maintain supply stability, we will respond to price cap violations, including by imposing additional sanctions measures on those engaged in deceptive practices while transporting Russian oil and against the networks Russia has developed to extract additional revenue from price cap violations. We will continue taking steps to limit Russia’s future energy revenues. We will continue to impede Russia’s development of future energy projects and disrupt its development of alternatives for energy shipping and other services. We also welcome the steps taken by the UK and U.S. to stop the trade of new Russian base metals on their global metal exchanges. We will continue efforts to reduce Russia’s revenues from metals.We condemn in the strongest possible terms North Korea’s unlawful export of arms to Russia and for use in Ukraine. In particular, we condemn North Korea’s exports and Russia’s procurement of North Korea’s ballistic missiles in direct violation of relevant UN Security Council Resolutions and call upon them to immediately cease such activities.We call upon Iran to stop assisting Russia’s war effort in Ukraine. Any steps by Iran to transfer ballistic missiles and related technology to Russia, would represent a substantive, material escalation, and t we would respond swiftly and in a coordinated manner, including with new and significant measures against Iran. We call on all countries to prevent the supply of components or other items to Iran’s UAV programmes, which support Russia’s war effort.We express our strong concern about transfers to Russia from businesses in the People’s Republic of China of dual-use materials and weapons components that Russia is using to advance its military production. This is enabling Russia to reconstitute and revitalize its defense industrial base, posing a threat both to Ukraine and to international peace and security. China should ensure that this support stops, as it will only prolong this illegal war of aggression in violation of the UN Charter and increase the threat that Russia poses to its neighbors.We reiterate our condemnation of the Belarusian regime’s complicity in Russia’s war against Ukraine. We express our continued concern over the regime’s continuing repression of independent media, civil society, and of opposition and citizens that peacefully express their views. We also condemn the ill-treatment of political prisoners and ask for their immediate and unconditional release.There can be no impunity for war crimes such as attacks against civilians and critical civilian infrastructure, humanitarian workers, deportation of Ukrainians, including forcible transfer and deportation of Ukrainian children, or grave and serious violations of children’s rights and conflict-related sexual violence. Those responsible for crimes, which are of concern to the international community, will be held to account consistent with international law. We welcome initiatives to address Russia’s   unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children.We firmly reject the Russian authorities’ baseless attempts to blame Ukraine for the tragic terrorist attack near Moscow on March 22, which was claimed by ISIS. We call on Russia to stop using this tragedy in its disinformation efforts against Ukraine. We remain steadfast in our fight against terrorism, as illustrated by several G7 countries continuing to share information with Russia on this issue.We will not relent from holding those responsible for Alexei Navalny’s death accountable, including by continuing to impose restrictive measures and other appropriate actions in response to human rights violations and abuses in Russia. We condemn the Kremlin’s systematic repression of dissenting voices, and we call on Russia to release all political prisoners.
- G7 Italy 2024 Foreign Ministers’ Statement on the Situation in the Middle East Office of the SpokespersonThe text of the following statement was released by the G7 foreign ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States of America and the High Representative of the European Union. Iran We, the G7 Foreign Ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, and the High Representative of the European Union, condemn in the strongest terms Iran’s direct and unprecedented attack against Israel of April 13-14, which Israel defeated with the help of its partners. This was a dangerous escalation, as Iran fired hundreds of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and drones.We also condemn the Iranian boarding and seizure, in breach of international law, of the Portuguese flagged merchant vessel MSC Aries by armed personnel, which occurred while the merchant vessel was sailing near the Strait of Hormuz. We call for the immediate release of the vessel, its crews and cargo.Israel and its people have our full solidarity and support and we reaffirm our commitment towards Israel’s security. Iran’s actions mark an unacceptable step towards the destabilization of the region and a further escalation, which must be avoided. In light of reports of strikes on April 19th, we urge all parties to work to prevent further escalation. The G7 will continue to work to this end.We call on all parties, both in the region and beyond, to offer their positive contribution to this collective effort.We call on Iran to refrain from providing support to Hamas and taking further actions that destabilize the Middle East, including support for Lebanese Hezbollah and other non-state actors.  Iran’s continued provision of arms and related materiel to the Houthis in violation of UNSCR 2216 and to other non-state actors in the region are dangerously increasing tensions. We call on all countries to prevent the supply of components or other items to Iran’s UAV and missile programmes.We demand that Iran and its affiliated groups cease their attacks. We will hold the Iranian government accountable for its malicious and destabilizing actions and we stand ready to adopt further sanctions or take other measures, now and in response to further destabilizing initiatives.We reiterate our determination that Iran must never develop or acquire a nuclear weapon. We urge Iran to cease and reverse nuclear escalations and to stop the continuing uranium enrichment activities reported by IAEA in the framework provided by UNSCR 2231 that have no credible civil justification and pose significant proliferative risks. Tehran must reverse this trend and engage in serious dialogue, returning to full cooperation with the IAEA to enable it to provide assurances that Iran’s nuclear program is exclusively peaceful. We support IAEA’s monitoring and verification role regarding Iran’s nuclear-related obligation and commitments and express strong concern about Iran’s current lack of cooperation with the Agency.We are extremely concerned by reports that Iran is considering transferring ballistic missiles and related technology to Russia.  We call on Iran not to do so, as it would represent a substantive material escalation in its support for Russia’s war in Ukraine. Were Iran to proceed with providing ballistic missiles or related technology to Russia, we are prepared to respond in a swift and coordinated manner, including with new and significant measures against Iran.We reiterate our deep concern over Iran’s human rights violations and abuses, especially against women, girls and minority groups, and in light of the first report issued on March 8 by the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission established by the Human Rights Council, which said that certain violations against “Women, Life, Freedom” protestors amounted to crimes against humanity.We strongly reject Iran’s targeting and arbitrary arrest of dual and foreign citizens and call on Iran’s leadership to end all unjust and arbitrary detentions. We condemn Iran’s harassment, intimidation and plots to kill perceived dissidents and opponents of the regime overseas, including journalists and religious figures, as well as the targeting of Jewish individuals and institutions.Conflict in Gaza We condemn in the strongest terms the brutal terrorist attacks conducted by Hamas and other terrorist groups against Israel that began on October 7, 2023. In exerting its right to defend itself, Israel must fully comply with international law, including international humanitarian law. Hamas must release all hostages immediately and unconditionally. We continue to press for the full investigation of the horrific reports of sexual violence committed by Hamas and other terrorist groups and for perpetrators to be held accountable.We deplore all losses of civilian lives and note with great concern the unacceptable number of civilians, including thousands of women, children and persons in vulnerable situations who have been killed in Gaza. We call for urgent action to address the devastating and growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, particularly the plight of civilians throughout the territory. We reiterate our opposition to a full scale military operation in Rafah that would have catastrophic consequences on the civilian population. We reiterate our call for a credible and actionable plan to protect the civilian population there and address their humanitarian needs. We are deeply concerned by the internal displacement within Gaza and the risk of forcible displacement from Gaza. Israel must act in compliance with its obligations under international law and treat individuals humanely and with dignity, and should thoroughly and transparently investigate credible allegations of wrongdoing and ensure accountability for any abuses or violations.We underscore the urgent need for specific, concrete, and measurable steps to significantly increase the flow of aid into Gaza in light of imminent risk of famine for a majority of Gaza’s population.  We urge the rapid implementation of steps announced by the Government of Israel including the commitment to expand flow of aid through existing land crossings, opening new land crossings, and facilitating aid to northern Gaza where humanitarian needs are most acute, including by opening more routes into Gaza.  We welcome efforts to establish a maritime corridor to further increase the flow of much-needed humanitarian assistance into Gaza, in coordination with the United Nations. We reiterate that such corridors must complement and not be a substitute to expanded and sustained assistance flows by land.Securing full, rapid, safe, and unhindered humanitarian access in all its forms remains an absolute priority. We call on Israel to do more to ensure protection of international and local humanitarian aid workers, journalists, and Palestinian civilians, to improve humanitarian deconfliction, including communications, and to pursue full accountability, as appropriate, for incidents of harm against aid workers and civilians.  We call on all parties to allow the unimpeded delivery of aid, including food, water, medical care, electricity, fuel, shelter, as well as facilitate the restoration of basic services and ensure access for humanitarian workers. All parties must protect civilians, especially those most vulnerable, particularly women, children, and people with disabilities, consistent with international humanitarian law.Since the onset of the crisis, the G7 has been among the largest providers of assistance to the affected population in Gaza. We reiterate our intention to continue doing so and we call on all our partners to strengthen their efforts. We welcome the initiative “Food for Gaza” launched by Italy together with FAO, WFP and IFRC (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Society), aimed at better meeting the urgent demand for food security and primary health of the population.We recognize the crucial role played by UN agencies and other humanitarian actors in delivering assistance. UNRWA has a vital role in the Gaza humanitarian response. We welcome the swift decision by the UN Secretary General to initiate an immediate investigation on UNRWA to provide full transparency on the serious allegations against its staff and to appoint an independent review group also in view of the implementation of the needed reforms. We agreed it is critical that UNRWA and other UN organizations and agencies’ distribution networks be fully able to deliver aid to those who need it most, fulfilling their mandate effectively.We call for an immediate release of hostages and a sustainable ceasefire that allows for a surge of the urgently needed humanitarian assistance to be delivered safely throughout Gaza. In this context, we strongly support the ongoing mediation efforts undertaken by the United States and regional partners to that aim, respected by all parties, leading to a sustainable cessation of hostilities, in order to facilitate the immediate return of all hostages, a surge of assistance and for the urgent implementation of UNSC resolutions 2712, 2720, and 2728. Hamas’ refusal to release hostages is only prolonging the conflict and the suffering of civilians.We welcome the new Palestinian Authority cabinet and remain ready to support the Palestinian Authority as it undertakes the reforms that are indispensable to enable it to take up its responsibilities in the aftermath of the conflict, in both Gaza and the West Bank.We are also working, including by imposing sanctions and other measures, to deny Hamas the ability to raise funds to carry out further atrocities. Likewise, we will also continue our work to fight against the dissemination of terrorist content online.All parties must refrain from unilateral actions that undermine the prospect of a two-state solution. We are concerned by rising levels of settlers’ violence. Extremist settlers responsible for violent acts against Palestinian communities must be brought to account.A viable solution to the conflict can only be the result of a coordinated regional effort. We remain committed to a lasting and sustainable peace based on a two-State solution and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with security guarantees for Israel and the Palestinians. We call for upholding unchanged the historic status quo at the holy sites in Jerusalem. We concur that the final territory of a Palestinian state should be defined through negotiations based on 1967-lines. We note that the recognition of a Palestinian state, at the appropriate time, would be a crucial component of that political process.We are working intensively – along with partners in the region – to prevent the conflict from escalating further. We are particularly concerned by the situation along the Blue Line. We recognize the essential stabilizing role played by the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) in mitigating that risk. We urge all involved to exercise restraint and to work toward de-escalation.We oppose all discrimination and violence based on religion or belief and we call for effective protection of all members of religious minority groups. We strongly reject all forms of antisemitism and anti-Muslim hatred.Freedom of Navigation in the Red Sea We condemn the attacks perpetrated by the Houthis against commercial vessels transiting the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden and the navy ships protecting them. We are greatly concerned by the deaths of three innocent mariners aboard the True Confidence and the sinking of the Rubymar, which created a navigational hazard and a serious environmental threat. We call for the immediate release by the Houthis of the Galaxy Leader and its crew, seized on 19th November 2023. In line with UNSCR 2722, we reiterate our support for countries that exercise the right to defend their vessels from attacks, in accordance with international law. We also call for continued international involvement in close cooperation with the United Nations and coastal states, as well as with regional and sub-regional organizations to prevent further escalation with possible multidimensional consequences.We welcome the continued efforts of the EU maritime operation “Aspides” and of the U.S.-led operation “Prosperity Guardian” along with UK and 10 other countries to protect these crucial shipping lanes.We are concerned by the hindrance to the transit of energy supplies, raw materials and other commodities through the Red Sea. The countries most negatively affected by the Houthis’ attacks include those in the region. Maritime security and navigational rights and freedoms are critical to ensuring free movement of essential commodities to destinations and populations all over the world. This includes delivery of life-saving humanitarian assistance to more than half the population of Yemen and to Sudan and Ethiopia.Yemen We express great concern for the situation in Yemen, notably for the humanitarian conditions of the Yemeni civilian population. Yemeni parties must allow safe, rapid, and unimpeded access to all those in need, halt requirements that restrict women’s freedom of movement and impede delivery of humanitarian aid, and remove obstacles to the delivery of assistance, notably to the most vulnerable. All parties must comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law.We reiterate our strong support to the United Nations and to UN Special Envoy Hans Grundberg for his efforts to resolve the conflict in Yemen.We welcome the understanding reached in December 2023 between the Presidential Leadership Council and the Houthis that included a commitment on a set of measures to implement a nation-wide ceasefire and to improve living conditions in the country. We urge all involved parties and in particular the Houthis to engage in good faith in preparations for an inclusive political process in consultation with civil society and under UN auspices.We call for accountability for human rights violations, including grave violations of children’s rights, and abuses and violations of international humanitarian law.Syria   We remain committed to a Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political process, in line with UN Security Council resolution 2254, and we fully support the mandate of the UN Special Envoy, Geir O. Pedersen. We call on the Syrian regime to engage meaningfully with the UN-facilitated political process to achieve a peaceful solution to the crisis and national reconciliation. Normalization, reconstruction and lifting of sanctions would only be considered in the framework of a credible inclusive and enduring political process consistent with UNSC resolution 2254. Stability and peace in Syria cannot be achieved without the enduring defeat of Daesh. As members of the Global Coalition against Daesh we are committed to ending Daesh’s presence in Syria.We remain committed to advancing justice for victims and accountability for all actors responsible for violations of international law in Syria, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law. We reiterate our condemnation of the use that the Syrian régime has made of chemical weapons in Syria. We continue to urge the Syrian regime to comply with its obligations under UNSCR 2118 and the Chemical Weapons Convention and to eliminate its chemical weapons programme completely and verifiably.We continue to call for the immediate release of all civilians arbitrarily detained and to clarify the fate of those forcibly disappeared. We support the work of organizations such as the Commission of Inquiry and the International Independent and Impartial Mechanism, which document the crimes perpetrated in Syria. We stand ready to support the newly established UN Independent Institution for Missing Persons in Syria.We will continue to support the Syrian people through humanitarian assistance to meet their needs, including early recovery assistance and measures fostering resilience, and demand that the regime facilitate unhindered humanitarian access to all Syrians, including through UN cross-border humanitarian assistance, for which there is no alternative. We remain grateful to regional countries for continuing to host Syrian refugees, and we call upon the Syrian regime to create the conditions for voluntary, safe, and dignified refugee returns.The upcoming Eighth Brussels Conference on the Future of Syria and the Region is important in maintaining a high level of engagement and mobilisation of the international community in this regard.
- Germany HomeReportsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices&#8230;Germany				hide	document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function(event) {	if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}});																							2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Germany																																					Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																																																																																							Download Report																																																							Translations																																																																 In this section										/																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																																													EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																															Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																																									a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																																											b. Disappearance																																																																											c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																																			Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																																																		d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																																			Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																																																		e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																																			Trial Procedures																																																								Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																																																		f. Transnational Repression																																																																											g. Property Seizure and Restitution																																																																											h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																																																	Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																																									a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media																																																																			Internet Freedom																																																																																																																		b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																																			Freedom of Peaceful Assembly																																																								Freedom of Association																																																																																																																		c. Freedom of Religion																																																																											d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																																											e. Protection of Refugees																																																																											f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)																																																																											g. Stateless Persons																																																																																	Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																																									Elections and Political Participation																																																																																	Section 4. Corruption in Government																															Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																															Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																																									Women																																																																											Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																																											Children																																																																											Antisemitism																																																																											Trafficking in Persons																																																																											Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																																											Persons with Disabilities																																																																											Other Societal Violence or Discrimination																																																																																	Section 7. Worker Rights																																																									a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																																											b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																																											c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																																											d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																																											e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																																																																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY				There were no significant changes in the human rights situation in Germany during the year.Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: crimes involving violence targeting members of ethnic or religious minority groups including Muslims; crimes involving violence motivated by antisemitism; and crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex persons.The government took steps to investigate, prosecute, and punish officials who may have committed human rights abuses.																														Section 1.													 Respect for the Integrity of the Person												    																																																a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings										There were no reports that the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings, during the year.On July 19, a Hesse state parliament investigation issued its final report into the failure of the state’s domestic security service to prevent the 2019 murder of local politician Walter Luebcke by neo-Nazi Stephan Ernst. The report found security services had missed indications Ernst was still a threat, and therefore stopped monitoring him in 2019. The committee was unable to say whether security services could have prevented Luebcke’s death.Mannheim prosecutors charged two police officers in December 2022 in the death of a man who collapsed and died after they forcefully subdued him in May 2022; their trials were scheduled for January 2024. The Mannheim police department had immediately suspended the officers after the incident.In February, prosecutors charged five police officers in connection with the August 2022 shooting death of a Senegalese boy, age 16, Mouhamed Dramé, in Dortmund. After unsuccessfully attempting to communicate with Dramé, who WDR television reported was kneeling while holding a knife at a refugee shelter and threatening to harm himself, the 11 police officers at the scene used tear gas and tasered Dramé, then fatally shot him, according to WDR. Prosecutors charged one officer with manslaughter, three others with causing dangerous bodily injury, and the officers’ supervisor for inciting his subordinates. No trial date was set as of November.																																				b. Disappearance										There were no reports of disappearances by or on behalf of government authorities.																																				c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses										The constitution and the law prohibited such practices, and there were no credible reports government officials employed them. According to some human rights groups, authorities did not effectively investigate allegations of mistreatment by police and failed to establish an independent mechanism to investigate such allegations.Impunity was not a significant problem in the security forces.																Prison and Detention Center Conditions						There were no significant reports regarding prison or detention center conditions that raised human rights concerns.Administration: Authorities conducted proper investigations of credible allegations of mistreatment.Independent Monitoring: The government permitted monitoring by independent nongovernmental observers.																										d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention										The constitution prohibited arbitrary arrest and detention and provided for the right of any person to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest or detention in court. The government generally observed these requirements.Police in several states had the legal authority to take preventive action against an “impending danger.” Critics argued this provision gave police excessive surveillance power, otherwise reserved for the country’s intelligence services.While several states required police to wear identity badges, the nongovernmental organization (NGO) Amnesty International Germany criticized the lack of a nationwide requirement to do so, noting that six of the country’s 16 states had no such requirement.																Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees						Authorities needed a warrant issued by a judicial authority to arrest an individual. Police were also able to arrest individuals apprehended while committing a crime, or if police had strong reason to suspect the individual intended to commit a crime. The constitution required authorities to present a suspect before a judicial officer before the end of the day following the arrest. Judges were required to inform suspects of the reasons for their detention and provide suspects an opportunity to object. The courts were then required to either issue an arrest warrant stating the grounds for continued detention or to order the individual’s release. Authorities generally respected these rights.Judges usually released individuals awaiting trial without requiring bail. Bail was only required in cases where a court determined the suspect posed a flight risk. In such cases authorities could deny bail and hold detainees for the duration of the investigation and subsequent trial, subject to judicial review.Detainees had the right to consult with an attorney of their choice; the government provided an attorney at public expense if detainees demonstrated financial need. The law entitled a detainee to request access to a lawyer at any time, including prior to any police questioning. Authorities then had to inform suspects of their right to consult an attorney before questioning began.																										e. Denial of Fair Public Trial										The constitution provided for an independent judiciary, and the government generally respected judicial independence and impartiality.																Trial Procedures						The constitution provided for the right to a fair and public trial, and an independent judiciary generally enforced this right.						Political Prisoners and Detainees						There were no reports of political prisoners or detainees.																										f. Transnational Repression										Not applicable.																																				g. Property Seizure and Restitution										The government had laws and mechanisms in place for, and NGOs and advocacy groups reported it made progress on, resolution of Holocaust-era claims, including for foreign citizens. After World War II, the government adopted legislation to resolve compensation claims stemming from Nazi atrocities and Holocaust-era property confiscation. In 1952 the government designated the Conference on Jewish Material Claims against Germany (also known as the Claims Conference) as its principal partner in handling restitution and compensation claims made by Jewish victims of Nazi persecution.According to the Federal Ministry of Finance, from the end of World War II through 2022, the government paid approximately €82 billion ($89 billion) in Holocaust restitution and compensation. In 2022, after regular negotiations between the Claims Conference and the country’s federal government, the country increased payments and expanded existing programs, paying €1.14 billion ($1.23 billion) to support survivors, including pensions and home care to mostly poorer survivors. In accordance with an agreement reached in 2020, the government also provided Hardship Fund payments of €1,200 ($1,297) to eligible Jewish victims during the year. In negotiations with the Claims Conference in June, the country’s federal government agreed to extend these hardship payments through 2027 and increase them in coming years. It also agreed to extend funding for Holocaust education through 2027 and raise it to €38 million ($41 million) in 2026 and €41 million ($44.3 million) in 2027; and to provide an additional $105.2 million for home care services for survivors in 2024. The country also supported numerous public and private international reparation and social welfare initiatives to benefit Holocaust survivors and their families.Before German reunification in 1990, in accordance with the Federal Restitution Law, West German authorities provided property restitution and compensation payments for properties and businesses confiscated or transferred during the Holocaust era. The Claims Conference assumed ownership of, and auctioned off, heirless properties, using the proceeds to fund the organization’s efforts to support Holocaust survivors and fund Holocaust education. For confiscated Jewish property located in what was formerly East Germany, the Claims Conference filed additional claims under a law enacted after reunification. Since 1990, authorities have approved and granted restitution in 4,500 cases and provided compensation in approximately 12,000 such cases.The federally funded German Lost Art Foundation maintained an online “Lost Art” database to promote provenance research and helped victims and their heirs to find the right institutions and contacts. The database documented objects suspected or proven to be confiscated by the Nazis. As of September, the foundation was providing funding to 101 provenance research projects across the country.The Bavarian State Painting Collections, owned by the State of Bavaria, had not referred the case of the Pablo Picasso painting “Portrait of Madame Soler” to the national commission on looted art, contrary to usual practice when disputes concerning the provenance of artworks arose. The work was sold by Paul von Mendelssohn-Bartholdy in 1934 or 1935; his heirs first asked Bavaria in 2010 to refer the case to the commission, maintaining he sold the work under duress. In 2021, commission chair Hans-Juergen Papier dismissed the state’s assertion the claim was meritless, stating it was up to the commission to evaluate such cases. In March, Federal State Minister of Culture Claudia Roth called upon Bavaria to resolve the situation by “clearing the way” for the collections to refer the case to the national commission on looted art. In June, the Bavarian legislature’s petitions committee rejected a request to refer the case to the commission.The Department of State’s Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act Report to Congress, released publicly in July 2020, can be found on the Department’s website:  https://www.state.gov/reports/just-act-report-to-congress/.																																				h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence										The constitution prohibited such actions, but there were assertions the government failed in some cases to respect these prohibitions.The federal and state offices for the protection of the constitution (OPCs) continued to monitor political groups deemed to be potentially undermining the constitution. These included the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party and left-wing extremist groups inside the Left party, both of which had seats in the Bundestag, as well as the right-wing extremist Die Heimat (The Homeland), formerly known as the National Democratic Party. Monitoring required the approval of state or federal interior ministries and was subject to review by state or federal parliamentary intelligence committees.All OPC activities could be contested in court, including the Federal Constitutional Court. The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (FOPC) did not have the legal authority to monitor Bundestag members.Throughout the year the state OPCs of Saxony-Anhalt, Saxony and Brandenburg, Baden-Wuerttemberg, and Bavaria monitored state AfD branches as suspected right-wing extremist organizations, while the Thuringian OPC monitored the AfD branch in that state as a “confirmed” right-wing extremist organization.The Baden-Wuerttemberg OPC continued to monitor Querdenken (Lateral Thinking), a movement originally directed against state and federal COVID-19 restrictions, due to its extremist views. The Baden-Wuerttemberg OPC also monitored Die Heimat and Der Dritte Weg (The Third Way), an extremist party actively opposed to public COVID-19 measures.																																					Section 2.													 Respect for Civil Liberties												    																																																a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media										The constitution provided for freedom of expression, including for members of the press and other media. An independent media, an effective judiciary, and a functioning democratic political system generally combined to promote freedom of expression; however, in accordance with national law, the government imposed limits on groups it deemed extremist. The government arrested, tried, convicted, and imprisoned several individuals for speech that incited racial hatred, endorsed Nazism, or denied the Holocaust.Freedom of Expression: The 2021 Act on Combating Right-Wing Extremism and Hate Crimes required social networks not only to assess and potentially restrict illegal content but also to report online hate crimes, including antisemitic hate speech, to the Federal Criminal Police. By law, authorities treated online threats the same as in-person threats, and threats of rape and vandalism – whether online or in person – the same as threats of murder.Federal law provided for authorities to restrict civil servants from having adornments on their person such as tattoos, clothing, jewelry, hair, or beard styles if deemed necessary to provide for the functionality of the public administration or fulfill the obligation for respectful and trustworthy conduct. The law specified that religious adornments may only be restricted if they were “objectively suited to adversely affect trust in a civil servant’s neutral performance of their official duties.”Some states did not permit full-face coverings in public schools.Local media reported August 12 the city of Daaden, Rhineland-Palatinate, was prohibiting a Muslim woman from entering the town’s open-air swimming pool wearing a full-body swimsuit that complied with her religious beliefs. According to the report, the city argued that only swimwear that did not fully cover the arms and legs was permissible for sanitary reasons, and maintained that its ban, which also applied to wetsuits, was not directed at swimwear choices motivated by religious belief and therefore was not discriminatory.On January 17, the Federal Constitutional Court decided not to hear an appeal by the state of Berlin of a regional labor court’s 2018 judgment that a general ban on teachers wearing religious symbols in schools was discriminatory. On March 28, Berlin began allowing teachers to wear “religious clothing and symbols,” including headscarves, but still maintained the right to restrict these items if they posed a specific threat to peace at the school or suggested state preference for a particular religion.Violence and Harassment: NGOs and journalists’ organizations, among them the German Journalist Union (DJU), reported several cases of harassment or violence directed against journalists by police during the year, especially when covering demonstrations.Between May 31 and June 3, according to the Berlin-Brandenburg branch of the DJU, police assaulted six journalists covering left-wing demonstrations in Hamburg, Cologne, Dresden, and Leipzig. The European Centre for Press and Media Freedom corroborated three of the incidents, which were reported to have taken place in Leipzig and Cologne on May 31.Nongovernmental Impact: The NGO Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and the DJU expressed great concern about the increasing number of attacks on journalists in the country, which according to RSF reached 103 in 2022, a 28 percent increase from the previous year and the highest level ever reported. Most attacks occurred in association with demonstrations and were committed by groups motivated by far-right extremism, antisemitism, or conspiracy theories, according to RSF, although there were also multiple reports of attacks by left-wing groups.On February 22, a speaker at a far-right extremist rally in Ronneburg, Thuringia, called upon hundreds of attendees to “punish” a newspaper journalist, whom he called a “little pile of a person,” for his reporting, and urged them to prominently display pictures of the journalist at upcoming parades and rallies.																Internet Freedom						The government did not restrict or disrupt access to the internet or censor online content, with one exception, and there were no credible reports the government monitored private online communications without appropriate legal authority. The exception was that the law permitted the government to take down websites that belonged to banned organizations or included speech that incited racial hatred, endorsed Nazism, or denied the Holocaust. Authorities worked directly with internet service providers and online media companies to monitor and remove such content. Authorities monitored websites, social media accounts, messenger services, and streaming platforms associated with right-wing extremists.																										b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association										While the constitution provided for the freedoms of peaceful assembly and association, the government limited these freedoms in some instances.																Freedom of Peaceful Assembly						The country’s constitution provided for freedom of assembly, unless participants were armed, but permitted authorities to limit open-air assemblies. The government generally respected this right. Groups seeking to hold open-air public rallies and marches had to notify authorities 48 hours before announcing them publicly. State and local officials could ban or disperse open-air rallies or marches when public safety concerns arose or when the applicant was from a prohibited organization, mainly right-wing extremist groups. Authorities allowed nonprohibited right-wing extremist or neo-Nazi groups to hold public rallies or marches when they did so in accordance with the law.It was illegal to block officially registered demonstrations. Many anti-Nazi activists refused to accept such restrictions and attempted to block neo-Nazi demonstrations or to hold counterdemonstrations, sometimes resulting in clashes between police and anti-Nazi demonstrators.Police detained known or suspected activists when they believed such individuals intended to participate in illegal or unauthorized demonstrations. The length of detention varied from state to state.Climate activists and media reported several times during the year that police had used what activists said were intentionally painful tactics, some against children, when clearing blockades from streets in Berlin. For example, activists shared a video they said showed a police officer painfully bending the wrist of a woman activist in Berlin’s Pankow neighborhood September 18 while attempting to lift her off of the road.In September, Amnesty International criticized what it called increasing restrictions on freedom of assembly in the country, citing preventive detention, painful police tactics against demonstrators, repressive legislation, and assembly bans. According to media reports, authorities in Berlin, Frankfurt, Hamburg, and other cities banned several planned pro-Palestinian demonstrations in October, which they said would likely be antisemitic.						Freedom of Association						The country’s constitution provided for freedom of association, but the government limited it in some instances. The law permitted authorities to prohibit organizations whose activities the Federal Constitutional Court or federal or state governments determined to be opposed to the constitutional democratic order or otherwise illegal. While only the Federal Constitutional Court could prohibit political parties on these grounds, both federal and state governments could prohibit or restrict other organizations, including groups authorities classified as extremist or criminal in nature. Organizations had the right to appeal such prohibitions or restrictions.The federal and state OPCs monitored several hundred organizations. Monitoring consisted of collecting information from public sources, written materials, and firsthand accounts, but it also included intrusive methods, such as the use of undercover agents who were subjected to legal oversight. The federal and state OPCs published lists of monitored organizations, including left- and right-wing political parties. The OPC at the federal as well as the state level also monitored the Islamic Center Hamburg (IZH), which the Hamburg OPC stated was a major Iranian regime asset in Europe.Although the law stipulated surveillance must not interfere with an organization’s legitimate activities, representatives of some monitored groups, such as Scientologists, complained the publication of the organizations’ names contributed to prejudice against them. In June, the Hamburg district court ruled against the IZH, which had sued to block the Hamburg OPC from describing it as an “extremist Islamist organization with objectives opposed to Germany’s constitution.”The FOPC monitored approximately 21,000 so-called Reichsbuerger (citizens of the empire) and Selbstverwalter (sovereign citizens). These individuals denied the existence and legitimacy of the Federal Republic of Germany and rejected government authority. The FOPC considered the groups posed a potential threat due to their affinity for weapons and their contempt for national authorities.The Ministry of Interior banned the right-wing extremist association Hammerskins Deutschland on September 19, including its regional chapters and sub-organization Crew 38, based on the country’s association law. The 20th such ban on a right-wing extremist organization, this was the first that also banned an association for not only violating the constitutional order but also working against “international understanding,” referring to the group’s international activities.																										c. Freedom of Religion										See the Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report at  https://www.state.gov/religiousfreedomreport/.																																				d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country										The constitution provided for freedom of internal movement, foreign travel, emigration, and repatriation, and the government generally respected these rights.In-country Movement: Authorities issued three types of travel documents to stateless individuals for internal movement and within the EU. Those with recognized refugee and asylum status received a “travel document for refugees.” Foreigners from non-EU countries received a “travel document for foreigners” if they did not have a passport or identity document and could not obtain a passport from their country of origin. Other stateless individuals received a “travel document for the stateless.”A federal law required refugees with recognized asylum status who received social benefits to live within the state that handled their asylum request for three years, and several states enforced the residence rule. States themselves could add other residence restrictions, such as assigning a refugee to a specific city. Local authorities who supported the rule stated it facilitated integration and enabled authorities to plan for increased infrastructure needs, such as schools.																																				e. Protection of Refugees										The government cooperated with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other humanitarian organizations in providing protection and assistance to refugees, returning refugees, or asylum seekers, as well as other persons of concern.Access to Asylum: The law provided for the granting of asylum or refugee status, and the government had an established system for providing protection to refugees.The NGO PRO ASYL continued to criticize the government’s “airport procedure” for asylum seekers who arrived at the country’s airports. This direct procedure enabled the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) to decide on asylum applications within a two-day period, during which asylum applicants were detained at the airport. If authorities denied the application, the applicant had the right to appeal. Appeals were processed within two weeks, during which the applicant remained in detention at the airport. If the appeal was denied, authorities deported the applicant. Authorities stated the airport procedure was used only in less complex asylum cases and that more complex cases were referred for processing through regular BAMF channels. Authorities maintained that only persons coming from countries the government identified as “safe” (see below) and those without valid identification documents could be considered via the “airport procedure.” The NGO Fluechtlingsrat Berlin (Refugee Council Berlin) was critical of a similar “fast track” or “direct” procedure applied to some asylum seekers in Berlin. The organization claimed asylum applicants were not provided with sufficient time and access to legal counsel.Refoulement: According to RBB television, authorities deported a Pakistani Ahmadiyya Muslim community asylum seeker to Pakistan February 15 after denying his claim he faced prosecution and imprisonment in Pakistan.A temporary ban on deportations to Afghanistan was in effect during the year due to the security situation there. A temporary ban on deportations to Iran, in effect since November 2022, expired in early July. As of September, states were still consulting on a possible extension of the ban.The NGO PRO ASYL reported an Iranian citizen was returned to that country in March after the asylum claim was rejected in the “airport procedure” at the Frankfurt airport.Abuse of Refugees and Asylum Seekers: Assaults on refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants continued, as did attacks on government-provided asylum homes.MDR television reported unidentified persons attacked two Syrian girls ages 14 and 15 in Dessau-Rosslau, Saxony-Anhalt, on April 29. The perpetrators approached the girls from behind, snatched their headscarves, pushed them to the ground, and kicked them, injuring them. Police suspected a xenophobic motive.Deutsche Presse Agentur reported four masked men forcibly entered a refugee shelter on July 22 in Sebnitz, Saxony, where they shoved an Afghan, age 18, into a wall and threw objects at another resident, age 16, and shouted racist slurs. The assailants fled when other residents arrived. The Afghan required medical treatment. Police searched the area but were unable to find any suspects.Durable Solutions: The government accepted for resettlement and facilitated the local integration (including naturalization) of refugees who fled their countries of origin, particularly for refugees belonging to vulnerable groups. Such groups included women with children, refugees with disabilities, survivors of trafficking in persons, and survivors of torture or rape. Authorities granted residence permits to long-term migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, and migrants who could not return to their countries of origin.The government assisted asylum seekers, refugees, and migrants with the safe and voluntary return to their countries. In 2022, authorities provided financial assistance of €321 to €500 ($347 to $541) to 7,877 individuals to facilitate voluntary returns to their countries of origin. Beneficiaries were either rejected asylum seekers or foreigners without valid identification. The largest groups of applicants came from North Macedonia, Iraq, Albania, and Georgia.Temporary Protection: As of June, the government also provided temporary protection to 307,741 individuals who might not qualify as refugees, according to an analysis of government figures by the NGO Mediendienst Integration (Media Service Integration). Government sources and Mediendienst Integration also estimated the country was hosting another 1.1 million persons who had fled the war in Ukraine as of September 3. About four-fifths had been granted protected status under the EU temporary protection mechanism.The government provided subsidiary and humanitarian temporary protection for individuals who did not qualify as refugees. Subsidiary status was usually granted to persons who did not qualify for refugee or asylum status but might face severe danger in their countries of origin due to war or conflict. Humanitarian status was granted if a person did not qualify for any form of protected status, but there were other humanitarian reasons the person might not have been able to return to their country of origin, such as unavailable medical treatment for an existing health condition. Both forms of temporary protection were granted for one year and could be extended. After five years a person in subsidiary or humanitarian protection could apply for an unlimited residency status if they earned enough money to not require public assistance and were proficient in German.																																				f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)										Not applicable.																																				g. Stateless Persons										According to Ministry of Interior figures, there were 29,614 stateless persons in the country at the end of February, the most recent figures available; of these, about one-third did not have residency permits for the country. Most were Kurds and Palestinians, many of whom were born in Syria or Lebanon. Others lost their previous citizenship when the Soviet Union collapsed or when the dissolution of Yugoslavia occurred.Laws and policies provided stateless persons the opportunity to gain citizenship on a nondiscriminatory basis. Stateless persons could apply for citizenship after six years of residence. Producing sufficient evidence to establish statelessness was often difficult, however, because the burden of proof was on the applicant. Authorities generally protected stateless persons from deportation to their country of origin or usual residence if they faced a threat of political persecution there.																																					Section 3.													 Freedom to Participate in the Political Process												    																						The constitution provided citizens the ability to choose their government in free and fair periodic elections held by secret ballot and based on universal and equal suffrage.																										Elections and Political Participation										Abuses or Irregularities in Recent Elections: State elections took place in Bavaria, Hessen, Bremen, and Berlin and were widely reported to be fair and free of abuses and irregularities. Federal parliamentary elections in 2021 were widely reported to be fair and free of abuses and irregularities.Political Parties and Political Participation: Political parties generally operated without restriction or outside interference unless authorities deemed them a threat to the federal constitution. When federal authorities perceived such a threat, they could petition the Federal Constitutional Court to ban the party.By law, each political party received federal public funding commensurate with the party’s election results in state, national, and European elections. The constitution, however, denied public funding to extremist parties that sought to undermine the constitution. As of November, the Federal Constitutional Court had begun considering a 2019 collective claim by the Bundesrat, Bundestag, and federal government to exclude the right-wing extremist Die Heimat party (formerly the National Democratic Party, NPD) from receiving state party financing, arguing that Die Heimat sought to undermine the democratic order in the country, but had not yet issued a decision as of early December.In July, police in Oberhausen closed their investigation of a July 2022 explosion at the local office of the Left party without identifying a suspect. Although they believed the party had been specifically targeted, they were unable to collect enough evidence to pursue the case.The Frankfurt Regional Court sentenced Alexander M. to five years and 10 months in prison on November 17, 2022, for sending 116 threatening letters to prominent parliamentarians, women, and members of minority groups active in campaigns against extremism between 2018 and 2021. The court maintained Alexander M. acted alone despite investigation findings that a database at a Frankfurt police station was used to obtain personal data belonging to the recipients.Participation of Women and Members of Marginalized or Vulnerable Groups: Transgender persons complained the time-consuming and costly nature of the country’s laws on gender changes limited their ability to participate in the political system (see section 6, Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics). They also pointed out this requirement limited the ability of transgender persons to be elected to public office, because only legal names could be used in official election records and on ballots. Persons with disabilities also faced some restrictions, although these were being reduced (see section 6, Persons with Disabilities).																																					Section 4.													 Corruption in Government												    																						The law provided criminal penalties for corruption by officials, and the government generally implemented the law effectively. There were isolated reports of government corruption.																											Section 5.													 Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights												    																						A variety of domestic and international human rights groups generally operated without government restriction, investigating and publishing their findings on human rights cases. Government officials were cooperative and responsive to their views.Government Human Rights Bodies: Several government bodies worked independently and effectively to protect human rights. The Bundestag had a Committee for Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid and a Committee for Petitions. The petitions committee fielded complaints from the public, including human rights concerns. The German Institute for Human Rights had responsibility for monitoring the country’s implementation of its international human rights commitments, including treaties and conventions.The Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency (FADA) was a semi-independent body that studied discrimination and those who had been affected. The government appointed federal commissioners who advocated for the human rights of vulnerable groups, including a federal commissioner for persons with disabilities, a federal commissioner for the acceptance of sexual and gender diversity, a federal commissioner to combat antisemitism and promote Jewish life, and a federal commissioner against antiziganism (anti-Romani) and for Sinti and Roma life in Germany. The Federal Justice Ministry’s commissioner for human rights oversaw implementation of court rulings related to human rights protections.																											Section 6.													 Discrimination and Societal Abuses												    																																																Women										Rape and Domestic Violence: The law criminalized rape of a person, including spousal rape, regardless of gender, and provided penalties of up to 15 years in prison. Without a court order, officials could temporarily deny access to their household to those accused of abuse, or they could impose a restraining order. In cases of rape and domestic violence, authorities could prosecute individuals for assault or rape and require them to pay damages. Penalties depended on the nature of the case. The government enforced the laws effectively.The federal government, the states, and NGOs supported numerous projects to prevent and respond to cases of gender-based violence, including providing survivors with greater access to medical care and legal assistance. Approximately 350 women’s shelters operated throughout the country.Social service NGOs and shelter operators complained access to shelters was uneven or not available in many areas, with a shortfall in accommodation for approximately 15,000 women nationwide. According to a March report by the media outlet Correctiv, occupancy was at 83 percent nationwide and there were no open shelter spaces on 303 days of 2022. The NGO Central Information Agency of Autonomous Women’s Shelters stated refugee women were at particular risk of domestic violence because they were required to maintain residence in a single district for three years, had few financial resources, and often resided in districts without women’s shelters.Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C): There were no reports FGM/C was performed in the country. FGM/C of women and girls was a criminal offense punishable by one to 15 years in prison, even if performed abroad. Authorities could revoke the passports of individuals suspected of traveling abroad to subject a girl or woman to FGM/C but had not done so since the law took effect in 2017. A working group led by the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women, and Youth collaborated with other federal government bodies and all 16 states to combat FGM/C.The ministry continued to issue “protection letters” for girls at risk of FGM/C, warning of the high criminal penalties in the country. The letter was intended to be carried when traveling abroad and shown to relatives or others who tried to subject girls to FGM/C.Other Forms of Gender-based Violence or Harassment: Criminal law considered so-called honor killings as murder, and the government enforced the law effectively. Although authorities estimated the number of such killings fluctuated between three and 12 during any given year, some observers questioned how many of these were so-called honor killings, which media tended to attribute to immigrant communities, and how many were other manifestations of domestic violence.In February, a Berlin court sentenced two men of Afghan origin to life in prison for the July 2021 killing of their sister. Prosecutors argued the two had killed her because she had divorced her husband and was involved in a relationship with another man.In October, a Berlin court convicted an Afghan man of murdering his former wife in April 2022, in what the presiding judge called a case of “classic femicide,” and sentenced him to life in prison, the harshest possible sentence. Media reported the man did not accept the divorce, which he considered an act of infidelity; the woman’s family stated she repeatedly sought police help, but police had not taken her seriously because she was an immigrant.The law prohibited sexual harassment. Penalties included fines and prison sentences of up to five years. Various disciplinary measures against harassment in the workplace were available, including dismissal of the perpetrator. The law required employers to protect all employees from sexual harassment. The law considered an employer’s failure to take measures to protect employees from sexual harassment to be a breach of contract, and an affected employee had the right to paid leave until the employer rectified the problem. Unions, churches, government agencies, and NGOs operated a variety of support programs for women who experienced sexual harassment and sponsored seminars and training to prevent it.Discrimination: Men and women enjoyed the same legal status and rights under the constitution and family, labor, religious, personal status, property, nationality, and inheritance laws. The government generally enforced the law effectively, although women did not always receive the same pay as men for equivalent work.The law provided for equal pay for equal work. In January, the Federal Statistical Office found the gross hourly wages of women in 2022 were on average 18 percent lower than those of men, and 7 percent lower for women even when factors such as qualifications, responsibilities and employment biographies were equivalent. It attributed pay differences primarily to the different sectors in which men and women were employed and to unequal requirements for leadership experience and other qualifications. Women were underrepresented in highly paid managerial positions and overrepresented in some lower-wage occupations. The Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency (FADA) reported women were also at a disadvantage regarding promotions, often due to career interruptions for child rearing.The law imposed a requirement of at least 30 percent women representation on the supervisory boards of certain publicly traded corporations. It also required approximately 3,500 companies to set and publish self-determined targets to increase the share of women in leading positions (executive boards and management) and to report on their performance.Reproductive Rights: There were no reports of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization on the part of government authorities.While abortion was technically illegal in the country, existing laws protected patients, physicians, and service providers from prosecution through the 12th week under certain conditions. The law required parental permission for patients younger than age 18 to obtain an abortion, but physicians could exempt patients age 14 or older from this requirement.Individuals had access to safe, effective, and affordable methods of family planning and contraception of their choice, including emergency contraception, throughout the country. Prenatal and obstetrical care was comprehensive, widely available, and covered by all insurance providers. Public information regarding contraception, reproductive health, and prenatal care was readily available free of charge from health insurance providers, NGOs, and health authorities.Public health insurance covered the costs of emergency contraception and abortion in cases of rape or if medically necessary. Postexposure prophylaxis was available as part of the clinical management of rape. Emergency health care in the event of abortion complications was available and unrestricted. Emergency contraception was widely available and did not require a prescription.The law required public health insurance to pay for immediate care for all survivors of sexual violence, including emergency contraception, although not all states fully implemented the law.																																				Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination										The country’s constitution stated no one shall be “favored or disfavored because of sex, parentage, race, language, homeland and origin, faith or religious or political opinions.” Federal laws prohibited discrimination based on race or ethnicity by public authorities as well as private actors such as employers, landlords and businesses; however, the government did not always effectively enforce these laws.Public incitement of hatred against an ethnic, racial, religious, or other minority was a crime, and authorities vigorously prosecuted violations of the law. Conviction of crimes motivated by such hatred also incurred harsher sentences, and judges regularly imposed these sentences.The federal and state governments employed a wide range of measures to eliminate ethnic and racial bias. For example, in 2022, the federal government named the country’s first independent federal commissioner for antidiscrimination. The commissioner was the head of the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency (FADA), which took complaints of discrimination and provided advice and support to victims, and could submit policy proposals, recommendations, or opinions on pending legislation to the federal government. The commissioner could also request responses from authorities to individual discrimination complaints. Some states also had similar offices. Observers noted FADA was underfunded and that both state and federal offices were not sufficiently independent. Members of minority groups were not always aware of these resources.The federal and state governments also provided grants to civil society organizations working to combat racism and ethnic bias. For example, during the year the federal government program Demokratie Leben (Live Democracy) dispensed €182 million ($197 million) in grants to organizations promoting diversity and combating extremism.Federal and state OPCs also monitored groups with racist or xenophobic ideologies. The annual FOPC report for 2022, released in June, recorded the reporting and investigation of 20,967 politically motivated crimes committed by individuals with right-wing extremist backgrounds, a 3.8 percent increase over 2021. This included 1,016 violent crimes (a 7.5 percent increase), of which 796 were categorized as xenophobic, 16 percent more than in 2021. The 2022 FADA report listed 2,882 complaints of racism, an increase of 802 over 2021, and 1,815 complaints based on disability. The agency reported 6,627 requests for consultations from possible victims of discrimination, compared with 5,617 in 2021 and 6,383 in 2020.Persons of foreign origin sometimes faced difficulties finding housing. FADA reported persons not of ethnic German origin, particularly of Romani, Turkish, and African origin, including those with foreign-sounding names, were often subjected to housing discrimination. Foreign workers sometimes faced wage discrimination.Harassment of members of racial minorities, such as Roma and Sinti, remained a problem throughout the country. In 2022, the federal government appointed a national commissioner to combat anti-Roma prejudice and for Roma life in Germany, who coordinated government measures and advocated on behalf of the Romani community.The country’s Monitoring and Information Office on Antiziganism issued its first annual report September 18, which listed 621 anti-Roma incidents in 2022, including 17 incidents of assault and one incident which it called a “very violent case”; more than half of all alleged cases involved discrimination. A fifth of the cases were tied to housing, and another fifth involved discrimination by public agencies, including employment offices, youth welfare agencies, schools, and social services offices. Commissioner to Combat Anti-Roma Prejudice and for Roma Life Mehmet Daimagueler stated “racism in job centers, police authorities and educational institutions must finally be fought decisively.” In the “very violent case,” individuals in two cars shouted anti-Roma insults at members of the Romani community in the state of Saarland, before shooting them with an air rifle, wounding several.																																				Children										Child Abuse: There were laws against child abuse. The law punished violence, cruelty, and malicious neglect of children. Incidents of child abuse were reported. The Federal Ministry for Family, Seniors, Women, and Youth sponsored programs throughout the year on the prevention of child abuse. The ministry continued to create networks among parents, youth services, schools, pediatricians, and courts, and to support existing programs at the state and local level. Other programs provided therapy and support for young survivors of sexual abuse.Child, Early, and Forced Marriage: The legal minimum age for marriage was 18 years.The law nullified existing marriages conducted in other countries in which at least one spouse was younger than age 16 at the time of the wedding, even if they were of legal age in the country where the marriage was performed. Individuals ages 16 or 17 could petition a judge on a case-by-case basis to recognize their foreign marriage if they faced a specific hardship from not having their marriage legally recognized. Complete central statistics were unavailable on such cases. Child and forced marriage primarily affected girls of foreign nationality.Sexual Exploitation of Children: The law prohibited commercial sexual exploitation, sale, offering, or using children for commercial sexual exploitation, including child sex trafficking, as well as practices related to child pornography. Authorities enforced the law. The minimum age for consensual sex was 14 years, but sex was not considered consensual if the person was younger than age 16 and the older partner was age 18 or older and “exploiting a coercive situation.” It was illegal for adults to offer compensation for sex to a person younger than age 18. It was also illegal for a person age 21 or older to have sex with someone between ages 14 and 16 if the older person “exploits the victim’s lack of capacity for sexual self-determination.”The law allowed undercover investigators to use artificially created videos of child sexual abuse to gain access to internet forums. The government’s independent commissioner for child sex abuse issues operated an online help portal and an anonymous telephone helpline free of charge.In August, North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) Minister of Interior Herbert Reul said the number of child pornography cases in NRW rose to 11,000 annually in 2021 and 2022 from 1,578 in 2013, with a successful prosecution rate of about 80 percent. Reul attributed the higher number of reported cases to better investigation and enforcement methods, and the state’s efforts to combat the problem more decisively.																																				Antisemitism										Observers estimated the country’s Jewish population to be approximately 200,000, of whom an estimated 90 percent were from the former Soviet Union. According to the Central Welfare Board of Jews in Germany, there were approximately 91,900 registered, dues-paying members of Jewish congregations at the end of 2022, the most recent figures available.Manifestations of antisemitism, including physical and verbal attacks, occurred at public demonstrations, sporting and social events, in schools, in the street, in certain media outlets, and online. Apart from antisemitic speech, desecration of cemeteries and Holocaust monuments represented the most widespread antisemitic acts, although there was a rising number of physical assaults on individuals perceived to be Jewish.The federal government attributed most antisemitic acts to neo-Nazi or other right-wing extremist groups or persons, and such acts increased during the year. According to a preliminary figure obtained by the socialist Left party caucus from the Ministry of Interior, 1,225 crimes were motivated by antisemitism in the first three quarters of the year; in the third quarter the number of crimes increased 76 percent over the same period in 2022.In March 2022, the Ministry of Interior published a 10-point plan to combat right-wing extremism, and in November 2022, the federal government released the country’s first national strategy to combat antisemitism and support Jewish life. Jewish organizations also noted antisemitic attitudes and behavior of some Muslim youth and left-wing extremists. NGOs agreed right-wing extremists were responsible for most antisemitic acts but cautioned federal statistics misattributed many acts committed by Muslims as right-wing acts.The number of antisemitic incidents rose sharply in the fourth quarter of the year concurrent with conflict in the Middle East. The NGO RIAS, which collects and monitors reports of antisemitism, announced on October 18 it recorded 202 antisemitic incidents from October 7 to 16, up 240 percent over the same period in 2022. This included tweets, chants, vandalism, and graffiti, as well as physical attacks on buildings and persons. In Berlin, unknown persons threw Molotov cocktails at a synagogue complex on October 18, but there were no injuries or damage. RIAS reported antisemitic demonstrations in Berlin, North Rhine-Westphalia, Bavaria, Baden-Wuerttemberg, and Lower Saxony in October.According to the Deutsche Presse Agentur, in the early morning of July 17, five volunteer firefighters of the Leonberg, Baden-Wuerttemberg, fire department shouted antisemitic and right-wing extremist slogans through the fire engine’s loudspeakers while driving through the city. Police investigated charges of inciting racial hatred. The firefighters were suspended by the city.In its report released February 6, the panel of scholars reviewing accusations of antisemitism at the 2022 Documenta Fifteen art exhibition and the handling of them concluded that Documenta Fifteen became “an echo chamber for Israel-related antisemitism, and sometimes for pure antisemitism.” In its report, the panel accused the curators and certain artists who exhibited at the Documenta of a clear antisemitic bias, including through works that promoted stereotypes.In April, a court in Cologne ruled three of the four men charged with assaulting and seriously injuring in 2021 a Jewish man, age 18, who said he was wearing a kippa in a public park would have to pay the defendant €400-500 each ($432-541) for the pain they inflicted upon him. The victim, however, could not remember whether the assailants had used antisemitic insults, and the judge ruled it was not possible to determine whether antisemitism was a motive in the attack. The fourth suspect was no longer in the country.Many prominent government officials repeatedly condemned antisemitism throughout the year, including Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Federal Minister of Economics and Climate Robert Habeck, Federal Interior Minister Nancy Faeser, and Federal Minister of Education Bettina Stark-Watzinger. In 2018, the federal government created the position of federal commissioner for Jewish life in Germany and the fight against antisemitism. Since then, 15 of 16 states also established state-level commissioners to combat antisemitism. In the one state that had not instituted the position, the local Bremen Jewish community advised the state government such a position was not necessary. The community deemed alternative tools to combat antisemitism to be more efficient. The positions’ responsibilities varied by state but involved meeting with Jewish communities, collecting statistics on antisemitic acts, and designing education and prevention programs. A federal- and state-level Commission to Combat Antisemitism and Protect Jewish Life that included all commissioners met twice a year to coordinate strategies.																																				Trafficking in Persons										See the Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics										Criminalization: No laws criminalized consensual same-sex sexual conduct between adults, cross-dressing, or other sexual or gender characteristic-related behaviors.Violence and Harassment: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex (LGBTQI+) activists and community members complained of violent attacks and a growing atmosphere of hostility towards LGBTQI+ persons across the country, often directed at transgender individuals. Official crime statistics released in May showed a 16 percent rise in recorded hate crimes against LGBTQI+ persons nationwide in 2022, with 1,005 such crimes recorded by authorities. Of these, 227 were violent (up 38 percent over 2021) and 213 involved battery (up 38 percent over 2021). Community activists, including the German Gay and Lesbian Federation, suspected the actual figures were much higher. The Berlin NGO Maneo stated privacy protection laws prevented police from releasing information regarding specific incidents in approximately 50 percent of cases, making it difficult for the NGO to assess the magnitude of the problem.According to media reports, four participants in the Halle Pride parade on September 9 were verbally abused by a group of four after the parade. The group allegedly punched and kicked parade participants, seriously injuring one who required hospital treatment. Police arrested two of the assailants, who were reportedly ages 16 and 20.In May, the Karlsruhe public prosecutor’s office told local media it was unable to charge any suspects in the June 2022 assault on participants in the Karlsruhe LGBTQI+ Pride march that left six injured, including one who required hospitalization. An internal police investigation found no evidence to support accusations that police were intentionally slow to respond to the incident.A court in Muenster convicted a person age 20 for assault resulting in death in the killing of Malte C., a transgender man, age 25, at an LGBTQI+ Pride march in Bielefeld in August 2022, and sentenced him to addiction treatment and five years of juvenile detention. Prosecutors charged the attacker with assault instead of murder because they determined the attacker did not intend to kill Malte.Discrimination: The law prohibited discrimination by state and nonstate actors based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or sex characteristics and recognized LGBTQI+ individuals, couples, and their families. Authorities generally enforced the law. The government offered telephone and online consultations to persons who wished to report discrimination.According to a survey by the polling firm YouGov released in May, 57 percent of LGBTQI+ employees have experienced some kind of discrimination at the workplace. Most common were hearing jokes or disparaging remarks made about LGBTQI+ persons, reported by 51 percent of respondents, while 22 percent reported bullying and 14 percent reported harassment.Availability of Legal Gender Recognition: Legal gender recognition was available, but it did not comply with the recommended global standard of allowing individuals to self-identify their gender, including the option for a third gender, “divers.” LGBTQI+ activists criticized the requirement that transgender persons had to obtain two assessments by independent experts to receive legal gender recognition (including a legal name change) as expensive, time consuming, subjective, and intrusive.Involuntary or Coercive Medical or Psychological Practices: By law, offering, advertising, or arranging treatments to convert homosexual or transgender children by means of so-called conversion therapy was a crime punishable by up to a year in prison. Persons convicted of coercing such “therapy” on persons of legal age were also subject to incarceration. There were no reports that children had been subjected to conversion therapy during the year. The Federal Center for Health Education operated a telephone hotline and online service to provide free and anonymous consultations to young persons and others who suspected such practices.There were reports of medically unnecessary and irreversible “normalization” surgeries performed on intersex children or nonconsenting adults. The law and medical associations did make efforts to limit these surgeries. Advocates for intersex persons said the law included too many exceptions and needed to be strengthened.Restrictions of Freedom of Expression, Association, or Peaceful Assembly: There were no laws or other restrictions on those speaking out or reporting on LGBTQI+ matters, or on the ability of LGBTQI+ individuals or organizations to legally register or convene events such as Pride festivities.																																				Persons with Disabilities										Federal and state laws required authorities take measures to provide for persons with disabilities to have equal treatment and access to education, health care, public buildings and services, and transportation. The law required access to information and communications, including public information in accessible formats. These requirements were not always met. For example, most physicians’ offices located in older buildings were not accessible to persons with disabilities, and there were too few health-care facilities that met the specific health care needs of persons with disabilities. Government information and communications were not always provided in accessible formats, especially at the local level.The law prohibited discrimination against persons with disabilities. The law made no specific mention of the rights of persons with sensory or intellectual disabilities, but their rights were considered included under the other legal protections. NGOs disagreed on whether the government effectively enforced these provisions.Persons with disabilities also faced obstacles in obtaining employment and housing. Although discrimination based on a disability was illegal, there were reports of employment discrimination against persons with disabilities, and the unemployment rate among persons with disabilities of working age was much higher than in the general population. Not enough suitable employment opportunities were available for persons with disabilities, and despite requirements that private companies with more than 20 employees employ persons with disabilities, many chose to pay a monetary fine of up to €360 ($389) per month instead. In 2021, the most recent year data were available, nearly 107,000 employers did not meet their quotas, according to figures released during the year by the Federal Employment Agency. In June, the Bundestag passed a law doubling the maximum fine to €720 ($778) starting in 2024.There was also a shortage of affordable, accessible, and barrier-free housing for persons with disabilities, and older and privately owned residential and commercial buildings were often exempt from accessibility regulations.An estimated 1.3 million adults were living under conservatorships in the country, many of them with a disability, whose rights were restricted by various degrees under conservatorship laws. Reforms to conservatorship laws came into effect January 1, which gave persons under conservatorship more control over their own lives. NGOs such as the Institute for Human Rights stated the reforms did not go far enough. For example, the law continued to permit involuntary medical treatment or sterilization in some cases.State officials decided whether children with disabilities could attend mainstream or segregated schools. The law obliged all children to attend school, so those with disabilities did so at the same rate as children without disabilities. Approximately 55 percent of children with disabilities attended segregated schools, although inclusion levels varied among the country’s 16 states. Somewhat more than one-half of the students with disabilities attending mainstream schools successfully completed secondary education, compared with one in four of those attending segregated schools.According to data released in June, persons with disabilities filed 1,815 discrimination complaints with FADA in 2022, 27 percent of the total FADA received.																																				Other Societal Violence or Discrimination										According to preliminary government figures released August 12, police registered 258 crimes directed at mosques or Muslims during the first half of the year, a 70 percent increase over the previous year.The law provided for equal treatment of foreign workers, although they faced some wage discrimination. For example, employers, particularly in the construction sector, sometimes paid lower wages to seasonal workers from Eastern Europe.FADA stated work applicants of foreign descent with foreign names faced discrimination even when they had similar or better qualifications than others. In 2022, FADA received 2,882 complaints alleging discrimination in the workplace or when accessing services because of ethnic background, a 38 percent increase over 2021.Media reported women who wore a hijab faced employment discrimination, which was made easier by the customary practice of requiring photos as part of job applications. A 2017 European Court of Justice ruling permitted employers to prevent staff from wearing religious attire and symbols at work if necessary to enable the employer to project an image of neutrality to clients. There were reports of employers applying this rule.The NGO German AIDS Foundation and the NGO German AIDS Service Organization reported societal discrimination against persons with HIV and AIDS ranged from isolation and negative comments from acquaintances, family, and friends, to bullying at work.																																					Section 7.													 Worker Rights												    																																																a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining										The constitution, federal legislation, and government regulations provided for the right of employees to form and join independent unions, bargain collectively, and conduct legal strikes. Wildcat strikes were not allowed. The law prohibited antiunion discrimination and offered legal remedies to claim damages, including the reinstatement of unlawfully dismissed workers.Some laws and regulations limited these labor rights. While civil servants were free to form or join unions, their wages and working conditions were determined by legislation, not by collective bargaining. All civil servants (including some teachers, postal workers, railroad employees, and police) and members of the armed forces were prohibited from striking.Employers were generally free to decide whether to be a party to a collective bargaining agreement. Even if they decided not to be a party, companies had to apply the provisions of a collective agreement if the Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs declared a collective bargaining agreement generally binding for the whole sector. Employers not legally bound by sectoral collective bargaining agreements often used them to determine part or all employment conditions. Employers could contest a strike’s proportionality or a trade union’s right to take strike action in court. The law did not establish clear criteria on strikes, and courts often relied on case law and precedent.The government enforced applicable laws effectively. Actions and measures by employers to limit or violate freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining were considered unlawful and could lead to monetary fines. Penalties and remediation efforts were commensurate with those of equivalent laws denying civil rights. Penalties were regularly applied against violators.Laws regulated cooperation between management and work councils (companies’ elected employee representation), including the right of the workers to be involved in management decisions that could affect them. Work councils were independent from labor unions but often had close ties to the sector’s labor movement. The penalty for employers convicted of interfering in work councils’ elections and operations was up to one year in prison or a monetary fine. Labor organizers complained a significant number of employers interfered with the election of work council members or tried to deter employees from organizing work councils. This practice was criticized by labor unions for a long time; they called for stronger legislation that shielded employees seeking to exercise their legal rights.																																				b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor										See the Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment										The law prohibited all of the worst forms of child labor and provided for a minimum age of employment, including limitations on working hours and occupational safety and health (OSH) restrictions for children. The law prohibited the employment of children younger than 15 with a few exceptions: Children ages 13 and 14 could perform work on a family-run farm for up to three hours per day or perform services such as delivering magazines and leaflets, babysitting, and dog walking for up to two hours per day, if authorized by their custodial parent. Children younger than 15 could not work during school hours, before 8 a.m., after 6 p.m., or on Saturdays, Sundays, or public holidays. The type of work could not pose any risk to the security, health, or development of the child, and could not prevent the child from obtaining schooling and training. Children were not allowed to work with hazardous materials, carry or handle items weighing more than 22 pounds, perform work requiring an unsuitable posture, or engage in work that exposed them to the risk of an accident. Children between the ages of 3 to 14 could take part in cultural performances, but there were strict limits on the kind of activity, number of hours, and time of day.The government effectively enforced the applicable laws, and penalties were commensurate with those of other serious crimes. Penalties were regularly applied against violators. Isolated cases of illegal child labor occurred in small, family-owned businesses, such as cafes, restaurants, family farms, and grocery stores. Inspections by the relevant regional agencies and the resources and remediation available to them were adequate to provide for broad compliance. There were no confirmed reports during the year of the worst forms of child labor.																																				d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																														e. Acceptable Conditions of Work										Wage and Hour Laws: The nationwide statutory minimum wage was below the internationally defined “at risk of poverty threshold” of two-thirds of the national median wage. The minimum wage did not apply to persons younger than 18, long-term unemployed persons during their first six months in a job, or apprentices undergoing vocational training, regardless of age. Several sectors set their own higher minimum wages through collective bargaining.Federal regulations set the standard workday at eight hours, with a maximum of 10 hours, and limited the average workweek to 48 hours. For the 54 percent of employees who were directly covered by collective bargaining agreements, the average agreed working week was 37.7 hours. The law required a break after no more than six hours of work, stipulated regular breaks totaling at least 30 minutes, and set a minimum of 24 days of paid annual leave in addition to official holidays. Provisions for overtime, holiday, and weekend pay varied, depending upon the applicable collective bargaining agreement. Such agreements or individual contracts prohibited excessive compulsory overtime and protected workers against arbitrary employer requests.Occupational Safety and Health: Extensive laws and regulations governed OSH. Allegations of unsafe working conditions were most common in the construction, transportation, and postal logistics industries, and the highest number of workplace accidents occurred in these industries. If an employer failed to protect the employee effectively, employees could remove themselves from situations that endangered their health or safety without jeopardy to their employment.Wage, Hour, and OSH Enforcement: The government effectively enforced the laws and monitored compliance with the statutory and sector-wide minimum wages and hours of work through the Customs Office’s Financial Control Illicit Work Unit (FKS), which conducted checks on nearly 53,100 businesses in 2022, the latest year for which data were available. Focus areas included construction, hair salons, hospitality industry, logistics and parcel delivery, and taxis. Employees could sue companies if employers failed to comply with the Minimum Wage Act, and courts could sentence employers who violated the provisions to pay a substantial monetary fine.The Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs and its state-level counterparts monitored and effectively enforced OSH standards through a network of government bodies, including the Federal Agency for Occupational Safety and Health. At the local level, professional and trade associations, self-governing public corporations with delegates representing both employers and unions, as well as works councils, oversaw worker safety. The number of inspectors was sufficient to provide for compliance. Inspectors had the ability to make unannounced inspections and initiate sanctions.A comprehensive system of worker insurance carriers enforced safety requirements in the workplace.Penalties for wage, hour, and OSH violations were commensurate with those for other crimes and were regularly applied against violators.According to media reports, the informal economy accounted for approximately 11 percent of the country’s GDP. According to the 2019 Act to Combat Unlawful Employment and Benefit Fraud, part of the FKS’s mandate included monitoring undeclared and illegal work. The FKS had approximately 8,600 personnel assigned to investigate employers and employees not fulfilling certain social security, tax, social benefit, or employment reporting obligations.																																				    							View report by:																				Afghanistan											Albania											Algeria											Andorra											Angola											Antigua and Barbuda											Argentina											Armenia											Australia											Austria											Azerbaijan											Bahrain											Bangladesh											Barbados											Belarus											Belgium											Belize											Benin											Bhutan											Bolivia											Bosnia and Herzegovina											Botswana											Brazil											Brunei											Bulgaria											Burkina Faso											Burma											Burundi											Cabo Verde											Cambodia											Cameroon											Canada											Central African Republic											Chad											Chile											China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, and Tibet)											Colombia											Comoros											Costa Rica											Côte d&#8217;Ivoire											Croatia											Cuba											Cyprus											Czech Republic											Democratic Republic of the Congo											Denmark											Djibouti											Dominica											Dominican Republic											Ecuador											Egypt											El Salvador											Equatorial Guinea											Eritrea											Estonia											Eswatini											Ethiopia											Fiji											Finland											France											Gabon											Georgia											Germany											Ghana											Greece											Grenada											Guatemala											Guinea											Guinea-Bissau											Guyana											Haiti											Honduras											Hungary											Iceland											India											Indonesia											Iran											Iraq											Ireland											Israel, West Bank and Gaza											Italy											Jamaica											Japan											Jordan											Kazakhstan											Kenya											Kiribati											Kosovo											Kuwait											Kyrgyz Republic											Laos											Latvia											Lebanon											Lesotho											Liberia											Libya											Liechtenstein											Lithuania											Luxembourg											Madagascar											Malawi											Malaysia											Maldives											Mali											Malta											Marshall Islands											Mauritania											Mauritius											Mexico											Micronesia											Moldova											Monaco											Mongolia											Montenegro											Morocco											Mozambique											Namibia											Nauru											Nepal											New Zealand											Nicaragua											Niger											Nigeria											North Korea											North Macedonia											Norway											Oman											Pakistan											Palau											Panama											Papua New Guinea											Paraguay											Peru											Philippines											Poland											Portugal											Qatar											Republic of the Congo											Romania											Russia											Rwanda											Saint Kitts and Nevis											Saint Lucia											Saint Vincent and the Grenadines											Samoa											San Marino											Sao Tome and Principe											Saudi Arabia											Senegal											Serbia											Seychelles											Sierra Leone											Singapore											Slovakia											Slovenia											Solomon Islands											Somalia											South Africa											South Korea											South Sudan											Spain											Sri Lanka											Sudan											Suriname											Sweden											Switzerland											Syria											Taiwan											Tajikistan											Tanzania											Thailand											The Gambia											The Netherlands											Timor-Leste											Togo											The Bahamas											Tonga											Trinidad and Tobago											Tunisia											Turkey (Türkiye)											Turkmenistan											Tuvalu											Uganda											Ukraine											United Arab Emirates											United Kingdom											Uruguay											Uzbekistan											Vanuatu											Venezuela											Vietnam											Yemen											Zambia											Zimbabwe															Build A Custom Report																						On This Page				search													>																										EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																							a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																						b. Disappearance																																																						c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																				Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																				d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																				Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																				e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																				Trial Procedures																																												Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																				f. Transnational Repression																																																						g. Property Seizure and Restitution																																																						h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																			Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																							a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media																																																				Internet Freedom																																																																																				b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																				Freedom of Peaceful Assembly																																												Freedom of Association																																																																																				c. Freedom of Religion																																																						d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																						e. Protection of Refugees																																																						f. Status and Treatment of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)																																																						g. Stateless Persons																																																			Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																							Elections and Political Participation																																																			Section 4. Corruption in Government																Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																							Women																																																						Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																						Children																																																						Antisemitism																																																						Trafficking in Persons																																																						Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																						Persons with Disabilities																																																						Other Societal Violence or Discrimination																																																			Section 7. Worker Rights																																							a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																						b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																						c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																						d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																						e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																									Tags																					Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																								Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs																								Germany
- Secretary Blinken’s Call with UK Foreign Secretary Cameron and German Foreign Minister Baerbock Office of the SpokespersonThe below is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken spoke today with UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron and German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock regarding yesterday’s blatant and unprecedented attack by Iran and its proxies on Israel.  They agreed on the importance of condemning these attacks in the strongest possible terms and preventing further escalation in the region.  The Secretary reaffirmed America’s unequivocal ironclad commitment to the security of Israel, highlighting that we will remain vigilant to all threats and will not hesitate to take all necessary action to protect our people.
- Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Bitter Travels to Nicosia, Frankfurt, Bucharest, and Sofia Office of the SpokespersonAssistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Rena Bitter will travel April 11-19 to Nicosia, Cyprus; Frankfurt, Germany; Bucharest, Romania; and Sofia, Bulgaria.  In Nicosia, Bucharest, and Sofia, Assistant Secretary Bitter will meet with host government officials to discuss further facilitating travel between our countries and other consular issues of mutual interest.  In all four cities, she will engage with embassy and consulate staff and observe consular operations.  The trip underscores our deep and sustained commitment to the protection of U.S. citizens overseas and the facilitation of legitimate travel and immigration to the United States.For updates on Assistant Secretary Bitter’s travel, follow @TravelGov on social media.