The European Parliament's Sakharov prize for freedom of thought, 1988-2013 : a quarter century's engagement in human rights.
Date: 2014-01-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the Union
Subjects: European Parliament, anti-discriminatory measure, freedom of opinion, honour, human rights

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR EXTERNAL POLICIES OF THE UNION 

DIRECTORATE B 

POLICY DEPARTMENT
 

STUDY 


THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT’S SAKHAROV PRIZE FOR 

FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, 1988-2013 - A QUARTER 

CENTURY’S ENGAGEMENT IN HUMAN RIGHTS 


Abstract 
The  Sakharov  Prize  for  Freedom  of  Thought  stands  out  among  other  initiatives  as  the 
best-known and most widely appreciated instrument of the European Parliament in the 
field of human rights. In some countries, it is as well-known as the Nobel Prize. Over its 
25-year  history,  it  has  come  to  be  associated  with  the  European  Union’s  principled 
commitment  to  freedom  of  thought.  However,  empirical  research  on  the  personal  and 
political  circumstances  of  Sakharov  Prize  laureates,  as  well  as  on  the  political  impact  of 
the prize in five case studies – China, Cuba, Israel and Palestine, and Russia – shows that 
its potential remains under-utilised. 

Drawing  on  unique  perspectives  from  the  laureates  themselves,  this  report  offers 
suggestions to enhance its impact, including: the prize must be targeted more tightly at 
contexts  where  it  could  have  tangible  impact;  it  must  be  dovetailed  with  other  policy 
instruments; it must guard more carefully against unintended effects; and it must serve 
as a platform for broader international linkages in the defence of human rights. On the 
occasion of its quarter-century anniversary, the European Parliament must reflect on how 
the prize can continue to be relevant in a world whose contours and predicaments look 
vastly different from those that prevailed at its inception. 

EXPO/B/DPHR/2013/11 

PE 433.758 

December 2013
 

EN 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy Department DG External Policies 

This  study  was  requested  by  the  European  Parliament's  Democracy  Support  and  Election 
Coordination Group. 

AUTHORS 

Fundación para las Relaciones Internacionales y el Diálogo Exterior (FRIDE), SPAIN: 

Kateryna Pishchikova, associate researcher and team leader  

Laureates profiles: 

Iran, 2012: Nasrin Sotoudeh and Jafar Panahi – by Peyman Majidzadech 

Arab  Spring,  2011:  Asmaa  Mahfouz  (Egypt),  Ahmed  al-Zubair  al-Sanusi  (Libya),  Razan  Zaitouneh 
(Syria), Ali Farzat (Syria), Mohamed Bouazizi (Tunisia, posthumously) - by Barah Mikail 

Cuba, 2010: Guillermo Fariñas - by Magdalena Segre and Nicolás Salmerón 

Russia, 2009: Memorial - by Natalia Shapovalova 

China, 2008: Hu Jia - by Ted Liu 

Sudan, 2007: Salih Mahmoud Mohamed Osman - by Nicolás Salmerón 

Belarus, 2006: Aliaxandr Milinkevich - by Natalia Shapovalova 

Cuba, 2005: Ladies in White - by Susanne Gratius 

Nigeria, 2005: Hauwa Ibrahim - by Kateryna Pishchikova 

France, 2005: Reporters without Borders - by Barah Mikail 

Belarus, 2004: Belarus Association of Journalists - by Natalia Shapovalova 

United  Nations  Secretary-General  Kofi  Annan  and  all  the  staff  of  the  UN,  2003  -  by  Kateryna 
Pishchikova 

Cuba, 2002: Oswaldo José Payá Sardiñas - by Nicolás Salmerón 

Israel and Palestine, 2001: Nurit Peled-Elhanan and Izzat Ghazzawi - by Barah Mikail 

Angola, 2001: Dom Zacarias Kamwenho - by Ana Martiningui 

Spain, 2000: ¡Basta Ya! - by Alejandro Barón 

East Timor, 1999: José Alexandre ‘Xanana’ Gusmão - by Elisa Lledó 

Kosovo, 1998: Ibrahim Rugova - by Ervjola Selenica 

Algeria, 1997: Salima Ghezali - by Barah Mikail 

China, 1996: Wei Jingsheng - by Ted Liu 

Turkey, 1995: Leyla Zana - by Ghita Tadlaoui 

Bangladesh, 1994: Taslima Nasreen - by Kateryna Pishchikova 

Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1993: Oslobodjenje - by Kateryna Pishchikova 

Argentina, 1992: Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo Association - by Magdalena Segre 

Kosovo, 1991: Adem Demaci - by Ervjola Selenica 

Myanmar, 1990: Aung San Suu Kyi - by Kateryna Pishchikova 

2 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

Czechoslovakia, 1989: Alexander Dubček - by Vitalii Riznyk 

South Africa, 1988: Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela - by Kateryna Pishchikova 

Soviet Union, 1988: Anatoli Marchenko - by Olesia Ogryzko 

Country case studies: 

China - by Ted Liu 

Cuba - by Susanne Gratius 

Israel and Palestine - by Barah Mikail 

Russia - by Natalia Shapovalova and Kateryna Pishchikova 

ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSIBLE: 

Benjamin REY 
Directorate-General for External Policies of the Union 
Policy Department 
WIB 06 M 81 
rue Wiertz 60 
B-1047 Brussels 

Editorial Assistant: Pia VANNESTE 

LINGUISTIC VERSION 

Original: EN 

ABOUT THE EDITOR 

Editorial closing date: 9 December 2013. 
© European Union, 2013 

Printed in Belgium 

ISBN: BA-02-13-773-EN-N 
Doi: 10.2861/44248 

The Information Note is available on the Internet at 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/studies.do?language=EN 

If you are unable to download the information you require, please request a paper copy 
by e-mail : poldep-expo@europarl.europa.eu 

DISCLAIMER 

Any  opinions  expressed  in  this  document  are  the  sole  responsibility  of  the  author  and  do  not 
necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. 

Reproduction and translation, except for commercial purposes, are authorised, provided the source is 
acknowledged  and  provided  the  publisher  is  given  prior  notice  and  supplied  with  a  copy  of  the 
publication. 

3
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
Policy Department DG External Policies 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
1 
2 

3 

IRAN, 2012: NASRIN SOTOUDEH AND JAFAR PANAHI 

SUDAN, 2007: SALIH MAHMOUD MOHAMED OSMAN 

(LIBYA), ASMAA MAHFOUZ (EGYPT), MOHAMED BOUAZIZI (TUNISIA, POSTHUMOUSLY) 

THE IMPACT OF THE PRIZE ON INDIVIDUAL LAUREATES AND THEIR ORGANISATIONS 
IMPACT AT THE POLITICAL LEVEL 
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING THE IMPACT OF THE PRIZE 

5
 
6
 
8
 
INTRODUCTION 
11
 
ASSESSING AND IMPROVING THE IMPACT OF THE SAKHAROV PRIZE 
11
 
2.1	 
15
 
2.2	 
18
 
2.3	 
21
 
LAUREATES’ PROFILES 	
3.1	 
21
 
3.2	  ARAB SPRING, 2011: RAZAN ZAITOUNEH (SYRIA), ALI FARZAT (SYRIA), AHMED AL-ZUBAIR AL-SANUSI 

27
 
31
 
35
 
39
 
43
 
45
 
47
 
49
 
51
 
52
 
55
 
56
 
59
 
62
 
64
 
65
 
68
 
70
 
72
 
74
 
77
 
79
 
81
 
83
 
87
 
89
 
91
 
93
 

3.3	  CUBA, 2010: GUILLERMO FARIÑAS 
3.4	  RUSSIA, 2009: MEMORIAL 
3.5	  CHINA, 2008: HU JIA 
3.6	 
3.7	  BELARUS, 2006: ALIAXANDR MILINKEVICH 
3.8	  CUBA, 2005: LADIES IN WHITE 
3.9	  NIGERIA, 2005: HAUWA IBRAHIM 
3.10	  FRANCE, 2005: REPORTERS WITHOUT BORDERS 
3.11	  BELARUS, 2004: BELARUS ASSOCIATION OF JOURNALISTS 
3.12	  UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL KOFI ANNAN AND ALL THE STAFF OF THE UN, 2003 
3.13	  CUBA, 2002: OSWALDO JOSÉ PAYÁ SARDIÑAS 
3.14	 
3.15	  ANGOLA, 2001: DOM ZACARIAS KAMWENHO 
3.16	  SPAIN, 2000: ¡BASTA YA! 
3.17	  EAST TIMOR, 1999: JOSÉ ALEXANDRE ‘XANANA’ GUSMÃO 
3.18	  KOSOVO, 1998: IBRAHIM RUGOVA 
3.19	  ALGERIA, 1997: SALIMA GHEZALI 
3.20	  CHINA, 1996: WEI JINGSHENG 
3.21	  TURKEY, 1995: LEYLA ZANA 
3.22	  BANGLADESH, 1994: TASLIMA NASREEN 
3.23	  BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, 1993: OSLOBODJENJE 
3.24	  ARGENTINA, 1992: MOTHERS OF THE PLAZA DE MAYO ASSOCIATION 
3.25	  KOSOVO, 1991: ADEM DEMACI 
3.26	  MYANMAR, 1990: AUNG SAN SUU KYI 
3.27	  CZECHOSLOVAKIA, 1989: ALEXANDER DUBČEK 
3.28	  SOUTH AFRICA, 1988: NELSON ROLIHLAHLA MANDELA 
3.29	  SOVIET UNION, 1988: ANATOLI MARCHENKO 

ISRAEL AND PALESTINE, 2001: NURIT PELED-ELHANAN AND IZZAT GHAZZAWI 

4 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

We would like to thank first and foremost all  interviewees who dedicated their time and who were 
willing  to  share  with  us  their  personal  experiences,  ideas  and  concerns.  This  study  would  not  have 
been possible without their invaluable contributions. We are also grateful to the staff of the Human 
Rights Actions Unit at the Directorate-General External Policies of the Union, whose assistance with 
establishing direct contacts with Sakharov Prize laureates was truly indispensable. 

This  study  also  benefitted  from  the  overall  input  of  Ana  Martiningui,  FRIDE  Communications  Chief 
and Publications Coordinator; Magdalena Segre, FRIDE Deputy Director; and Richard Youngs, Senior 
Fellow at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and former FRIDE Director.  

5
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy Department DG External Policies 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This  study  evaluates  the  impact  of  the  European  Parliament’s  (EP)  Sakharov  Prize  for  Freedom  of 
Thought over its 25-year history. It assesses the impact that the prize has had on laureates’ personal 
and political circumstances, as well as on broader political trends. Crucially, this report is distinctive to 
previous assessments of the prize as it focuses on laureates’ own perspectives regarding the award. 

The  report’s  general  conclusion  is  that  the  Sakharov  Prize  has  established  an  extremely  strong 
reputation and is warmly welcomed by its recipients, yet it falls short of exerting its full potential.  

The prize has had considerable impact on individual laureates and their organisations. The nature of 
impact, however, varies depending on the general circumstances of the laureate and his/her country. 
We find that the prize has had the greatest impact providing moral and psychological support to its 
laureates.  It  has  also  helped  them  attain  increased  visibility  and  recognition  both  domestically  and 
internationally,  although  the  degree  varies  between  different  cases,  as  well  as  between  the 
international arena and the domestic public sphere. Many laureates report to have been empowered 
by  the  Sakharov  Prize,  even  though  this  effect  requires  more  follow-through.  In  addition,  many 
laureates  would  like  to  be  more  engaged  in  relations  between  their  country  and  the  European 
Parliament  or  the  European  Union  (EU),  and  are  generally  dissatisfied  about  not  being  able  to 
contribute  more.  It  is  therefore  recommended  that  the  EP  put  more  energy  into  raising  the  prize’s 
impact  in  those  dimensions,  by  improving  its  outreach  strategy  and  ensuring  systematic  follow-up 
with laureates, as well as with other human rights activists. 

The report finds that government reactions to the prize were never positive, with the only exception 
of  Angola,  having  varied  from  ignoring  the  prize  altogether  to  protesting  against  it.  A  number  of 
governments tried to discredit the laureates by launching purposeful defamation campaigns against 
them. This latter strategy is relatively common and needs to be countered by the EP through concrete 
measures. 

Our study shows that a good outreach strategy is  crucial for enhancing the potential impact of the 
Sakharov Prize on a particular issue. The cases of most notable impact were those where the issues 
that the laureates were working on were already at the centre of public debate, such as the cases of 
condemnation to death by stoning in northern provinces of Nigeria. It is well within the EP’s reach to 
make sure that the prize generates more public debate and keeps laureates’ work in the spotlight.  

Even though one would expect that an instrument like the Sakharov Prize would have most impact at 
the level of civil society, our findings point to a limited impact on broader civil and political society. 
With the exception of Cuba, which remains an outlier because of the number of laureates, we did not 
find  examples  of  the  prize  setting-off  snowballing  effects  into  broader  civil  society.  Many  countries 
today  present  harsher  environments  for  civil  society  activists.  By  way  of  an  authoritarian  backlash, 
many  governments  resort  to  ever  more  sophisticated  repression  techniques  against  freedom  of 
expression and civic activism. The EP should be vigilant in trying to counter these trends.  

In  broader  political  terms,  this  report  shows  that  the  nature  and  degree  of  impact  of  the  prize 
depends on a range of geostrategic, as well as domestic political factors, that go beyond any specific 
EP  instrument,  yet  shape  the  prize’s  impact  in  both  the  short  and  medium  terms.  We  find  that  a 
country’s  geopolitics  has  the  greatest  impact  on  government/diplomatic  reactions  to  the  prize.  In 
addition,  the  degree  and  nature  of  linkage  to  the  European  Union  is  of  direct  consequence  for  all 
human  rights  instruments.  However,  it  is  the  domestic  political  opportunity  structure,  including  the 
nature  of  the  regime,  the  state  of  civil  society  and  media,  and  the  overall  human  rights  situation, 
which is of most direct consequence for the broader political impact that the Sakharov Prize has had 

6 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

in each country. Our suggestion is therefore for the EP to think through its engagement and follow-
up strategies with different laureates on the basis of a careful assessment of domestic political factors. 

Underlying  all  the  observations  and  concerns  that  emerged  from  our  extensive  series  of  laureate 
interviews  is  a  crucial  challenge:  while  the  Sakharov  Prize  has  earned  its  place  amongst  the 
international  community’s  best-known  human  rights  awards,  the  context  has  dramatically  changed 
since it was introduced 25 years ago. On the occasion of its quarter-century anniversary, the EP must 
reflect on how the prize can continue to be relevant in an increasingly globalised world prone to new 
threats, yet offering new possibilities to freedom fighters across the globe. 

It is not a new observation that the prize is under-utilised as a tool for improving global human rights. 
This report offers a more forward-looking perspective, however, by drawing on laureates’ own ideas 
of how the prize’s impact could be enhanced. These include: the prize must be targeted more tightly 
at  the  contexts  where  it  could  have  tangible  impact;  it  must  be  dovetailed  with  other  policy  
instruments, not only by the EP but also the European Commission and the European External Action 
Service  (EEAS);  it  must  guard  more  carefully  against  unintended  effects  of  manipulation  and  covert 
repression  in  non-democratic  regimes;  and  it  must  serve  as  a  platform  for  broader  international 
linkages in the defence of human rights. The prize remains an important initiative, but the threats to 
universal human rights have also become more complex.  

7
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy Department DG External Policies 

1 

INTRODUCTION 

In 2013, the European Parliament celebrates the 25th anniversary of the Sakharov Prize for Freedom 
of  Thought.  It  is  thus  very  timely  to  assess  the  impact  that  the  prize  has  had  on  improving  human 
rights and freedom in the world. This study, commissioned by the Democracy Support and Election 
Coordination  Group  of  the  European  Parliament,  contributes  to  this  ongoing  reflection  with  an 
original analysis of the prize’s impact on laureates’ personal and political circumstances and on their 
causes. It also discusses concrete ways to increase the impact of the prize, and reports on laureates’ 
ideas for strengthening the newly-launched Sakharov Prize laureate network. 

The study is distinctive as it incorporates the perspectives of the laureates themselves regarding the 
political  significance  of  the  prize  and  their  suggestions  for  further  tapping  its  potential.  While  a 
number of studies exist that evaluate different European Parliament activities in the field of human 
rights, this is the first dedicated exclusively to the Sakharov Prize. It builds on an extensive series of 
interviews with laureates, their close associates and family members, providing ample space for their 
ideas and concerns. 

The  report’s  general  conclusion  is  that  the  Sakharov  Prize  has  acquired  an  extremely  strong 
reputation and is warmly welcomed by its recipients, yet it falls short of exerting its full potential. It is 
not  a  new  observation  that  the  prize  is  under-utilised  as  a  tool  for  improving  global  human  rights. 
This report offers a more forward-looking perspective, however, by drawing on laureates’ own ideas 
of how the prize’s impact could be enhanced.  

The first chapter of the report introduces the study’s focus and methodology; the second discusses 
the main findings, draws conclusions, and presents a set of recommendations on how the impact of 
the Sakharov Prize could be improved on a number of levels, from laureates’ individual circumstances 
to  its  broader  political  effects  in  their  respective  countries.  Finally,  chapter  three  provides  detailed 
profiles of how the prize has influenced the life of each individual laureate. 

The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought 

The  Sakharov  Prize  was  established  in  1988  by  the  European  Parliament  to  give  recognition  to 
individuals or organisations that defend human rights and freedom of thought worldwide. Nominees 
are put forward by political groups or groups of at least 40 MEPs. Subsequently, the Foreign Affairs 
and  Development  committees  vote  on  a  shortlist  of  three  finalists  and  later  the  Conference  of 
Presidents chooses one laureate. On several occasions, in 2001, 2005, 2011 and 2012, the prize went 
to more than one laureate and even to more than one country. As of 2010, the prize is accompanied 
by a monetary award of EUR 50 000. 

The  prize  is  named  after  Soviet  nuclear  physicist  Andrei  Sakharov  (1921-89).  Nobel  Peace  Prize 
laureate in 1975, Mr Sakharov was among the founders of the Moscow Helsinki Group and one of the 
best-known  Soviet dissidents. Known  also as the father of the  Soviet hydrogen bomb,  Mr Sakharov 
grew  concerned  about  the  moral  and  political  implications  of  his  work  and  became  active  and 
outspoken  against  nuclear  proliferation,  as  well  as  against  infringements  of  human  rights  by  the 
Soviet state. 

Throughout the Sakharov Prize’s 25-year history, human rights activists all over the globe have been 
honoured with the award. The prize has reached out to Eastern Europe and the Balkans, Africa, Asia, 
the broader Middle East and North Africa (MENA), Latin America, as well as European Union member 
states  and  one  international  organisation.  It  has  gone  to  35  individuals  and  organisations  from  27 
different countries. Some of the laureates, while imprisoned when awarded the prize, have become 
prominent political figures  in their countries. Some of these include Nelson Mandela (South Africa), 

8 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

Aung San Suu Kyi (Myanmar) and Xanana Gusmão (East Timor). Others are still under arrest, such as 
the 2008 laureate Hu Jia (China), or continue to experience repression by their countries' authorities. 

The Sakharov Prize is widely recognised as one of the EP’s most visible activities in the field of human 
rights. The prize is held in high esteem and regard by MEPs, civil society, laureates and citizens in the 
EU  and  elsewhere.  Yet,  a  previous  study  from  2012  emphasised  that  ‘the  potential  of  the  Sakharov 
Prize was under-utilised’ 1. It argued that the prize’s visibility had to be increased and broadened, and 
that the newly-established Sakharov Prize laureate network needed to acquire more political weight. 
The EP has followed through on some of these earlier recommendations. Much has been done over 
the past five years, since the 20th anniversary of the prize, to boost its visibility and impact. In 2008, 
the European Parliament launched a network for laureates. In order to support this initiative, the EP 
Secretariat also established a new Directorate for Democracy Support and, within it, a Unit for Human 
Rights Actions in December 2011. All these steps aim at tapping into the Sakharov Prize’s history and 
visibility,  so  as  to  boost  not  only  the  impact  of  the  prize  itself,  but  also  the  overall  standing  of  the 
European Parliament in the field of human rights.  

Methodological considerations 

Scope 

The FRIDE team conducted personal interviews with the maximum number of laureates possible. In 
the case of organisational recipients, members of each respective body were interviewed. FRIDE also 
reached out to laureates’ associates and family members, especially when laureates themselves were 
not available for an interview.  

The countries whose freedom fighters were distinguished by the prize vary on a number of counts. 
They  are  drawn  from  different  geographical  regions;  they  have  different  degrees  of  linkages  to  the 
European  Union;  and  they  represent  different  regime  types  and  trajectories  in  terms  of  respect  for 
human  rights  (some  are  long-term  human  rights  violators,  some  are  affected  by  conflict,  and  some 
are  undergoing  political  transition).  Given  such  variety,  the  study  aimed  to  distil  a  number  of 
differentiating factors that most affect the impact of the Sakharov Prize at a diplomatic and political 
level. 

In order to evaluate the prize’s impact in specific contexts, soft indicators of impact were used at four 
levels: 

On  the  laureates  and  their  work:  how  and  to  what  extent  the  prize  has  contributed  to  their  visibility 
and  recognition,  both  at  home  and  abroad;  their  access  to  the  international  community,  including 
European  institutions,  member  states’  governments,  policy-makers,  civil  society  organisations, 
universities,  and  media;  moral  and  psychological  support;  their  personal  security  and  that  of  their 
families; their empowerment and support to their activities. 

On  the  diplomatic/political 
in  their 
respective  countries  with  regard  to  the  choice  of  laureates  and  the  meaning  attached  to  the  prize; 
and the political consequences for the relations between the EU and its member states and laureates' 
countries. 

level:  reactions  at  governmental/diplomatic/political 

level 

1 FRIDE, ‘The impact of the resolutions and other activities of the European Parliament in the field of human rights outside of 
the EU’, Brussels: European Parliament, 2012, p. 16. 

9
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
Policy Department DG External Policies 

On public debate: whether and how public awareness of the laureates’ work and of the issue he/she 
dealt  with  has  changed;  and  whether  the  prize  helped  change  or  improve  knowledge  and 
perceptions of the human rights work of European institutions and of the Sakharov Prize in particular. 

On  civil  society:  reactions  to  the  prize  by  civil  society  organisations  in  the  laureates’  countries;  and 
whether and how the prize helped strengthen broader civil society networks and supported human 
rights activities. 

We employed the following methodological tools: 

Desk  survey:  overview  of  Sakharov  Prize  laureates  and  their  actions,  as  well  as  of  the  human  rights 
situation  in  laureates’  countries  at  the  time  of  the  award,  with  particular  emphasis  on  the  possible 
long-term effects of the prize. 

Media  survey:  analysis  of  media  coverage  and  visibility  of  Sakharov  Prize  awards,  as  well  as  public 
reactions at the governmental/diplomatic/political level in the respective countries with regard to the 
choice of laureates and the meaning attached to the award. 

Semi-structured interviews: most interviews were conducted by telephone or in person, using a semi-
structured questionnaire. In cases where neither a telephone conversation nor a personal interview 
could be arranged, several email exchanges took place. 

Limitations 

Given its ambitious goal of tapping fully into the richness and diversity of the laureate network, this 
study faced several practical and methodological challenges. 

The  first  set  of  challenges  relates  to  identification  and  attribution  of  impact.  Numerous  studies, 
including the ones commissioned by the European Parliament itself, reveal challenges in measuring 
the impact of human rights work in general, as well as difficulties in attributing progress on a certain 
issue  to  a  specific  activity  by  the  EP2.  When  defining  the  impact  on  individual  laureates,  this  study 
used  a  set  of  specific  criteria  that  help  capture  whether  and  to  what  extent  personal  and  political 
circumstances were improved as a result of the prize. On the diplomatic and political level, the study 
focused specifically on a set of indicators regarding the direct political consequences of the prize in a 
number of realms, such as government/diplomatic reactions, public debate and media coverage, as 
well as civil society reactions and mobilisation. 

Secondly, reaching out to the biggest possible number of laureates also proved difficult. The personal 
circumstances of some laureates, including bad health, imprisonment, and their continuing fragility 
of circumstance or simple unavailability, rendered it impossible to establish contact with all laureates. 
Despite  these  challenges,  most  profiles  include  information  obtained  from  direct  interviews  either 
with laureates themselves or with close associates and family members. In fact, this study stands out 
for giving voice to the laureates and their assessments of the significance and impact of the Sakharov 
Prize. 

Finally, given the geographical spread of the Sakharov Prize laureate network, the award had to be 
analysed in very different domestic political contexts, under different geopolitical constrains, and in 
countries  with  different  kinds  of  linkages  with  the  European  Union.  Such  diversity  helps  identify  a 
broad spectrum of factors, yet militates against systematic comparisons of different factors explaining 
the  prize’s  higher  or  lower  degrees  of  impact.  The  report  nonetheless  aims  at  capturing  variation 

2 Ibid. 

10 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

between different contexts and identifies a set of common barriers that prevent the prize from having 
greater impact. 

2	 

ASSESSING  AND  IMPROVING  THE  IMPACT  OF  THE  SAKHAROV 
PRIZE 

The Sakharov Prize is one of the best-known instruments of the European Parliament in the field of 
human rights. Its visibility varies, but in some countries it is as well-known as the Nobel Prize and is 
highly  esteemed.  Over  its  25-year  history,  it  has  come  to  be  associated  with  the  EU’s  principled 
commitment  towards  freedom  of  thought.  Three  prize  laureates  were  also  recipients  of  the  Nobel 
Peace Prize - Kofi Annan and the United Nations (UN) in 2001 (2003 Sakharov Prize laureates), Nelson 
Mandela in 1993 (1988 Sakharov Prize laureate), and Aung San Suu Kyi in 1991 (1990 Sakharov Prize 
laureate). Our interviews confirm that the prize is often seen as a symbol  of  solidarity expressed by 
European institutions and citizens for activists pursuing human rights causes around the world. Many 
laureates  attribute  particular  value  to  the  prize  because  they  see  it  as  an  important  element  in  the 
broader dialogue between their country and the EU. At the same time, our study shows that the full 
potential  of  the  prize  is  yet  to  be  realised.  The  study  shows  that  the  prize  has  and  can  have 
considerable  impact  not  only  on  the  personal  and  political  circumstances  of  laureates,  but  also  on 
their  respective  countries’  public  debate  and  civil  society.  For  this  broader  societal  impact  to  be 
achieved,  however,  the  European  Parliament  has  to  put  in  place  more  committed  mechanisms  of 
outreach, engagement, and follow-through. 

2.1	 

The impact of the prize on individual laureates and their organisations 

We  have  identified  several  dimensions  of  impact  on  individual  laureates  and  their  organisations, 
namely  their  visibility  and  recognition  both  at  home  and  abroad;  their  access  to  the  international 
community,  including  European  institutions,  member  states’  governments,  policy-makers,  civil 
society  organisations,  universities,  and  international  media;  moral  and  psychological  support;  their 
personal security and that of their families; and their empowerment and support for their activities. 
The  nature  of  the  impact  on  each  of  these  dimensions  varies  depending  on  the  general 
circumstances  of  the  laureate  and  his/her  country.  It  is  also  clear  from  a  general  comparison  of  all 
laureate  profiles  that  the  degree  of  impact  on  each  of  these  dimensions  differs  considerably.  For 
example,  while  moral  and  psychological  support  seems  to  be  high  in  all  cases,  visibility  and 
recognition,  as  well  as  empowerment,  vary  considerably.  It  is  thus  recommended  that  the  EP  put 
more  energy  into  raising  the  impact  in  those  dimensions,  by  improving  its  outreach  strategy  and 
ensuring systematic follow-up with laureates, as well as with other human rights activists.  

Visibility and recognition 

The most important impact of the Sakharov Prize identified by all laureates is no doubt the visibility 
and recognition they received. Yet, the degree of such recognition varies and is very different in the 
laureates’  home  countries  and  abroad.  While  laureates  received  considerable  attention  from  the 
international press at the time of the award, reactions at home at times were indifferent and coverage 
limited. Moreover, while the status of Sakharov Prize laureates changed their standing permanently at 
the international level, their domestic position can vary over time.  

Differences  in  the  degree  of  visibility  at  home  can  be  attributed  to  a  number  of  factors,  such  as 
suppression  of  the  news  by  the  government,  lack  of  purposeful  outreach  in  the  media  that  is  not  
controlled by the government, and internal rivalries within domestic civil society. 

11
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Policy Department DG External Policies 

Reactions to the news of the award also depend on how well-known the Sakharov Prize is in a given 
country  and  how  much  effort  is  put  into  publicising  its  international  significance.  Sometimes  high-
level  recognition  by  the  international  community  helped  many  laureates  claim  a  conspicuously 
elevated status at home. As Cuban Ladies in White stressed after they were awarded the prize, they 
could no longer be referred to as just ‘a bunch of crazy women’. Indeed, a kind of ‘boomerang effect’ 
has been observed in some countries, such as Cuba, where the more educated and politically-active 
population  makes  an  effort  to  follow  the  international  press  despite  the  state-imposed  censorship, 
and invests greater trust in the news, analysis, and symbolic messages that come from abroad. Yet, 
this is only true for relatively-small segments of society and has not been observed in many countries.  

Access to the international community 

The Sakharov Prize has no doubt increased laureates’ access to and presence within the international 
community.  We  find  that  this  indicator  of  impact  is  consistently  high  across  the  board  -  even  if  it 
varies  according  to  the  degree  of  ‘fame’  of  each  laureate.  We  also  find,  however,  that  laureates’ 
contacts  with  European  and  member  states’  institutions  and  policy-makers  are  of  a  lower  intensity 
than their contacts with international media and civil society organisations. 

In the words of  Nigerian laureate Hauwa Ibrahim, the prize gave her a ‘global  stage’  from which to 
pursue  her  cause.  It  made  it  easier  to  promote  her  work  and  to  raise  funds,  as  well  as  to  build 
international coalitions around the issue of Sharia law. Many laureates report having received many 
more invitations to events and conferences after the award. Even when not directly related to their 
activities  at  home,  these  occasions  represent  important  moments  of  public  diplomacy  for  their 
countries.  Some  laureates  received  high-profile 
international 
organisations that provided them with valuable exposure to international debates, global issues, and 
top intellectuals. 

invitations  from  universities  or 

Renowned Chinese dissident and 1996 prize laureate Wei Jingsheng underlined that the prize helped 
him build contacts and pursue his pro-democracy work when he was forced into exile in the United 
States  (US).  In  his  own  words,  the  reputation  of  the  Sakharov  Prize  gave  him  access  to  the  media, 
influential  individuals  and  policy-makers  both  in  the  US  and  in  Europe.  Guillermo  Fariñas,  who 
received the Sakharov Prize in 2010 for his opposition against the Cuban regime, reports that when 
he was finally allowed to travel to Europe to collect his prize in person, he had a unique opportunity 
to interact with other activists, intellectuals, and high-level politicians. The same direct dialogue with 
European  politicians  was  reported  by  Belarusian  laureate  Aliaksandr  Milinkevich,  who  received  the 
prize in 2006. When, after long years of house arrest, Aung San Suu Kyi from Myanmar could finally 
travel as a newly-elected parliamentarian of her country, she received privileged treatment in a series 
of  top-level  meetings  and  was  able  to  engage  in  direct  diplomacy  on  issues  such  as  economic 
sanctions  and  bilateral  agreements  between  Myanmar  and  the  EU  and  US,  exerting  considerable 
political weight and at times even overshadowing her country’s president. In Aung San Suu Kyi’s case, 
such  attention,  although  not  directly  attributable  to  the  Sakharov  Prize  alone,  is  the  result  of  the 
sustained international attention to her cause that the prize, along with other international initiatives, 
has helped maintain over the years.  

Moral support 

Recognition  by  the  EP  also  helped  boost  the  confidence  of  many  laureates  working  in  difficult 
conditions and who faced continuous harassment by the authorities from their respective countries. 
In  the  words  of  2009  laureate  Oleg  Orlov,  from  Russian  Memorial,  ‘sometimes  it  feels  like  we  are 
scooping  the  sea  with  a  spoon,  so  recognition  from  abroad  is  important  [...]  It  gives  us  hope,  and 
optimism and extra strength’. This is particularly true for those laureates who are still under arrest like 

12 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

Hu  Jia  from  China.  During  her  imprisonment  and  repeated  hunger  strikes,  Iranian  2012  laureate 
Nasrin  Sotoudeh  felt  that  the  prize  helped  channel  the  efforts  of  her  supporters  both  at  home  and 
internationally, providing them as much as herself with invaluable moral support. 

Some laureates also acknowledge that the prize helped them make difficult decisions. For example, 
Syrian  Ali  Ferzat  says  that  the  Sakharov  Prize  encouraged  him  to  continue  his  work  as  a  political 
cartoonist  in  exile  despite  being  victim  of  physical  assaults.  Many  laureates  talk  about  profound 
feelings of joy, almost exhilaration, when learning about their award. They say it made their struggle 
less lonely and the fact that recognition was coming from Europe, ‘the birthplace of human rights and 
democratic thought’, in the words of Wei Jingsheng, made this particular award special to their eyes. 
Some laureates, like Razan Zaitouneh from Syria, have refused a number of international awards but 
felt that the Sakharov Prize was a special honour that had to be accepted. 

Personal security 

International  attention  has  helped  ensure  the  personal  security  of  laureates.  For  example,  Mr 
Milinkevich from Belarus says he was not put in prison because of all the international attention given 
to  his  case.  Mr  Orlov  from  Memorial  in  Russia  admits  that  the  prize  contributed  to  his  acquittal  in 
2011, when he was on trial for slander after having accused President Ramzan Kadyrov, the head of 
the  Chechen  Republic,  of  the  kidnapping  and  murder  of  fellow  human  rights  activist  Natalia 
Estimirova. 

As  this  report  was  being  finalised,  good  news  came  from  Iran,  where  Sakharov  Prize  laureate  Ms 
Sotoudeh  was  released  from  prison  on  the  eve  of  Iranian  President  Rouhani’s  visit  to  the  United 
Nations  on  18  September  2013.  It  is  clear  that  the  amount  of  pressure  that  the  international 
community  was  able  to  build  around  her  case,  as  well  as  the  issue  of  political  prisoners  more 
generally,  helped  transform  her  imprisonment  into  a  symbolic  case.  Therefore,  the  moment  the 
regime was prepared to offer at least some concessions, she was freed.  

The release from prison of Turkish 1995 laureate Leyla Zana in 2004, nine years after she was unjustly 
convicted,  is  also  widely  attributed  to  the  pressure  that  the  EU  has  been  exerting  on  the  Turkish 
government  over  accession  negotiations.  Even  though  Ms  Zana  was  sentenced  again  in  May  2012, 
her trial is being closely monitored by a number of international organisations and pressure is high 
for her acquittal before her parliamentary immunity expires in 2014. Just as Ms Sotoudeh in Iran, Ms 
Zana remains a symbol of the lack of rule of law and of the continuous infringement of freedom of 
expression in Turkey. This status awards her a certain degree of personal protection.  

Yet, in a number of cases, even if physical violence against the laureate stopped, more subtle forms of 
harassment and psychological pressure continued, or even intensified. For example, Cuban laureate 
Mr  Fariñas  continued  to  be  pressured  via  his  professional  association,  the  Cuban  Psychologist 
Association, after his release from prison. Many laureates also fear repercussions on their families. Not 
being able to silence its dissidents, authoritarian regimes try to hinder their political activity or force 
them  to  leave  their  country.  Even  though  the  Cuban  government  has  released  most  political 
prisoners, for example, many have been forced into exile. 

In Iran, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi was stripped of her properties under the pretence of 
‘paying tax’ on the monetary award that came with the prize. Wary of this precedent, Sakharov Prize 
laureate Nasrin Sotoudeh was at first cautious about accepting the prize in 2012; although she did so 
in the end, she refused the money so as not to put her family at risk.  

In  the  case  of  Chinese  laureate  Hu  Jia,  even  though  the  prize  award  was  meant  to  show  the  EP’s 
solidarity with Mr Hu after he was arrested following his testimony at a European Parliament hearing 

13
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy Department DG External Policies 

on China's human rights practices, his situation has not improved much (although the government 
made small concessions after the prize award, such as moving him to a prison closer to Beijing).  

Empowerment and support of activities 

The  monetary  award  given  with  the  prize  has  helped  many  individuals  and  organisations  continue 
their work. In Russia, Memorial decided to renew its activity in Chechnya in 2009, despite the murder 
of Ms Estimirova and subsequent legal problems. Mr Orlov stressed in our interview that the Sakharov 
Prize helped the organisation make this decision. 

Other  laureate  organisations,  such  as  Reporters  Without  Borders,  have  used  the  money  award  to 
strengthen their operations. One of Russian Memorial’s members, Lyudmila Alexeyeva, used her part 
of  the  award  to  buy  office  space  for  the  Moscow  Helsinki  Group,  the  organisation  she  co-founded 
with  Andrei  Sakharov  himself.  In  the  harsh  context  of  constant  government  harassment  of 
independent non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Russia, not having to pay rent may ensure 
survival.  Two  Cuban  laureates,  Guillermo  Fariñas  and  Oswaldo  José  Payá  Sardiñas,  sponsored 
independent  Cuban  human  rights  and  pro-democracy  organisations  that  operate  from  abroad.  For 
some of the laureates who were forced into exile, like Taslima Nasreen from Bangladesh and Ali Ferzat 
from Syria, the award helped ensure they could continue their work independently.  

Several laureates have used their award to start new initiatives that build on their knowledge of the 
problems  they  work  on,  as  well  as  their  unique  experience.  Nigerian  laureate  Hauwa  Ibrahim  has 
started  an  educational  project  in  northern  Nigeria  that  not  only  reflects  her  personal  experience  of 
growing  up  poor  and  illiterate,  but  also  her  knowledge  of  communal  structures  in  villages,  which 
allows  her  to  obtain  impressive  results  with  limited  funds.  Mr  Hu,  whose  personal  circumstances 
remain  precarious,  would  like  to  start  a  foundation  to  assist  the  families  of  imprisoned  Chinese 
human rights activists. 

Overall,  the  prize  has  had  considerable  impact  on  individual  laureates  because  of  the  international 
recognition  and  moral  support  it  bestowed.  However,  the  prize’s  impact  on  their  domestic 
recognition  and  empowerment,  as  well  as  in  terms  of  concrete  support  of  their  activities,  varies 
greatly. The majority of laureates also feel that there could be more follow-up on their activities after 
the prize award. For example, Israeli laureate Nurit Peled says that although she feels welcomed and 
recognised  in  Europe,  she  has  to  counter  prejudice  in  her  activist  work  at  home.  Although  the 
European  Union  contributes  to  both  Israel  and  Palestine  in  a  whole  plethora  of  cooperation  and 
assistance schemes, there has been no significant follow-up with her or Palestinian co-laureate Izzat 
Ghazzawi, who died in 2003. 

Although  empowered  through  recognition  and  the  acquisition  of  a  new  status,  many  laureates  are 
dissatisfied for not being able to participate more in the relations between their country and the EP or 
the EU. Many feel that their individual potential is being wasted. In countries where the human rights 
situation has gradually improved, laureates still treasure being part of the Sakharov Prize network and 
see  great  potential  in  its  diversity  and  the  principled  commitment  of  its  members.  They  reject  the 
idea  that  once  the  initial  struggle  against  dictatorial  rule  is  won,  the  laureates  and  their  causes 
become  obsolete.  The  work  is  ongoing  and  will  always  continue.  There  is  also  great  interest  in 
building  and  expanding  existing  transnational  links,  including  via  the  Sakharov  Prize  laureate 
network.  Overall,  most  laureates  are  enthusiastic  about  the  initiative.  In  the  words  of  Olivier  Basille 
from  Reporters  Without  Borders,  it  is  a  unique  ‘network  of  ambassadors  for  freedom  of  thought’ 
around  the  world.  However,  most  laureates  interviewed  stressed  that  the  network  is  still  more  of  a 
promising idea and that it does not yet stand for any concrete action or initiative. They also lament 
that  there  is  still  virtually  no  contact  among  different  laureates.  Even  though  to  be  viable  the 

14 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

network’s  initiatives  have  to  come  from  laureates  themselves,  the  European  Parliament  should 
continue  its  efforts  to  engage  all  laureates  -  old  and  new  -  in  order  to  close  the  gap  between 
laureates’ willingness to collaborate and contribute and their evident lack of knowledge of how the 
network could help them do so. 

2.2 

Impact at the political level 

We  paid  particular  attention  to  immediate  government,  media  and  civil  society  reactions  to  the 
award. Below are the most interesting findings in these areas. Even though it is difficult to establish 
direct causal links between the award and broader social and political changes in laureates’ countries, 
a  number  of  interviewees  for  this  study  made  such  links  -  they  claimed  that  that  the  prize 
undoubtedly contributed to the gradual shift they observed and in which they partook. These cases 
represent success stories, from which valuable lessons can be drawn. 

Government reactions to the prize 

Most governments reacted to the Sakharov Prize in more or less three different ways. Some ignored 
the prize altogether, hoping that the award would not attract too much public attention. For these 
governments,  their  best  weapon  is  silence,  as  paying  attention  to  the  award  would  imply  that  it 
matters and, most crucially, would open public debate on the issue behind the award. By not paying 
attention to the laureate, they seek to convey the impression that human rights abuses and violations 
of freedom of expression are not valid concerns for their country. This is the most common strategy 
we found. The second strategy that tended to be pursued by governments that are generally more 
assertive on the global scene was to try to pressure the EP not to award the prize. Sometimes such 
statements were explicitly hostile, as in the case of China in 2008. This strategy is pursued mainly by 
governments  that  are  already  in  a  confrontational  mode  vis-à-vis  the  European  Union  or  Western 
powers more broadly. 

Many countries, especially where an independent media manages to operate to some degree despite 
state pressure, launched open defamation campaigns against the laureates in order to portray them 
as ‘traitors’, mercenaries of the ‘West’ or simply unscrupulous and corrupt. In Cuba, the government 
made  a  video  that  accused  the  Ladies  in  White  organisation  of  corruption  and  mismanagement  of 
European funds for personal gain. This was broadcasted on national television and generated a bitter 
debate. Some governments, such as those of Egypt and Algeria, exploited existing prejudices against 
the West in order to undermine the value of the laureates’ work by associating it with the ‘enemy’. In 
some  cases,  governments  tried  to  use  the  award  for  their  own  propaganda  purposes  by  fuelling 
conspiracy  theories.  In  Belarus,  for  example,  the  only  coverage  that  the  Belarus  Association  of 
Journalists  had  on  state  channels  was  full  of  Soviet-style  accusations  of  state  treason  and  ‘enemy­
friendly propaganda’ that the organisation was allegedly disseminating via its radio stations.  

Public debate 

Our study shows that a good outreach strategy is  crucial for enhancing the impact of the Sakharov 
Prize on any given issue. The cases of most notable impact are those where the issues were already at 
the  centre  of  public  debate,  such  as  the  Basque  issue  in  Spain  and  the  application  of  Sharia  law  in 
Nigeria. In these cases, the EP’s recognition of their importance and proclaimed solidarity with human 
rights activists energised a pre-existing debate.  

In the case of the Spanish organisation ¡Basta Ya!, after the Sakharov Prize their political interpretation 
of the situation in the Basque Country and their fight against extremist nationalism received Europe-
wide recognition. The award to ¡Basta Ya! in 2000 helped change the political debate about what had 
been perceived as a local problem in Spain, by reframing it as a European problem of terrorism and 

15
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy Department DG External Policies 

intolerance.  It  also  gave  the  members  of  the  movement  direct  access  to  European  institutions  and 
contributed to put pressure on Basque authorities from a new vantage point. It also helped organise 
moderate  non-nationalist  groups  around  a  common  anti-terrorist  narrative.  Internationally,  the 
movement gained recognition from human rights organisations that had previously paid only limited 
attention to the cause.  

Nigerian  laureate  Hauwa  Ibrahim,  who  has  defended  a  total  of  157  cases  under  the  Sharia  law  in 
northern Nigeria, says that international visibility as well as changes in domestic public debate led to 
a  significant  decrease  in  the  number  of  convictions,  especially  with  respect  to  stoning  for  adultery 
and limb amputation for stealing. In her analysis, international coverage of such emblematic cases as 
those of Amina Lawal and Safiya Hussaini rendered the judges more reluctant to pass such verdicts. 
Moreover,  even  when  such  verdicts  were  passed,  local  governors,  aware  of  the  changes  in  public 
opinion, would be less willing to sign them. Although it was not the Sakharov Prize alone that led to 
those changes, Ms Ibrahim stressed that the fact that the award was broadcasted in Hausa, a widely 
spoken local language, stimulated public discussion in Nigeria and helped change public opinion on 
these issues. 

Yet, in places where there is no public debate on the issue, the prize seemed to sink into oblivion like 
water  into  sand.  This  was  even  more  so  in  cases  where  public  debate  was  dominated  by  views 
radically different from those of the laureates, as in the case of the joint Israeli-Palestinian award. Even 
though the prize was meant to send a message of dialogue and reconciliation, both societies seemed 
to  be  dominated  by  confrontational  views,  and  local  constituencies  for  peace  were  mostly 
marginalised at the time. 

Civil society reactions and mobilisation 

Even though one would expect an instrument like the Sakharov Prize to have most impact at the level 
of civil societies, our findings point to a limited impact on broader civil and political society. With the 
exception  of  Cuba  –  that  remains  an  outlier  because  of  the  number  of  laureates  –  we  did  not  find 
examples  of  the  prize  setting-off  snowballing  effects  into  broader  civil  society.  Many  states  present 
today  harsher  environments  for  activists.  By  way  of  an  authoritarian  backlash,  many  governments 
resort  to  ever  more  sophisticated  repression  techniques  against  free  expression  and  civic  activism. 
The EP should be vigilant in trying to counter these restrictions.  

The Sakharov Prize could increase its impact through more follow-through and linkages with broader 
civil society initiatives. In some cases, the prize became a source of inspiration. In Belarus, for example, 
it  motivated  the  establishment  of  the  Belarusian  Prize  for  Freedom  of  Thought,  named  after  Vasili 
Bykov,  one  of  the  most  famous  Belarusian  writers  and  freedom  fighters.  Since  2008,  this  prize  has 
been awarded annually to those who fight for democracy, freedom, and human rights in the country. 
The three Sakharov awards that went to Cuba (2002, 2005 and 2010) had a major cumulative effect on 
domestic  political  organisation.  Mr  Fariñas,  2010  laureate  and  recently  released  prisoner  of 
conscience, has joined a  united political opposition coalition.  All Cuban laureates, with the obvious 
exception  of  late  Oswaldo  José  Payá  Sardiñas,  are  also  currently  united  under  a  common  civic 
platform that works on human rights issues. 

Yet, in most countries, the prize has not changed  the conditions for broader civil society. Quite the 
opposite;  in  a  number  of  cases  such  increased  attention  by  the  international  community  provoked 
government  backlash.  In  Belarus,  after  the  December  2010  presidential  elections,  the  number  of 
political  prisoners  increased  to  a  record  level.  In  Russia,  only  three  years  after  the  award, 
unprecedented  legal  action  against  independent  NGOs  put  the  country  in  the  spotlight.  The 
Sakharov Prize is perceived by the authorities as undue intervention in the country’s internal affairs 

16 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

and  civic  activists  are  seen  as  a  growing  danger  to  their  monopoly  on  power.  New  anti-NGO 
legislation  in  a  number  of  countries  puts  civic  activists  in  danger,  as  funding  from  abroad  is  being 
reframed in terms of ‘treason’, and their work as the work of ‘foreign agents’. In July 2013, a young 
Belarusian  activist,  Andrei  Haidukau,  was  sentenced  to  one  and  a  half  years  in  jail  for  ‘unlawful 
cooperation  with  foreign  organisations’.  In  August  2013,  only  two  years  after  the  Sakharov  Prize 
award,  Egyptian  laureate  Asmaa  Mahfouz  was  placed  under  investigation  by  the  Supreme  State 
Security Prosecutor on charges of espionage for receiving ‘foreign money’.  

Variation across country case studies 

In  broader  political  terms,  this  report  shows  that  the  nature  and  degree  of  impact  of  the  Sakharov 
Prize  depends  on  a  range  of  geostrategic  as  well  as  domestic  political  factors  that  go  beyond  any 
specific  EP  instrument,  yet  shape  the  prize’s  impact  in  both  the  short  and  medium  terms.  For  the 
purposes of this study, we focussed on the following three dimensions across our four country case 
studies: their geopolitical position, the nature of their political regime and the human rights situation 
and degree of linkage to the EU. The case studies – China, Cuba, Israel and Palestine, and Russia – vary 
greatly on these three dimensions, thus offering interesting insights.  

A country’s geopolitical position has the greatest impact on government/diplomatic reactions to the 
prize. With respect to increasingly assertive global or regional powers, such as China and Russia, the 
EU and its member states find it increasingly difficult to follow a values-based foreign policy and exert 
influence in the field of human rights. Yet, it is paramount that instruments such as the Sakharov Prize 
continue  to  be  used  and  integrated  into  multilateral  and  bilateral  dialogues  with  these  states. 
Moreover,  both  the  Chinese  and  Russian  cases  show  that  certain  moments,  such  as  those  of 
leadership  change,  peaks  in  public  debate  and  contention,  or  international  changes,  can  be 
particularly auspicious for stepping up engagement with human rights activists. 

In cases like Cuba and Palestine, it is also clear that other regional powers have the capacity to steer 
their domestic politics in ways that undermine the EU’s efforts. Indeed, the EU has not been able to 
play a major positive role in Palestine since the beginning of the Second Intifada in 2000, due to the 
complex  international  and  domestic  dynamics  that  hinder  the  resolution  of  the  Israeli-Palestinian 
conflict. At the same time, a partial opening in Cuba is often attributed to changes in the position of 
its regional allies, rather than to EU pressure.  

The degree and nature of linkage to the European Union is of direct consequence for all human rights 
instruments.  The  EU  tends  to  be  most  successful  with  its  targeted  diplomacy,  as  for  example  in 
Kosovo.  The  recent  EU-facilitated  dialogue  between  Serbia  and  Kosovo  that  led  to  the  signing  of  a 
landmark  agreement  proves  that  the  EU  has  the  capacity  to  engineer  major  diplomatic 
breakthroughs  whenever  adequate  resources  and  political  will  are  invested.  The  agreement  opens 
the door for possible EU integration negotiations with Serbia and the possibility of a Stabilisation and 
Association Agreement (SAA) between Kosovo and the EU. Yet, future progress depends on sustained 
commitment by all sides. In this context, the Sakharov Prize and other EP activities could become an 
important channel for engagement with different actors in Kosovo.  

We find that the domestic political opportunity structure, including the nature of the regime, the state 
of civil society and media, and the overall human rights situation are of most direct consequence for 
the broader political impact that the Sakharov Prize has had in each country.  

More impact is observed in countries experiencing a certain degree of opening and political reform, 
as  for  example  in  Cuba  over  the  last  two  years.  Cuba  stands  out  as  the  only  country  that  has  been 
three  times  laureate  within  a  relatively  short  time  span  of  eight  years.  Even  though  some  MEPs 
questioned such an emphasis on one country, which arguably was turning the prize into a weapon 

17
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy Department DG External Policies 

against  Castro  himself,  the  cumulative  effects  on  Cuban  civil  and  political  society  cannot  be 
overlooked.  Increased  mobilisation  and  unity  among  pro-democratic  forces  could  have  a  positive 
impact on incipient reforms in the country. 

Both the Cuban and Belarusian cases show that the Sakharov Prize has the potential to have broader 
effects on strengthening coalition building among civil society actors. Yet, this can only be achieved 
through  additional  follow-up  activities.  The  Sakharov  Prize  and  subsequent  engagement  with 
laureates  should  be  better  dovetailed  with  other  EP  initiatives  that  engage  civic  activists  in  third 
countries, such as invitations to multiple hearings in committees (for example DROI, AFET), meetings 
between  civil  society  representatives  and  EP  official  delegations,  and  a  number  of  individual  MEPs’ 
initiatives.  The  EP  should  also  be  prepared  to  step  up  its  engagement  whenever  potential  for  civic 
mobilisation increases. Despite mounting pressure from the government over the last two years, civic 
activism in Russia has demonstrated unprecedented growth, visibility, and resilience. It is crucial that 
the  EU  find  ways  to  tap  into  the  political  potential  of  this  recent  civic  revival  in  order  to  promote 
human rights in Russia. 

Government  reactions  in  several  countries,  but  most  notably  in  Russia,  show  that  authoritarian 
governments  around  the  world  are  growing  increasingly  astute  in  constricting  political  space  and 
repressing dissent. While many instances of torture and physical repression persist, autocrats’ arsenals 
increasingly  include  more  subtle  forms  of  repression,  such  as  through  legal,  psychological,  and 
political  pressure.  Such  governments  are  also  increasingly  manipulative  vis-à-vis  the  international 
community, offering concessions on high-profile cases while stepping up oppression of broader civil 
society,  actually  reducing  the  momentum  for  broader  reform.  While  it  is  important  to  continue  to 
focus  on  symbolic  cases,  it  is  crucial  that  the  EP’s  pressure  does  not  subside  after  their  release  and 
that its strategy includes ways of engaging broader civil society. 

It  is  clear  that  in  countries  where  the  political  situation  failed  to  improve  or  even  deteriorated,  the 
prize’s impact was limited to securing the laureates’ personal safety. The broader question, therefore, 
is  whether  in  its  nominations  for  the  Sakharov  Prize,  the  European  Parliament  should  focus  on 
activists in countries that are experiencing political transformation in the hope of shaping imminent 
change, or whether it should give protection to beleaguered activists in the  most repressive states, 
for whom it can be the only source of protection, even if in these cases the broader political impact of 
the prize is likely to remain negligent. While the EP can continue supporting activists in both these 
circumstances,  it  would  be  well  advised  to  think  through  its  engagement  and  follow-up  strategies 
with different laureates on the basis of a careful assessment of such broader political factors.  

2.3 

Suggestions for improving the impact of the prize 

Although this study has focused on past achievements and effects, evident success stories as well as 
common barriers to positive impact identified across a number of cases led us to formulate a number 
of  suggestions  to  improve  the  impact  of  the  Sakharov  Prize  in  the  future.  A  number  of  concrete 
suggestions come from the laureates themselves. 

Improving the impact on laureates’ personal circumstances 

	 

The  EP  must  be  vigilant  in  ensuring  full  diplomatic  backing  for  protecting  prize  winners.  While 
most  laureates  felt  protected  by  the  prize,  visibility  also  made  them  more  vulnerable  to 
persecution.  The  EP  should  seek  fuller  diplomatic  commitment  from  the  European  External 
Action Service and member states to prioritise the protection of laureates. 

18 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

	 

More  tangible  support  could  be  given  to  laureates  whose  lives  are  in  danger.  A  number  of 
concrete  instruments,  such  as  for  example  Sakharov  visas,  could  be  established  to  ensure  the 
safety of laureates, as well as that of other human rights activists. 

Improving the impact on diplomatic/government level 

	 

	 

While the prize cannot in itself be expected radically to improve any particular country’s human 
rights  record,  it  could  be  far  better  connected  to  the  broader  range  of  EU  foreign  instruments. 
The EP must work to avoid the prize becoming a substitute for comprehensive EU human rights 
policies.  

The report finds that in most cases, the EU’s diplomatic relations have not been seriously affected 
by  the  granting  of  a  Sakharov  Prize,  but  that  the  latter  is  often  given  when  the  Union  is 
negotiating new commercial and trade deals with the regime in question, as in the case of China. 
This offers the prospect of more substantive linkages between the granting of such benefits and 
the prize, to avoid situations of offering generous commercial awards to regimes simultaneously 
persecuting recipients of the Sakharov Prize. 

Improving the impact on public debate 

	 

	 

	 

	 

More outreach is needed to expand awareness of the prize beyond the professional human rights 
community.  If  it  were  more  publicised,  the  prize  could  become  one  of  the  most  high-profile 
elements  of  EU  political  conditionality.  The  Sakharov  Prize  should  be  promoted  as  an  EU  –  not 
just  an  EP  –  contribution  to  human  rights,  to  improve  the  feeling  of  ownership  across  the 
different players involved in European foreign policy. 

More media outreach in Europe is desirable. While in the immediate aftermath of the award there 
is considerable media attention, there is little follow-up on the destinies and causes adopted by 
laureates  from  previous  years.  While  some  laureates  remain  in  the  spotlight,  others  disappear 
from public view and little information is available about their post-award life and activism. 

In order to counter possible defamation campaigns, as well as to ensure visibility and recognition 
at home for its laureates, the EP should have a more proactive outreach strategy. It is important 
that  the  EP  considers  producing  more  content  in  local  languages  and  builds  links  with  local 
media and journalists. 

A  number  of  laureates  underline  the  growing  importance  of  Internet  and  new  media  as  a 
mobilisation  tool  and  as  an  alternative  public  sphere  in  closed  regimes.  Overall,  however,  the 
prize’s presence and visibility on the Internet remains very low. Online presence and new media 
should feature more prominently in the EP’s strategy. 

Improving the impact on civil society 

	 

	 

More  must  be  done  to  ensure  more  concrete  support  to  civil  society  actors  in  the  countries 
concerned. Our interviews revealed that this has happened in too few cases. 

Related to this, policies are needed to harness the prize as a catalyst for local civil society alliances. 
Many laureates point out that the prize gave them excellent international contacts, but did not 
help them build bridges with other activists in their home countries. 

Tapping into the potential of the Sakharov Prize network 

	 

The Sakharov Prize laureate network could be deployed to ensure that EU governments do not 
downgrade their focus on human rights. It could do this by monitoring key EU declarations on 
specific countries; offering opinions on whether new trade deals are justified when signed with 

19
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy Department DG External Policies 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

countries experiencing human rights problems; and issuing regular briefs to alert the EU policy-
making community to human rights problems that have failed to make it to the policy agenda. 

The Sakharov Prize laureate network launched in 2008 still needs to show its concrete relevance, 
beyond  keeping  the  EP  in  touch  with  former  prize  winners.  The  EP  could  help  mobilise  the 
network to speak out on global human rights concerns. Laureates’ apparent willingness to do this 
at present exceeds the EP’s efforts in this regard. Laureates could be encouraged to look beyond 
their own national challenges and use their human rights capital to help other embattled activists 
in  other  parts  of  the  word  as  new  problems  arise.  This could  form  the  backbone  of  something 
along the lines of a Sakharov network human rights alert system. 

Despite  the  diversity  of  countries,  issues,  and  ideas  that  different  laureates  represent,  the 
Sakharov  Prize  and  its  network  could  lead  several  flagship  initiatives  that  could  lend  concrete 
help  to  human  rights  activists  worldwide,  especially  in  terms  of  personal  protection,  thus 
providing  more  practical  operational  support,  as  well  as  improving  outreach,  for  example 
through festivals and conferences. 

By putting more effort into connecting different laureates with each other, the EP could also help 
foster more targeted initiatives on issues that are of interest to several laureates. 

Given  the  increasingly  challenging  situation  of  civil  society  organisations  in  many  countries, 
Sakharov  Prize  laureates  should  be  seen  as  an  invaluable  source  of  information  about  the 
developments  and  priorities  on  the  ground  and  on  how  best  to  support  democracy  and  civil 
society in their countries. 

Underlying all the observations and concerns that emerged from our extensive series of laureate 
interviews  and  research  is  a  crucial  challenge:  while  the  Sakharov  Prize  has  earned  its  place 
amongst  the  international  community’s  best-known  human  rights  awards,  the  context  has 
dramatically changed since it was introduced 25 years ago. On the occasion of its quarter-century 
anniversary,  the  European  Parliament  must  reflect  on  how  the  prize  can  continue  to  be  as 
relevant  in  a  world  whose  contours  and  predicaments  look  vastly  different  from  those  that 
prevailed at its inception.  Celebration is merited;  but the prize  cannot rest  on  its  laurels. As we 
have  suggested  here,  the  prize  must  be  targeted  more  tightly  towards  the  contexts  where  it 
could have tangible impact; must be dovetailed with other policy instruments; must guard more 
carefully  against  unintended  effects;  and  must  serve  as  a  platform  for  broader  international 
linkages in the defence of human rights. The prize remains an important initiative, but the threats 
to universal human rights have also become more hydra-headed. 

20 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

3 

LAUREATES’ PROFILES 

Over its 25-year history, the Sakharov Prize has been awarded to 35 individuals and organisations in 
27 different countries. Some were co-laureates. The prize has reached out to Eastern Europe and the 
Balkans,  Africa,  Asia,  Latin  America,  the  broader  Middle  East  and  North  Africa,  as  well  as  European 
table  below). 
Union  member 
China  (2008,  1996);  East  Timor  (1999);  Bangladesh  (1994); 
Myanmar (1990) 

international  organisation 

states  and  one 

Asia (5 awards) 

(see 

the 

Broader MENA (5 awards) 

Eastern Europe (5 awards) 

Africa (4 awards) 

Egypt,  Libya,  Syria,  and  Tunisia  (2011);  Iran  (2012);  Israel 
and Palestine (2001); Algeria (1997); Turkey (1995) 

Russia (2009); Belarus (2006, 2004); Czechoslovakia (1989); 
Soviet Union (1988) 

Sudan  (2007);  Nigeria  (2005);  Angola  (2001);  South  Africa 
(1988) 

Latin America (4 awards) 

Cuba (2010, 2005, 2002); Argentina (1992) 

Balkans (3 awards) 

Kosovo (1998, 1991); Bosnia and Herzegovina (1993) 

EU  member  states  and 
organisations (3 awards) 

international 

France (2005); United Nations (2003); Spain (2000)  

We  have  identified  several  dimensions  of  impact  on  individual  laureates  and  their  organisations. 
These include visibility and recognition at home and abroad; access to the international community, 
institutions,  member  states’  governments,  policy-makers,  civil  society 
including  European 
organisations, universities, and media; moral and psychological support; personal security and that of 
their families; and empowerment and support to their activities. The profiles below are based on desk 
research,  media  analysis  and  semi-structured  interviews  with  laureates,  their  associates  or  family 
members. Unless stated otherwise, the interviews were conducted by FRIDE from August to October 
2013. 

3.1 

Iran, 2012: Nasrin Sotoudeh and Jafar Panahi 

The  2012  Sakharov  Prize  was  awarded  to  Nasrin  Sotoudeh,  a  human  rights  lawyer  known  for  her 
fearless defence of activists from the Iranian Green Movement, and award-winning film-maker Jafar 
Panahi, an open critic of former Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad and a spokesperson for the 
poor and the oppressed in his country. The prize was in recognition of their struggle for freedom of 
expression  in  Iran  and  as  a  sign  of  support  for  all  those  who  faced  imprisonment  and  harassment 
following the government’s crackdown on the Green Movement in 2009. 

21
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy Department DG External Policies 

Nasrin Sotoudeh 

Ms Sotoudeh is an Iranian lawyer and human rights advocate. Born in 1963 in a religious middle-class 
family, she pursued her studies in International Law in Shahid Beheshti University in early 1990s. After 
receiving  her  Master’s  degree  in  International  Law,  she  successfully  passed  the  bar  exam  in  1995, 
although she would not receive her permit to practice law for another eight years. Ms Sotoudeh was a 
founding  editorial  board  member  and  then  the  only  female  author  in  the  nationalist-religious 
monthly  publication  Daricheh  Goftegoo.  Following  the  launch  of  the  ‘One  Million  Signatures 
Campaign’ – a campaign in support of changing discriminatory laws against women in Iran, of which 
she was one of the first members – and the widespread growth of the women's rights movement in 
Iran, she represented pro-bono in court many female activists. Ms Sotoudeh is also a member of the 
Board of Directors of the Society for Defence of Children's Rights and has defended several cases of 
child-abuse victims and child executions, as well as political activists and many individuals who were 
sentenced to death after the 2009 presidential election unrest. 

Ms  Sotoudeh’s  activities  were  considered  an  ‘act  against  national  security’  by  the  Iranian  state.  In 
September 2010, she was arrested, unfairly tried, and taken to Evin Prison to serve a six-year sentence. 
She was also banned from practising law for 10 years. On 18 September 2013, on the eve of Iranian 
President  Hassan  Rouhani’s  first  visit  to  the  United  Nations,  she  was  released  together  with  several 
other  political  prisoners.  During  her  imprisonment,  Ms  Sotoudeh  spent  lengthy  periods  in  solitary 
confinement, being denied basic rights. To protest against her unjust imprisonment, lack of fair trial, 
and harassment of her family, she repeatedly went on hunger strikes. 

Ms  Sotoudeh's  imprisonment  was  widely  condemned  by  the  international  community.  In  October 
2010,  Amnesty  International,  the  International  Campaign  for  Human  Rights  in  Iran,  Human  Rights 
Watch,  the  International  Commission  of  Jurists,  the  International  Federation  for  Human  Rights,  the 
Iranian League for the Defence of Human Rights, the Union Internationale des Avocats and the World 
Organisation Against Torture issued a joint statement denouncing Ms Sotoudeh's arrest and calling 
for her immediate release3. The US government condemned the ‘unjust and harsh verdict’ against Ms 
Sotoudeh, whom it referred to as ‘a strong voice for rule of law and justice in Iran’4. On 20 December 
2010,  Amnesty  International  held  a  full  day  protest  at  the  Iranian  embassy  in  London  against  her 
imprisonment.  In  January  2011,  the  Law  Society  of  England  and  Wales  also  issued  a  call  for  her 
release5. 

The  Sakharov  Prize  came  as  another  important  recognition  of  Ms  Sotoudeh’s  cause.  When  she  was 
awarded the prize, she was on an unlimited hunger strike to protest against the harassment by the 
Iranian authorities suffered by her family. This particular strike attracted great civil society attention 
and support for her demands, both at the national and international levels. The Sakharov Prize helped 
increase pressure on the government. She became a more influential figure than many others who 
were free at the time. Her husband, Reza Khandan, stressed in an interview that the Sakharov Prize 
contributed to raising awareness about Ms Sotoudeh’s case internationally, and that the prize would 
be seen differently in Iran among activists and officials from then on. In his opinion, Ms Sotoudeh was 

3 Human Rights Watch, ‘Iran: lawyers' defence work repaid with loss of freedom’, 1 October 2010, available at: 

http://www.webcitation.org/6BiSr3nos [Retrieved 1 October 2013]. 

4 US Department of State, ‘Conviction of human rights lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh‘, 10 January 2011, available at: 

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/01/154224.htm [Retrieved 1 October 2013].
 
5 ‘Law society calls on Iran to release prominent human rights lawyer‘, The Guardian, 19 January 2011, available at: 

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/jan/19/law-society-urges-iran-release-lawyer?guni=Article:in%20body%20link 
[Retrieved 1 October 2013]. 

22 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
 
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

proud to be a Sakharov laureate. It helped her pursue her activities6. High Representative of the Union 
for  Foreign  Affairs  and  Security  Policy  Catherine  Ashton  commented:  ‘I  am  following  the  case  of 
Nasrin  Sotoudeh  and  other  human  rights  defenders  with  great  concern  [...]  We  will  continue  to 
campaign for the charges against them to be dropped. We look to Iran to respect the human rights 
obligations it has signed up to’7. 

As she could not attend the ceremony herself, Ms Sotoudeh shared her acceptance speech with her 
representatives, fellow human rights lawyer Karim Lahidji and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi. 
Her  speech  addressed  the  human  rights  situation  in  Iran,  especially  women’s  rights,  and  the  civil 
unrest after the 2009 disputed elections, and denounced how the government imprisoned, tortured, 
killed and executed opposition members and harassed their families.  

Later  she  wished  she  had  spoken  more  about  the  situation  of  Green  Movement  leaders  and  their 
wives, who have been under house arrest for a long time8. She was not sure whether to accept the 
prize,  in  light  of  what  had  happened  to  Shirin  Ebadi,  whose  properties  were  seized  by  the  Iranian 
government on ‘tax charges’ after being granted the Nobel Peace Prize. Although she accepted the 
Sakharov  Prize  in  the  end,  she  refused  the  monetary  reward  associated  for  fear  of  government 
reprisals. 

The Iranian government was displeased with the award. At the time, Iran was enmeshed in nuclear 
negotiations with the EU, and criticisms of the country’s human rights situation could have a negative 
impact  on  negotiations.  Also,  renewed  attention  to  the  post-2009  presidential  elections  unrest  was 
unwelcome.  Iran’s  early  2012  legislative  elections  were  marked  by  a  lower  than  usual  turnout  and 
were seen as a warning sign of domestic unrest in the run up to the 2013 presidential elections. 

However,  the  prize  was  widely  welcomed  by  Iranian  civil  society  and  civil  and  political  activists  at 
home and abroad. It attracted the attention of the international community and international human 
rights  organisations,  which  called  on  the  Iranian  authorities  to  release  Ms  Sotoudeh9.  The  Sakharov 
Prize fuelled  a number of campaigns  worldwide asking her to end her hunger strike and calling  on 
the  Iranian  authorities  to  meet  her  demands.  Such  increased  domestic  and  international  visibility 
helped put more pressure on the Iranian government finally to accede to her terms. 

On the eve of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s first visit to the UN General Assembly’s 68th session 
in New York, over 10 political prisoners were released in Iran, including Ms Sotoudeh. In an interview 
given  an  hour  after  her  release,  Ms  Sotoudeh  told  the  International  Campaign  for  Human  Rights  in 
Iran:  ‘When  they  took  me  out  of  the  prison,  they  told  me,  “You  are  free”.  They  told  me  that  my 
furlough was approved, but when I came out of the prison door, they told me “You are free”. This is 
why I didn’t sign the furlough form in which prisoners promise to return after three to four days’10. At 
the time of writing, however, Ms Sotoudeh’s situation remains precarious, as her legal status has not 
yet been clarified. The legal provision for conditional early release has not been applied to her case, 

6 FRIDE email interview with Reza Khandan on 25 August 2013.
 
7 ‘Nasrin Sotoudeh and director Jafar Panahi share top human rights prize’, The Guardian, 26 October 2012, available at: 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/26/nasrin-sotoudeh-jafar-panahi-sakharov-prize [Retrieved 17 September 

2013].
 
8 FRIDE email interview with Reza Khandan, op. cit. 

9 International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, ‘Sakharov Prize-winner Sotoudeh’s detention highlights denial of basic 

rights‘, 31 October 2012, available at: http://www.iranhumanrights.org/2012/10/sotoudeh-hr-orgs/ [Retrieved 2 October 

2013].
 
10 International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, ‘Nasrin Sotoudeh, an hour after release‘, 18 September 2013, available 

at: http://www.iranhumanrights.org/2013/09/nasrin-sotoudeh-3/ [Retrieved 2 October 2013]. 


23
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
 
 
Policy Department DG External Policies 

and  she  is  still  prohibited  from  leaving  the  country  or  exercising  her  professional  activity. 
Nonetheless,  she  expressed  hope  that  the  Iranian  government  would  build  on  these  first  positive 
steps and release all political prisoners and minority groups currently behind bars. 

The news of her release was widely welcomed by the international community, in particular the UN 
High  Commissioner  for  Human  Rights.  Her  release  was  also  positively  reflected  in  Iranian  domestic 
media (which is rare in Iran) and among Iranian activists. It is crucial, however, that the international 
community ensure consistent follow-through on her situation and sustained diplomatic pressure for 
the unconditional release of all political prisoners. 

According  to  Ms  Sotoudeh’s  husband,  Mr  Khandan,  the  Sakharov  Prize  could  help  bring  about 
concrete  change  and  raise  awareness  about  the  human  rights  situation  in  different  countries.  The 
Sakharov Prize network could act as a human rights watchdog in the international scene. To him, the 
prize has raised public awareness in Iran about the European Parliament’s human rights instruments 
and  many  Iranian  activists  are  now  looking  up  to  the  EP  as  a  potential  ally  in  their  struggle  for 
freedom in Iran. 

Noble  Peace  laureate  Shirin  Ebadi,  who  represented  Ms  Sotoudeh  during  the  Sakharov  Prize  award 
ceremony held in December 2012, believes that the Sakharov Prize provides laureates with a platform 
to ensure that their voices are heard throughout the world. 

Jafar Panahi 

Born  on  11  July  1960  in  Mianeh,  Iran,  Mr  Panahi  is  an  Iranian  film  director,  screenwriter,  and  film 
editor,  commonly  identified  with  the  Iranian  New  Wave  film  movement.  He  grew  up  in  a  working 
class family with four sisters and two brothers. His sisters, who were not allowed to go to the cinema, 
would ask him to go and then re-enact scenes for them. Mr Panahi was only 10 when he wrote his 
first book, winning a literary competition. He later took up photography and film shooting on 8mm. 
At the age of 20, Mr Panahi was drafted in the military. He served in the Iran-Iraq War, working as a 
military  cinematographer.  He  made  a  documentary  about  the  war  that  was  aired  on  TV.  After 
completing  his  military  service,  Mr  Panahi  enrolled  at  the  College  of  Cinema  and  TV  in  Tehran.  He 
worked  as  an  assistant  director  on  feature  films,  including  with  Abbas  Kiarostami  on  ‘Through  the 
Olive Trees’ (1994). Mr Panahi made his debut as a director with ‘The White Balloon’ (1995). One of his 
most successful films, ‘The Circle’ (2000), got him the Freedom of Expression Award from the National 
Board of Review of Motion Pictures.  

Mr Panahi is considered one of the most influential film-makers in Iran. Although his films were often 
banned  in  his  own  country,  he  has  received  acclaim  from  film  critics  worldwide  and  has  won 
numerous  awards.  According  to  Mr  Panahi  himself,  his  films  capture  the  ‘humanitarian  aspects  of 
things’, often focusing on the hardships of children, the impoverished, and women. 

Following Iran’s contested 2009 presidential elections, Mr Panahi was among those who sided with 
the  population  and  the  Green  Movement.  He  openly  backed  Mir-Hossein  Mousavi,  reformist 
candidate  during  the  2009  presidential  race  and  eventually  leader  of  the  opposition,  in  the  post­
election unrest. He was arrested on 30 July 2009 in Beheshte Zahra cemetery, while paying respect to 
those  who  perished  during  the  government’s  clampdown  on  protesters.  Although  released  several 
days later, he was again imprisoned on 1 March 2010 together with his wife and daughter, as well as 
15  friends.  He  was  charged  with  spreading  propaganda  against  the  Iranian  government.  He  was 
released on bail on 25 May amidst growing international pressure, but was sentenced to a six-year jail 
sentence and a 20-year ban on film directing, writing screenplays and giving any form of interview for 
Iranian  or  foreign  media.  He  was  also  forbidden  to  leave  the  country  except  for  medical  treatment 
and Hajj pilgrimage. Nonetheless, in 2011 he made the documentary ‘This Is Not a Film’.  

24 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

The EU Presidency, EU High Representative, EU Foreign Ministers, G8 Heads of State and Government, 
the  European  Council  and  the  President  of  the  European  Parliament  also  condemned  government 
repression of the post-electoral unrest in Iran in June 200911. The European Parliament took further 
steps  and  issued  several  resolutions  in  response  to  human  rights  violations  in  Iran,  including 
resolutions of 7 May12 and 22 October 200913; 10 February14 and 8 September 201015; 20 January16 and 
17 November 201117; 14 June18 and 22 November 201219. 

Mr Panahi’s arrest was widely condemned by governments, civil society, artists and the film industry 
in  Iran  and  abroad20.  Internationally,  among  others,  the  French  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs,  French 
Minister  of  Culture  and  Communication  Frédéric  Mitterrand21,  German  Foreign  Minister  Guido 
Westerwelle, the Government of Canada, Finnish Green MP Rosa Meriläinen and Human Rights Watch 
condemned  the  arrest22.  In  late  2010  and  early  2011,  more  voices  were  raised  against  his 
imprisonment,  including  from  several  human  rights  organisations  and  activists.  In  his  March  2011 
greetings to the Iranian people on the occasion of the Iranian New Year, US President Barack Obama 
cited  Mr  Panahi  as  an  example  of  Iran’s  oppressive  regime23.  In  its  April  2011  issue,  Time  Magazine 

11 European Parliament, ‘Joint Motion for a Resolution pursuant to Rule 122(5) of the Rules of Procedure, replacing the 
motions by the following groups: S&D (B7-0104/2009), ALDE (B7-0107/2009), PPE (B7-0111/2009), GUE/NGL (B7-0115/2009), 
EFD (B7-0117/2009), ECR (B7-0124/2009), Verts/ALE (B7-0126/2009) on Iran’, 21 October 2009, available at: 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+MOTION+P7-RC-2009-0104+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN 
[Retrieved 2 October 2013]. 

12 European Parliament, ‘Resolution of 7 May 2009 on Iran: the case of Roxana Saberi’, P6_TA(2009)0391, available at:
 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P6-TA-2009-0391&language=HR&ring=B6-2009­
0279. 

13 European Parliament, ‘Resolution of 22 October 2009 on Iran’, P7_TA(2009)0060, available at: 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2009-0060&language=EN. 

14 European Parliament, ‘Resolution of 10 February 2010 on Iran’, P7_TA(2010)0016, available at: 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2010-0016&language=EN. 

15 European Parliament, ‘Resolution of 8 September 2010 on the human rights situation in Iran, in particular the cases of 

Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani and Zahra Bahrami’, P7_TA(2010)0310, available at: 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2010-0310+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN. 

16 European Parliament, ‘Resolution of 20 January 2011 on Iran – the case of Nasrin Sotoudeh’, P7_TA-PROV(2011)0028, 

available at: 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201101/20110124ATT12403/20110124ATT12403EN.pdf 
17 European Parliament, ‘Resolution of 17 November 2011 on Iran – recent cases of human rights violations’, 

P7_TA(2011)0517, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2011­
0517+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN. 

18 European Parliament, ‘Resolution of 14 June 2012 on the situation of ethnic minorities in Iran (2012/2682(RSP)’, P7_TA­
PROV(2012)0265, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2012­
0265&language=HR&ring=B7-2012-0318. 

19 European Parliament, ‘Resolution of 22 November 2012 on the human rights situation in Iran, particularly mass executions 

and the recent death of the blogger Sattar Beheshti (2012/2877(RSP)’, P7_TA(2012)0463, available at: 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/d-ir/dv/p7_ta-prov(2012)04/p7_ta-prov(2012)0463.pdf. 

20 ‘Martin Scorsese, Paul Haggis & film community rallying around jailed Iranian filmmakers – The Playlist’, 

Blogs.indiewire.com, 23 December 2010, available at: 

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/martin_scorsese_paul_haggis_film_community_rallying_around_jailed_iranian_f 
[Retrieved 15 September 2013]. 

21 ‘France/Iran/Jafar Panahi’, Ambafrance-us.org, 12 May 2010, available at: http://www.ambafrance­
us.org/spip.php?article1645 [Retrieved 15 September 2013]. 

22 Human Rights Watch, ‘Iran: indict or free filmmakers’, 13 March 2010, available at: 

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/03/11/iran-indict-or-free-filmmakers [Retrieved 15 September 2013].
 
23 ‘Simin Behbahani & Jafar Panahi in Obama greetings for Iranian new year’, www.lenziran.com, 21 March 2011, available at: 

http://www.lenziran.com/2011/03/simin-behbahani-jafar-panahi-in-obama-greetings-for-iranian-new-year/ [Retrieved 17 

September 2013]. 


25
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Policy Department DG External Policies 

featured  Mr  Panahi  in  third  place  in  the  list  of  Top  10  Persecuted  Artists  who  have  challenged 
authority24. 

On 26 October 2012, Mr Panahi was announced co-winner (together with human rights lawyer Nasrin 
Sotoudeh)  of  the  Sakharov  Prize.  European  Parliament  President  Martin  Schulz  called  the  two 
laureates  ‘a  woman  and  a  man  who  have  not  been  bowed  by  fear  and  intimidation  and  who  have 
decided to put the fate of their country before their own’25. Mr Panahi's daughter Solmaz  accepted 
the  award  in  his  place.  He  feels  privileged  to  have  received  such  a  prize  and  honoured  to  have  his 
name  next  to  the  likes  of  Nelson  Mandela  and  other  important  freedom  fighters  throughout  the 
world26. 

In  Mr  Panahi’s  experience,  so  far  the  majority  of  the  awards  he  has  received  have  not  contributed 
much  to  improving  his  personal  situation  or  allowed  him  to  work  freely  in  Iran.  ‘Iranian  authorities 
would like to pretend that international coverage on a certain individual means nothing to them and 
will not lead to any policy or attitude change’, he said27.He hopes that the Sakharov Prize can make a 
difference. 

The  Iranian  government’s  first  reaction  to  the  news  of  two  Iranian  laureates  was  to  underrate  the 
symbolic value of the prize. ‘Their justification was that those  were lobbies by the Western security 
forces such as the CIA and Mossad that led to the nomination of an Iranian prisoner and a filmmaker 
for the Sakharov Prize. They basically want to manipulate the public’, Mr Panahi argues. ‘Obviously, 
domestic media close to the government also tried to portray it as a Western conspiracy. However, 
the  Iranian  public  is  smart.  Iranians  reacted  differently  and  responded  in  an  extremely  positive 
manner.  The  prize  initiated  very  important  discussions  among  civil  society  both  outside  and  inside 
Iran’, he added. 

In his message to the European Parliament on the day of the award ceremony, Mr Panahi emphasised 
that  regardless  of  how  hard  the  situation  is  he  is  not  willing  to  leave  his  country.  He  criticised  the 
oppression in Iran and referred to known and unknown victims of such suppressions. While Mr Panahi 
hopes that the Sakharov Prize can make a difference, he believes that it is not enough to bring about 
real political change in Iran. ‘Advocacy is necessary but not enough and if we are looking for results, 
follow-up mechanisms should also be in place’28. 

24 ‘Top 10 persecuted artists’, Time Warner, 5 April 2011, available at: 

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2063218_2063273_2063240,00.html [Retrieved 17 

September 2013]. 

25 European Parliament, ‘Nasrin Sotoudeh and Jafar Panahi - winners of the 2012 Sakharov Prize‘, Press Release, 26 October 

2012, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/the­
president/en/press/press_release_speeches/press_release/2012/2012-october/html/nasrin-sotoudeh-and-jafar-panahi-­
winners-of-the-2012-sakharov-prize [Retrieved 17 September 2013].
 
26 Cited and translated from an interview with Jafar Panahi conducted by his daughter at FRIDE’s request on 5 September 

2013. 

27 Ibid. 

28 Ibid. 


26 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

3.2 

Arab Spring, 2011: Razan Zaitouneh (Syria), Ali Farzat (Syria), Ahmed al-Zubair al-
Sanusi 
(Tunisia, 
posthumously) 

(Egypt),  Mohamed  Bouazizi 

(Libya),  Asmaa  Mahfouz 

The 2011 Sakharov Prize went to four prominent figures of popular movements in Egypt, Libya, and 
Syria,  as  well  as,  posthumously,  to  Mohamed  Bouazizi,  whose  desperate  act  of  self-immolation  in 
Tunisia started the wave of mass demonstrations for freedom across the Middle East and North Africa. 

Starting in Tunisia on 17 December 2010, mass protests for dignity against autocratic regimes swept 
the  region,  from  Morocco  to  Bahrain,  opening  the  door  for  major  political  changes.  While  Tunisia’s 
Zine  El  Abidine  Ben  Ali  and  Egypt’s  Hosni  Mubarak  were  ousted  from  power  relatively  quickly, 
political change in Libya and Yemen took much longer, and the situation in Syria and Bahrain remains 
precarious. Transition countries continue to face daunting challenges. In Egypt, a military coup in July 
2013 put an end to the newly-elected Islamist government. Tunisia remains deeply divided between 
supporters of the ruling al-Nahda party and its opponents. The Syrian civil war is increasingly more 
violent and the risks for the region are ever so great. In this context, the award of the Sakharov Prize 
to the Arab Spring, represented by courageous individuals who marked the struggle for freedom in 
each  of  these  countries,  acknowledges  the  importance  of  continuing  to  support  efforts  towards 
democracy, fundamental rights and dignity. 

Razan Zaitouneh (Syria) 

Razan Zaitouneh was awarded the Sakharov Prize because of her prominent role in defending human 
rights in Syria and promoting peaceful methods of resistance to the regime. 

Ms Zaitouneh is a human rights lawyer and co-founder of the Local Coordination Committees (LCCs) 
that document human rights abuses in Syria. After finishing her university career in 1999, she became 
very  active  in  promoting  and  defending  the  rights  of  political  prisoners  in  Syria.  Ms  Zaitouneh 
became popular among both Islamists and seculars for defending activists of all ideological positions. 
During  the  ‘Syrian  Spring’  (2000–1)29  Ms  Zaitouneh  joined  the  Human  Rights  Association  in  Syria 
(HRAS), becoming its youngest and one of its most active members. In 2003, she left HRAS due to its 
lack  of  dynamism.  In  2004,  she  established  the  Syrian  Human  Rights  Information  Link  (SHRIL).  This 
presented  an  opportunity  for  her  to  work  with  local  and  international  human  rights  groups,  when 
prominent human rights defenders such as Haytham al-Maleh and Muhannad al-Hassani were being 
arrested. 

In March 2011, in Deraa (southern Syria), a group of young students, motivated by TV broadcasts of 
events in Tunisia and Egypt, tagged on social media the expression ‘People want the toppling of the 
regime’. They were immediately arrested and their location was unknown. Many Syrians took to the 
streets  to  express  their  solidarity  with  the  students’  families.  Although  the  demonstrations  were 
brutally  suppressed,  the  Deraa  movement  grew,  bringing  the  Arab  Spring  to  Syria.  The  ensuing 
violence has already brought about over 100 000 deaths.  

In 2011, Ms Zaitouneh co-founded the Local Coordination Committees and became very outspoken, 
including in international media, about human rights abuses in Syria. She also used social networks 
and  played  an  important  role  in  coordinating  the  strategy  and  efforts  of  activists,  while  remaining 
strongly committed to peaceful resistance and non-violent struggle. Due to her activities, she became 

29 The ‘Syrian spring’ is the period following Bashar al-Assad’s coming to power during which some associations enjoyed 
more freedom before they were banished and repressed by the regime. 

27
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
 
Policy Department DG External Policies 

a target for the Syrian regime. She currently lives in the Damascus countryside, in hiding as her life is 
constantly in danger30. 

The  Sakharov  Prize  did  not  attract  much  attention  in  Syria.  For  the  regime,  addressing  the  news 
publicly  would  have  implied  recognising  that  there  were  human  rights  abuses  in  Syria.  Syrian  civil 
society did not pay much attention to it either, due to heavy fighting at the time of the award.  

Even though it would have been very difficult for Ms Zaitouneh to leave the country without being 
arrested, she never thought of attending the award ceremony. For her, the situation in Syria requires 
her to remain close to those who are fighting day after day31. In the speech that she sent to the EP, Ms 
Zaitouneh talked extensively about the suffering of the Syrian people. She expressed her gratitude to 
‘the amazing Syrians who are building their history anew’, to ‘remarkable friends, without whom we 
would  not  be  able  to  transcend  and  resist  heartache’,  to  ‘all  brave  people  in  Tunisia,  Egypt,  Libya, 
Yemen,  Bahrain  and  beyond’,  as  well  as  to  ‘those  who  got  their  freedom,  and  those  who  are  still 
struggling for it’. She also thanked ‘the European Parliament and everyone who has empathised with 
the  uprising  of  [Syrian]  people,  and  who  has  supported  it  in  whatsoever  way,  for  the  sake  of  a 
tomorrow free of repression, prison and bloodshed’32. 

As for the monetary award, her first thought was to donate it to the family of Ghiath Matar, a Syrian 
activist  to  whom  she  dedicated  the  prize.  Mr  Matar  died  after  being  arrested  and  tortured  by  the 
regime,  leaving  behind  a  wife  and  a  baby  who  was  born  shortly  after.  But  she  decided  to  use  it 
instead to help alleviate suffering in Syria.  

Ms  Zaitouneh  thinks  that  the  Sakharov  Prize  could  contribute  to  building  bridges  between  Syrians 
and European representatives. For her, the prize should be part of a more forceful global strategy and 
should be better integrated with other EU programmes and activities in the region. Ms Zaitouneh has 
refused  to  accept  other  prizes  afterwards.  She  believes  that  rewards  do  not  help  if  they  are  not 
accompanied  by  a  strong  commitment  really  to  help  people  in  their  struggle  for  human  rights. 
Concrete  action  should  come  hand  in  hand  with  symbolic  gestures.  She  believes  that  a  strong 
European  role  could  benefit  Syrians  and  their  struggle  for  change.  The  EP  could  work  to  draw 
European  governments’  attention  to  grave  human  rights  abuses.  It  could  also  send  delegations  to 
monitor the situation on the ground. Even though difficult diplomatically, more direct engagement is 
vital. 

Ali Ferzat (Syria) 

Ali  Ferzat  was  awarded  the  Sakharov  Prize  for  inspiring  thousands  of  Syrians  through  his  work  as  a 
political cartoonist, a work that he has continued despite having suffered physical threats and attacks. 

Mr Ferzat is  a famous Syrian political  cartoonist. His cartoons are well-known for their sarcastic and 
critical look at Arab world leaders. Despite his initial friendship with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, 
he became more and more critical of him as the Arab Spring unfolded. On 25 August 2011, Mr Ferzat 
was  beaten  and  had  his  hands  broken  by  men  who  are  believed  to  belong  to  the  Syrian  security 
forces. This led to a movement of solidarity by activists and regime opponents. Mr Ferzat now lives in 

30 For a complete biography, see ‘Who’s who: Razan Zaitouneh’, The Syrian Observer, 19 August 2013, available at: 

http://www.syrianobserver.com/Opposition/Opp_Who/Whos+who+Razan+Zaitouneh. 

31 FRIDE Skype interview with Razan Zaitouneh on 15 August 2013.  

32 For a transcript of the speech, see ‘Message to the European Parliament from Razan Zaitouneh (Syria) on the occasion of 

the Sakharov Prize award ceremony’, Women in the Mediterranean, 14 December 2011, available at: 

http://womenmed.wordpress.com/2011/12/14/message-to-the-european-parliament-from-razan-zaitouneh-syria-on-the­
occasion-of-the-sakharov-prize-award-ceremony/. 

28 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

Kuwait, where he continues to publish cartoons in Al-Watan newspaper and others. In 2002, he was 
awarded  the  Dutch  Prince  Claus  Award  for  his  ‘achievement  in  culture  and  development’.  He  also 
participates in different projects  and initiatives in the Arab world aimed at empowering cartoonists 
and promoting their work. 

Mr Ferzat learnt about being awarded the Sakharov Prize through the international media. He is very 
proud33  to  be  a  laureate  and  considers  the  prize  as  a  guide.  Although  he  was  already  well-known 
before  receiving  the  prize,  the  award  gave  him  moral  support  and  encouragement,  deepened  his 
relationship with his supporters and influenced his decision to leave Syria to continue his work from a 
safer  location.  The  prize  also  brought  him  closer  to  human  rights  organisations  and  actors,  both  in 
Syria and abroad. The monetary reward helped him while in exile.  

For  Mr  Ferzat  the  Sakharov  Prize  is  important,  but  needs  to  be  more  known.  He  believes  that  the 
European  Parliament  and  MEPs  should  follow-up  more  on  the  activities  of  the  laureates.  He  also 
wishes that there were more interaction between the EP and other organisations such as the United 
Nations  and  human  rights  organisations.  Their  joint  actions  could  be  particularly  helpful  on  issues 
such  as  operations  to  rescue  refugees  and  medical  interventions.  From  Mr  Ferzat’s  point  of  view,  
political and non-political actors should work together to improve conditions worldwide. 

Ahmed El Zuber El Senussi (Libya) 

Ahmed El Senussi, Libya’s longest-serving political prisoner, was awarded the Sakharov Prize for his 
unwavering commitment to human rights and the rule of law during and after Muammar Gaddafi’s 
rule in Libya. 

Mr El Senussi opposed the Gaddafi regime since 1970, when he participated in a coup to topple the 
dictator. A great-nephew of former King Idriss of Libya, Mr El Senussi was a political prisoner for  31 
years before being released in 2001, following a pardon on the 32nd anniversary of Gaddafi’s coming 
to power. He is known as ‘the dean of Libyan prisoners’. Mr El Senussi, who turned 80 during the Arab 
Spring,  did  not  join  anti-Gaddafi  fighters  in  their  armed  struggle.  He  is,  however,  a  very  influential 
figure, in particular in eastern Libya. In 2012, he was elected head of the Council of Cyrenaica. Despite 
favouring the self-determination of Cyrenaica, he insists on the need for the region to remain part of 
Libya34. Mr El Senussi believes in Libya’s ability to reconstruct itself35. 

He learnt36 about the Sakharov Prize award through both the Libyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs and 
the  National  Transitional  Council  (NTC).  He  felt  happy  and  encouraged.  Mr  El  Senussi  considers  the 
prize first and foremost a tribute to the Libyan people. Unfortunately, neither the Libyan government 
nor the media paid attention to the news.  

Mr  El  Senussi  did  not  face  any  difficulties  to  attend  the  award-winning  ceremony.  The  Libyan 
Ambassador  to  Belgium,  who  came  to  greet  him  at  the  European  Parliament,  was  the  only  Libyan 
official  present.  In  his  acceptance  speech,  he  emphasised  the  importance  of  reconciliation,  stating 
that Libyans ‘need to rebuild [their] country, showing tolerance even towards those who committed 
crimes,  who  violated  human  dignity’.  He  also  thanked  Libya’s  European  neighbours  for  their 
‘unambiguous diplomatic and military support’. For Mr El Senussi, improving the situation of women 

33 FRIDE interview with Ali Ferzat on 16 September 2013. 
34 See http://www.alquds.com/news/article/view/id/441908. 
35 See http://www.alwatanvoice.com/arabic/news/2013/08/18/426039.html. 
36 FRIDE interview with Ahmed El Zuber El Senussi on 18 August 2013. 

29
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
Policy Department DG External Policies 

and protecting their rights are the most pressing issues in Libya. He feels that much more needs to be 
done politically, economically and regarding security. 

In his interview with FRIDE, Mr El Senussi said that the Sakharov Prize allowed him further to develop 
relations with international organisations. He feels that the international community must increase its 
political and financial support to Libya. He would also like to see more technical assistance, such as 
trainings,  and  targeted  support  to  Libyan  civic  actors  who  already  have  their  projects  but  lack  the 
means to implement them. Many projects aim at civil society consolidation in Libya. Most are funded 
by  the  US  and  European  governments.  But  the  West’s  commitment  to  strengthening  Libyan 
democratic prospects could go much further. The EP’s decision to grant the Sakharov Prize to a well-
known  Libyan  personality  must  be  complemented  with  projects  to  improve  security,  respect  for 
human  rights  and  infrastructure  development.  Such  a  strategy  would  contribute  significantly  to 
appeasing the country’s tensions, and to improving Europe’s image in Libya. 

Asmaa Mahfouz (Egypt) 

Asmaa  Mahfouz  was  awarded  the  Sakharov  Prize  for  inspiring  and  leading  the  Egyptian  youth 
movement, as well as for her contribution to the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.  

Ms  Mahfouz  is  one  of  the  founders  of  the  Egyptian  April  6th  youth  movement.  She  was  also  a 
member of Egypt’s Coalition of the Youth of the Revolution, a coalition of youth organisations that 
was actively involved in the 2011 revolution, organising sit-ins and demonstrations, creating slogans 
and  calling  for  change.  The  coalition  disbanded  on  7  July  2012,  at  the  end  of  the  initial  transition 
period, but its former members remain actively involved in Egypt’s political process. 

A  week  before  the  start  of  the  2011  Egyptian  revolution,  Ms  Mahfouz  posted  a  video  calling  on 
Egyptians  to  go  to  Tahrir  square  on  25  January  201137.  The  ‘vlog’  became  very  popular  among 
bloggers  and,  as  American-Egyptian  journalist  Mona  El-Tahawy  said,  it  contributed  to  starting  a 
revolution38.  In  Tunisia,  President  Ben  Ali  had  just  been  ousted  and  in  Egypt,  there  were  signs  of 
mobilisation. The social media campaign quickly led to mass demonstrations. On 25 January, Cairo’s 
Tahrir square was crowded with protesters calling for Hosni Mubarak to step down. Less than three 
weeks  later,  on  11  February,  President  Mubarak  resigned.  Ms  Mahfouz  kept  on  urging  Egyptians  to 
mobilise  for  change.  She  became  very  popular,  and  some  fans  have  even  created  a  Facebook  page 
asking for her to be awarded the Nobel Prize ‘for sparking the Egyptian revolution’39. 

For Ms Mahfouz40, the Sakharov Prize gave her important recognition, but she stresses that it is a prize 
for the entire Arab world. Egypt is the only Arab country where the prize provoked fierce reactions 
from the government. While in other Arab Spring countries governments and media paid little to no 
attention  to  the  Sakharov  Prize,  in  Egypt  it  was  exploited  to  breed  anti-Western  sentiment  and 
indulge  in  conspiracy  theories.  The  defamation  campaign  followed  earlier  prosecutions  of  national 
and  international  human  rights  and  pro-democracy  organisations  in  2011.  Ms  Mahfouz  had  to  face 
accusations of ‘treason’ and ‘Zionism’ in the Egyptian parliament, as well as on some media channels. 

37 See the video at: http://asmamahfouz.com/. 

38 ‘Women play vital role in Egypt's uprising’, NPR, 4 February 2011, available at: 

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/04/133497422/Women-Play-Vital-Role-In-Egypts-Uprising. 

39 See ‘Asmaa Mahfouz for Nobel Peace Prize (for sparking the Egyptian Revolution!)’, Facebook, available at: 

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Asmaa-Mahfouz-for-Nobel-Peace-Prize-for-sparking-the-Egyptian­
Revolution/188369904529634. 

40 FRIDE interview with Asmaa Mahfouz on 20 August 2013.
 

30 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

Some  government  representatives  even  tried  to  impede  her  from  going  to  the  award-winning 
ceremony, which she managed to attend in the end.  

Ms Mahfouz comments that she received considerable support from international human rights and 
pro-democracy organisations after the award. She maintains contact with a number of MEPs. Yet, she 
feels that engagement has yet to translate into more tangible support to the increasingly dire human 
rights  situation  in  Egypt.  In  August  2013,  following  the  military  coup  in  Egypt,  Ms  Mahfouz  was 
investigated, together with activist Esraa Abdel Fattah, by the Supreme State Security Prosecution on 
charges  of  espionage  for  having  received  ‘foreign  money’41.  This,  together  with  a  negative  media 
campaign,  has  exposed  Ms  Mahfouz  and  other  activists  from  different  political  backgrounds  to 
threats in the streets, making them fear for their safety.  

Ms Mahfouz  considers that there is already enough foreign and Western involvement in Egypt, but 
project  implementation  could  be  improved.  From  her  point  of  view,  the  lack  of  follow-up  hinders 
effectiveness and sustainability. Egypt’s active civil society needs better training by their funders and 
international partners. She also feels that foreign actors tend to pay more attention to the regime’s 
claims instead of listening to civil society. In her own words, ‘Sakharov and the West do help, but not 
enough’. At the same time, she acknowledges that the West is not necessarily the only one to blame. 
Egyptian society needs to deal with its difficult political transition. Overall, more should be done to 
strengthen the country’s civil society and its various structures and organisations. 

3.3 

Cuba, 2010: Guillermo Fariñas 

Guillermo  Fariñas  received  the  Sakharov  Prize  for  his  opposition  against  the  Cuban  regime  and  his 
political protest on behalf of all prisoners of conscience in Cuba. He was the third Cuban to receive 
the prize, after the Ladies in White (2005) and Oswaldo José Payá Sardiñas (2002). 

In  a  letter  sent  to  Raúl  Castro  on  5  March  201042,  Mr  Fariñas43  described  himself  as  a  ‘graduate  in 
psychology, three times former political prisoner, librarian and independent journalist’. Born in Santa 
Clara, Cuba, three years after the 1959 Cuban Revolution, he considers himself a patriot. Mr Fariñas, 
whose father fought alongside Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara in the Congo crisis in 1965, fought for the Soviet 
Union and was part of the Cuban contingent in the Angolan war44. Those years were ‘the sole period’ 
of  his  life  in  which  he  was  a  ‘mercenary’45,  he  claims.  His  views  of  the  Cuban  regime  drastically 
changed during the process against General Arnaldo Ochoa, who was executed in 1989 after being 
found guilty of treason. He has tirelessly denounced regime abuse ever since and states that he will 
do so ‘until the end’46. Since February 2013, he acts as spokesman for the civil organisation Patriotic 
Cuban Union, which advocates for the peaceful but relentless fight against any kind of repression of 

41 ‘Activists investigated on claims of espionage’, Daily News Egypt, 25 August 2013, available at: 

http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2013/08/25/activists-investigated-on-claims-of-espionage/. 

42 ‘Carta a Raúl Castro Ruz del 5 de marzo de 2010’, Superpolítico, 7 March 2010, available at: 

http://superpolitico.blogspot.com.es/2010/03/carta-de-guillermo-farinas-raul-castro.html. 

43 Unless stated otherwise, Mr Fariñas’ opinions cited here are based on a FRIDE telephone interview on 27 September 2013. 

44 ‘Guillermo Fariñas’, #OZT, undated, available at: http://orlandozapatatamayo.blogspot.com.es/p/guillermo-farinas.html. 

45 Superpolítico, op. cit. 

46 In 1989 he resigned from the Unión de Jóvenes Comunistas (Union of Young Communists), after the execution of General 

Arnaldo Ochoa – a hero of the Cuban Republic and member of the Cuban Communist Party, accused of drug trafficking 

(there are suspicious of hidden motivations). After this, he joined the opposition and since then has spent almost 12 years in 

jail.
 

31
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
Policy Department DG External Policies 

civil  liberties  in  Cuba47.  He  has  been  jailed  three  times  for  political  reasons,  having  served  over  11 
years in prison in total48. He has survived more than 20 hunger strikes. In 2010 he refused asylum in 
Spain,  when  the  Spanish  government  offered  to  charter  an  ambulance  plane  for  him  to  leave  the 
island safely49. He chose to continue his hunger strike in Cuba, as he believes that the fight against the 
government must be carried out from inside the island.  

Mr  Fariñas  was  awarded  the  Sakharov  Prize  in  October  2010,  approximately  three  months  after 
ending  his  23rd  (and  so  far  last)  hunger  strike,  with  which  he  successfully  forced  the  Cuban 
government to free over 20 political prisoners who, according to Mr Fariñas, were sick and ‘would not 
survive in prison’50. 

‘Constant calls from the European media’ woke him up in the middle of the night on the day he was 
granted the award. He felt ‘very surprised’, as after the Ladies in White (2005) and Oswaldo José Payá 
Sardiñas  (2002)  very  few  expected  the  award  to  go  to  Cuba  again.  The  timing  was  appropriate,  as 
those were days of ‘high political tension and great expectation’, Mr Fariñas recalls. He notes that ‘the 
Cuban government had been forced to free political prisoners and make concessions to members of 
the internal opposition’, especially after international pressure intensified following dissident Orlando 
Zapata’s  death  in  prison  while  on  a  hunger  strike  in  February  2010.  High-ranking  members  of  the 
Catholic Church acted as intermediaries. Mr Fariñas’ telephone did not stop ringing for many hours 
that day, as many members of the ‘peaceful internal opposition’ called to congratulate him. Others, 
including several members of the Ladies in White, also paid him a visit.  

With the exception of some op-eds in state-controlled newspapers, there was little official reaction in 
Cuba  to  the  Sakharov  award.  Moreover,  the  government  intensified  its  campaign  to  discredit  Mr 
Fariñas, including through pressuring the Cuban Psychologist Association, of which he is a member.  

Mr  Fariñas  considered  engaging  in  yet  another  hunger  strike  to  claim  his  right  to  freedom  of 
movement  and  attend  the  award  ceremony  in  Europe.  Family  members  and  fellow  activists 
persuaded him against it, arguing that the government stood only to lose and would not grant him a 
travel permit. He then resumed his ‘peaceful opposition from inside Cuba’. The European Parliament 
left  an  empty  seat  for  him  covered  with  a  Cuban  flag  on  the  day  of  the  ceremony.  Mr  Fariñas  was 
finally able to travel overseas in July 2013 to receive the prize. ‘This is part of the government’s image-
cleansing  attempt’,  claims  Mr  Fariñas,  who  is  convinced  that  the  new  immigration  reform,  which 
allows  Cubans  –  and  thus  also  Cuban  dissidents  –  to  leave  the  island  provided  they  meet  some 
requirements, is only ‘a strategy to act as if things were changing, but nothing really changes’.  

In this sense, albeit acknowledging ‘small concessions mostly in the economic area, but none in the 
social  or  political  arena’,  Mr  Fariñas  believes  there  is  no  real  intention  to  improve  the  situation  of 
rights  and  freedoms  in  Cuba.  He  cites  the  issue  of  access  to  the  Internet  as  another  component  of 
Cuba’s smokescreen. He does not consider the recent creation of ‘over 100 e-communication centres’ 
a real improvement. ‘Cubans can communicate with the outside world via e-mails, but access to the 
broader Internet is prohibited’, he claims. Moreover, ‘it is unaffordable to the majority of Cubans’ and, 
most importantly, e-mails and virtually all online activity is monitored by the state. ‘E-communication 

47 ‘Sobre Guillermo Fariñas’, UNPACU, undated, available at: http://www.unpacu.org/acerca-de/el-consejo-coordinador-de­
la-unpacu/sobre-guillermo-farinas/. 

48 #OZT, op. cit.
 
49 ‘Fariñas rechaza un avión ambulancia ofrecido por España para salir de Cuba’, El País, 29 March 2010, available at: 

http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2010/03/29/actualidad/1269813603_850215.html. 

50 ’Entrevista a Guillermo Fariñas, disidente cubano en huelga de hambre’, El País, 2 March 2010, available at: 

http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2010/03/02/actualidad/1267484410_850215.html. 


32 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
 
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

centres  are  not  a  safe  place  for  Cubans’  to  access  information  and  communicate  with  the  outside 
world,  Mr  Fariñas  concludes.  ‘Despite  heavily  criticising  other  nations  for  their  massive  surveillance 
programmes’, Cuba does the same to its own people, he adds. 

Being a Sakharov Prize laureate has helped Mr Fariñas in several ways; not least, it has given him some 
much-needed  protection.  Physical  aggressions  by  the  police  have  subsided,  even  though  as  this 
study was being finalised, in October 2013 he was arrested and beaten by the police after showing 
solidarity  with  the  Ladies  in  White  in  several  regions  in  Cuba.  Worryingly,  however,  ‘indiscriminate 
attacks  by  paramilitary  forces  that  do  not  always  follow  orders  from  Havana  have  increased  during  
the  “Raulismo”’.  Also,  he  argues,  political  persecutions  have  become  less  crude  and  are  thus  more 
difficult  to  expose.  Even  though  repression  against  activists  in  Cuba  is  still  commonplace,  there  is 
more psychological pressure and harassment than actual physical violence. 

The prize has also increased his internal visibility and has enabled Mr Fariñas significantly to widen his 
international ties. Intense media coverage of his European tour, combined with (illegal) channels for 
the  distribution  of  foreign  media  in  Cuba  –  referred  to  locally  as  ‘Cables’  or  ‘Packages’51  - and 
increased  non-violent  dissidence  and  dissatisfaction  with  the  regime  have  made  him  popular 
amongst Cubans who were unaware of his activities before the Sakharov Prize award. 

Mr Fariñas has donated the monetary reward to an institution that helps Cuba’s domestic opposition 
from abroad. He also benefitted from many contacts, including at the highest political level. He recalls 
the  ‘emotionally  charged’  visit  to  the  Berlin  Wall,  where  members  of  the  26  delegations  present 
rushed to applaud, hug and kiss him. This helped him understand the extent to which the ‘cause of 
civil liberties in Cuba’ is  a matter of concern worldwide. Calling the award ceremony the ‘tip of the 
iceberg of his visit to Strasbourg’, he acknowledges the importance of his many conversations with 
leaders  of  different  political  ideologies  represented  at  the  European  Parliament.  Mr  Fariñas 
encouraged them to ‘maintain the Common Position52 towards Cuba’, as he equates negotiating with 
the Cuban government to negotiating with ‘terrorists’. 

Unfortunately,  the  Sakharov  Prize  has  not  brought  about  real  change  with  regard  to  fundamental 
freedoms in Cuba. According to Mr Fariñas, the EP should work to broaden the impact of the prize. He 
suggests that the EP consider the laureates as ambassadors for freedom, peace and democracy, and 
consult them individually prior to taking action in their respective countries, following a case-by-case 
approach. Regarding the case of Cuba in particular, Mr Fariñas lists three concrete measures the EP 
could undertake to ameliorate the civil rights situation. First, it should address ‘the ruled and not the 
rulers’  and  not  be  an  ‘accomplice  of  the  repression’  whilst  seeking  economic  gain.  Second,  the  EP 
should become a ‘sound box’ of crimes against rights and freedoms, which are far too commonplace 
in Cuba. Third, the EP ought to ‘send love through solidarity’ to those Cubans peacefully fighting to 
bring democracy to their country. These measures would strengthen Cubans embracing democracy 
and weaken those who are against it.  

Mr  Fariñas  claims  that  for  the  Sakharov  ensemble  to  be  successful,  the  network  of  laureates  should 
work  towards  becoming  a  sort  of  ‘moral  conscience  of  the  planet’.  Together,  the  laureates  should 

51 A ‘Package’ is a trusted instrument to obtain information from abroad. Employees (often civil servants) of hotels and 
resorts smuggle international media available to tourists and sell it at a profit to those interested. Cables serve the same 
purpose, but the information is provided in electronic format. 
52 Council of the European Union, ‘Common Position of 2 December 1996 defined by the Council on the basis of Article J.2 of 
the Treaty on European Union, on Cuba’, 96/697/CFSP, available at http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31996E0697:EN:NOT. 

33
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
 
Policy Department DG External Policies 

work to make the worldwide attainment of liberty, democracy and peace a top priority in a region ‘as 
powerful economically, politically, militarily and socially’ as the European Union. 

Case Study Cuba: preparing the ground 

The  case  of  Cuba  provides  one  of  the  clearest  links  between  the  Sakharov  Prize  and  changes  to 
human rights conditions. 

Cubans have been awarded three Sakharov Prizes, in 2002, 2005 and 2010. The prize has contributed 
to increasing the visibility, recognition and protection of human rights and political activists still living 
in the island. It has contributed to the release of many political prisoners and served as an external 
incentive for internal reforms under President Raúl Castro. 

But  the  positive  effects  were  not  immediately  apparent.  The  first  Cuban  who  received  the  prize  in 
2002,  Oswaldo  José  Payá  Sardiñas,  died  in  July  2012  in  a  car  accident  under  never  clarified 
circumstances. Mr Payá was awarded the prize in recognition of his leading role in the Varela project, 
a  campaign  for  constitutional  reform  in  Cuba.  This  failed  in  February  2003,  when  the  regime  
imprisoned 75 dissidents. 

The  so-called  ‘black  spring’  of  2003  gave  birth  to  a  new  movement  in  Cuba,  the  Ladies  in  White, 
created  by  wives  and  other  relatives  of  the  75  imprisoned  dissidents.  This  group  was  awarded  the 
Sakharov Prize in 2005. The Cuban government did not change its policy after this prize, but in fact 
tried to devalue the work of the laureates. Among  others, official media launched a video accusing 
the Ladies in White of unproven corruption and mismanagement. 

Things began to improve under the presidency of Raúl Castro. A turning point came with the death in 
February  2010  of  Cuban  dissident  Orlando  Zapata  in  a  Cuban  prison.  The  third  Cuban  laureate, 
human  rights  activist  Guillermo  Fariñas,  together  with  other  dissidents,  began  a  hunger  strike  that 
ended  in  July  2010,  after  134  days.  He  stopped  his  hunger  strike  when  the  government  agreed  to 
negotiate the release of political prisoners. 

In 2011, one year after Mr Fariñas was awarded the Sakharov Prize, the Cuban regime released all 75 
dissidents arrested in 2003, although many were forced into exile. The number of political prisoners 
has reduced from 330 in 2006 (when Fidel Castro’s presidency ended) to 90 in January 2013. 

Although the authoritarian character of the regime has not changed since Fidel Castro’s brother Raúl 
assumed the presidency in 2006, domestic and international pressure has pushed the government to 
introduce  a  series  of  economic  and  political  reforms  approved  by  the  Cuban  Communist  Party 
(Partido Comunista de Cuba, PCC) at its seventh Congress in 2011 and at a political conference of the 
PCC held in 2012. A new migration law, in force since January 2013, lifted many travel restrictions and 
finally allowed Mr Fariñas and the Ladies in White to collect the Sakharov Prize in person. Today, Mr 
Fariñas  is  member  of  the  Patriotic  Union  of  Cuba  (Unión  Patriótica  de  Cuba,  UnPaCu),  a  political 
platform for pluralism, democracy and human rights. 

The positive impact, however, should not be overstated. In 2012, Amnesty International documented 
an average of 400 short-term arrests of human rights activists each month, among them Mr Fariñas 
and several representatives of the Ladies in White. Cuba is still a single party system. Due to repression 
and control, the Cuban opposition in the island remains divided into small and fragmented groups 
without  a  visible  common  platform  or  shared  demands,  despite  the  attempts  of  a  number  of 
dissidents, including Mr Fariñas, to forge one. 

Nevertheless, in the case of Cuba the prize did register with the regime and contributed to the release 
of  political  prisoners.  The  significant  factor  here  is  that  domestic  changes  in  Cuba  pushed  in  the 

34 


 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

direction  of  some  modest  reforms;  the  prize  had  established  the  foundations  for  positive 
opportunities to be taken when these domestic shifts began. 

3.4 

Russia, 2009: Memorial 

In  2009,  the  Sakharov  Prize  was  awarded  to  the  Russian  non-governmental  organisation  Memorial, 
represented  by  its  members  Oleg  Orlov,  Sergei  Kovalev  and  Lyudmila  Alexeyeva,  as  well  as  by  all 
human  rights  defenders  in  Russia  as  a  statement  of  solidarity  and  support  in  the  face  of 
unprecedented violence and persecution against human rights activists in Russia53. 

Memorial  was  founded  in  1988  in  Moscow  to  gather  historical  evidence,  document  and  raise 
awareness about political repressions in the Soviet Union, and to rehabilitate and commemorate the 
victims. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the organisation became international. Since 1991, 
Memorial  has  also  aimed  at  protecting  human  rights  in  Russia  and  other  post-Soviet  countries. 
International  Memorial  includes  several  Russian  and  international  organisations  dedicated  to 
research,  human  rights  protection  and  awareness-raising.  The  Russian  Memorial  gathers  around  65 
organisations from 46 regions of the Russian Federation. The Memorial Human Rights Centre works in 
49 regions, including Moscow, Saint Petersburg and the North Caucasus. 

Oleg Orlov, born on 4 April 1953 in Moscow, is member of Memorial since its first days and chairs the 
Board  of  the  Memorial  Human  Rights  Centre.  In  1994,  he  worked  in  an  observation  mission 
established  by  fellow  laureate  Sergei  Kovalev  in  Chechnya.  Since  1999,  he  has  headed  Memorial's 
work  in  the  North  Caucasus.  In  2007,  Mr  Orlov  was  abducted  in  Ingushetia,  together  with  three 
journalists, and was beaten and threatened with execution. In July 2009, when Natalia Estimirova, a 
member  of  Memorial  in  Chechnya,  was  murdered,  Mr  Orlov  blamed  Chechen  President  Ramzan 
Kadyrov. The President sued Memorial and Mr Orlov for defamation. On 6 October 2009, Mr Orlov and 
Memorial were ordered to pay 70 000 roubles in compensation to President Kadyrov and retract their 
public statements. Mr Orlov was also put on trial on criminal charges for slander, but was acquitted 
on 14 July 201154. 

Mr  Kovalev,  founder  and  chairman  of  Memorial,  also  founded  in  1969  the  first  Soviet  human  rights 
association,  the  Initiative  Group  for  the  Defence  of  Human  Rights  in  the  Soviet  Union.  He  spent  10 
years  in  labour  camps  and  in  exile  in  1974-84  for  his  human  rights  activities.  During  1990-3,  Mr 
Kovalev  chaired  the  Human  Rights  Committee  of  the  Russian  parliament  and  in  1993-6,  he  chaired 
the  Human  Rights  Commission  with  the  President  of  Russia.  In  1994-5,  he  served  as  Russia’s  first 
ombudsman. Mr Kovalev has openly criticised some authoritarian tendencies of the Yeltsin and Putin 
administrations,  and  has  been  critical  of  the  Russian  policy  in  Chechnya.  Together  with  other 
members  of  the  Russian  parliament,  Memorial  and  other  human  rights  groups,  Mr  Kovalev 
established an observation mission of the Ombudsman in the North Caucasus, which later worked as 
an independent mission. In 1996, Mr Kovalev resigned from the Human Rights Commission in protest. 
Laureate  of  many  international  human  rights  prizes,  Mr  Kovalev  was  among  the  finalists  of  the 
Sakharov Prize in 2004 (together with Ms Estimirova for their work in Chechnya) and in 2005. 

53 European Parliament, ‘Sergei Kovalev, on behalf of Memorial, winner of the 2009 Sakharov Prize’, Debates, Award of the 
Sakharov Prize (formal sitting), 16 September 2009, available at: 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=CRE&reference=20091216&secondRef=ITEM­
007&format=XML&language=EN. 

54 ‘Oleg Orlov’, Lenta.Ru, undated, available at: http://lenta.ru/lib/14199224/ [Retrieved on 26 August 2013].
 

35
 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
Policy Department DG External Policies 

Lyudmila  Alexeyeva  is  founding  member  of  the  Moscow  Helsinki  Group,  the  oldest  human  rights 
organisation in Moscow, founded in 1976, of which she became chairwoman in 1996. In 1968-74, she 
worked as a typist of the first dissident bulletin Chronicle, informing about human rights violations in 
the Soviet Union. In 1977-93, Ms Alexeyeva lived in the United States, where she worked at the radio 
stations  Liberty  and  Voice  of  America,  and  published  widely  on  the  Soviet  dissident  movement, 
including  a  book  entitled  The  Soviet  Dissent,  which  was  published  in  Russian  and  English.  During 
1998-2004, she was President of the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights. Since 2009, 
Ms Alexeyeva is an active participant of the Strategy-3155 civic movement that fights for the freedom 
of assembly in Russia. 

As  Mr  Kovalev  said  in  his  acceptance  speech  on  behalf  of  Memorial,  ‘Memorial  views  this  award  as 
being not only for our organisation: the prize is being awarded to the entire human rights community 
in  Russia  and,  more  broadly,  to  an  appreciable  section  of  Russian  society’56.  In  the  words  of  Ms 
Alexeyeva: ‘[It] goes to all human rights defenders fighting for freedom and democracy in Russia. And, 
first of all, to those who could not come here to receive it because they have paid with their lives for 
this fight [....] And this prize is for those who could not come because for their fairness and patriotism 
they  have  been  deprived  of  freedom’57.  Mr  Orlov  had  mixed  feelings58.  On  the  one  hand,  he  was 
happy and proud. The prize was given to all human rights organisations in Russia, and Mr Orlov was 
‘grateful that their work had been recognised’. On the other hand, Russia had gone ‘in the opposite 
direction’  and  the  human  rights  situation  had  worsened  during  the  past  10  years.  The  award  also 
‘brought bitter feelings’, because Natalia Estimirova, who was selected with Sergei Kovalev as finalist 
for the 2004 Sakharov Prize, was shot dead before she could accept it59. 

In  the  opinion  of  the  laureates,  the  award  did  not  result  in  more  political  pressure,  but  did  not 
contribute  to  diminishing  it  either.  Harassment  of  human  rights  NGOs  and  activists  remains 
commonplace.  Two  weeks  after  receiving  the  Sakharov  Prize,  Ms  Alexeyeva  was  detained  by  the 
police when she was heading to an opposition rally in the centre of Moscow60. Mr Orlov and Memorial 
were  forced  to  pay  damages  to  President  Kadyrov  following  the  defamation  lawsuit,  and  another 
criminal case was opened against him, even though he was acquitted. 

Mr Orlov believes that the Sakharov Prize played a role in his acquittal. The prize brought even more 
publicity to Memorial and Mr Orlov's case. Russian and international human rights NGOs continuously 
called  on  the  government  to  stop  the  criminal  prosecution.  The  authorities  wanted  to  avoid  a  big 
scandal, which would have happened if he were found guilty. ‘Of course, I had to be acquitted, we 
presented a lot of evidence and witnesses, but there were many guilty verdicts in such cases in those 
times. The Sakharov Prize played a certain role’61. 

On 16 December 2009, the day of the award-winning ceremony, Mr Orlov declared that Memorial was 
renewing its activity in Chechnya: ‘Such an uneasy decision was made as a result of consultations with 

55 Its name comes from the 31st article of the Russian Constitution, which guarantees freedom of assembly – a right formally 

recognised but violated in practice. 

56 European Parliament, 16 September 2009, op. cit. 

57 ‘Галина Аккерман. ‘Вручение премии Сахарова российским правозащитникам’, RFI, 16 December 2009, available at: 

http://www.rfi.fr/acturu/articles/120/article_4942.asp. 

58 Memorial Human Rights Centre, Смешанные чувства. Олег Орлов о премии Андрея Сахарова, 22 October 2009, 

available at: http://www.memo.ru/2009/10/22/2210092.htm. 

59 Ibid.; FRIDE interview with Oleg Orlov on 2 September 2013. 

60 Chronicles of Moscow Helsinki Group [Хроника МХГ], 1, 2010, available at: http://www.mhg.ru/files/010/n012010.doc. 

61 FRIDE interview with Oleg Orlov, op. cit. 


36 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

our staff in the North Caucasus, as well as with a big group of Russian and international human rights 
organisations’62. The Sakharov Prize also helped to make such a decision at that very moment. 

Most importantly for Mr Orlov, the award acknowledges the difficult work of human rights defenders. 
‘Then  it  seemed  to  us  that  our  work  did  not  bear  any  fruit  and  we  were  scooping  the  sea  with  a 
spoon. The prize gave us strength and incentive to continue our work’63. 

The monetary reward allowed Mr Orlov and Mr Kovalev to help realise Natalia Estimirova's dream, by 
helping  Ms  Estimirova's  daughter  Lana  to  study  to  be  able  to  attend  university.  Lana  has  now 
obtained a scholarship to study at a British university. ‘Thanks to the award, we were able to pay our 
duty  to  Natalia’,  says  Mr  Orlov.  Ms  Alexeyeva  donated  her  share  to  her  organisation,  the  Moscow 
Helsinki Group, contributing to acquiring the organisation’s offices. ‘Having our own office made us 
more  independent;  we  don’t  need  to  pay  rent  and  so  we  are  able  to  help  other  organisations  that 
have  difficulties,  such  as  Lev  Ponomarev's  For  Human  Rights!,  who  doesn’t  have  an  office’,  says  Ms 
Alexeyeva64. 

There  were no  official  reactions  by  the  Russian  authorities  and  the mainstream  media  in  Russia  did 
not report the event. As Mr Orlov put it, ‘their reaction was the lack of reaction, ignoring. The award 
was exaggeratedly not noticed and not commented upon’. 

Russian  and  international  civil  society  and  human  rights  groups  congratulated  the  laureates.  In  a 
statement  published  on  their  website,  Human  Rights  Watch  said:  ‘This  honour  is  enormously  well 
deserved  and  we  extend  our  warmest  congratulations’65.  On  a  similar  note,  Amnesty  International 
stated  that  the  prize  was  ‘a  recognition  of  the  important  work  human  rights  activists  are  doing  in 
Russia  in  exceptionally  difficult  circumstances  and  it  comes  at  a  very  difficult  time  for  them’66.  The 
International Federation for Human Rights also extended its congratulations.  

According  to  Ms  Alexeyeva,  the  Sakharov  Prize  laureate  network  can  become  an  important 
instrument for the promotion of human rights abroad. For Mr Orlov, however, today the network de 
facto  is  not  really  working  and  it  should  ask  the  international  community  for  support  to  launch 
initiatives  in  the  field  of  human  rights.  Memorial,  as  another  member  of  the  network,  can  also 
contribute by proposing, debating and promoting initiatives within Russia. 

62 K. Uzel, ‘Правозащитный центр ‘Мемориал’ возобновил деятельность в Чечне’, 16 December 2009, available at: 

http://www.kavkaz-uzel.ru/articles/163169/. 

63 FRIDE interview with Oleg Orlov, op. cit.; European Parliament, ‘Oleg Orlov of Memorial: ‘The major menace to us comes 

from the state”’, 15 December 2009, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=IM­
PRESS&reference=20091215STO66433&language=EN. 

64 FRIDE interview with Lyudmila Alexeyeva on 23 August 2013.
 
65 Human Rights Watch, ‘Russia: Memorial awarded Sakharov Prize’, 22 October 2009, available at: 

http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/10/22/russia-memorial-awarded-sakharov-prize. 

66 Amnesty International, ‘Russian activists awarded European rights prize’, 22 December 2009, available at: 

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/russian-activist-awarded-european-rights-prize-20091022. 


37
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
Policy Department DG External Policies 

Case Study Russia: is it possible to counter the backlash? 

In  2009,  the  Sakharov  Prize  was  awarded  to  Memorial,  an  organisation  that  Andrei  Sakharov  co­
founded shortly before his death.  

2009 was a record year for political murders in Russia, a fact that influenced the EP’s decision to award 
the  prize.  Thereafter,  the  country’s  human  rights  situation  has  not  improved.  It  is  well-known  that 
authoritarian tendencies in Russia have been accompanied by an unprecedented growth in murders 
and  prosecutions  of  civic  activists  and  independent  journalists,  as  well  as  a  more  general  backlash 
against  civil  society  organisations.  Russia  is  probably  the  country  where  the  backlash  against 
international human rights support has been most ferocious. 

External democracy support now faces the complex challenge of finding ways to support civic groups 
that work  on politically-sensitive topics without exposing them  or  aggravating the  overall  backlash 
against civil society in countries like Russia. 

In 2010, the year following the Sakharov Prize award, the Moscow Helsinki Group and Memorial were 
among over 40 NGOs whose offices were searched by the authorities. The government has begun to 
use more sophisticated methods against NGOs, for example, tax legislation. Since January 2011, taxes 
to  be  paid  by  NGOs  have  been  increased  and  those  NGOs  that  do  not  provide  direct  services  to 
populations, including watchdogs and awareness-raising organisations working on human rights, are 
treated as for-profit organisations. 

More optimistically, despite continuous repression, civil society in Russia is gaining strength. Moscow 
and  other  Russian  cities  witnessed  a  wave  of  mass  protests  against  electoral  fraud  following  the  4 
December  2011  elections  to  the  State  Duma.  Tens  of  thousands  of  citizens  volunteered  as  election 
observers. Russian citizens are now more eager to support NGOs. 

Yet, after Vladimir Putin's return to the presidency, the authorities have increased repression against 
civil society. Several laws were passed in 2012 to further limit freedom of expression and assembly, 
curtail civic activity and discredit NGOs, and enhance the state's control over the Internet. The law on 
foreign  agents,  which  compels  non-governmental  organisations  that  receive  foreign  funding  and 
exert ‘political activity’ to register as ‘foreign agents’, threatens the very existence of independent civil 
society organisations in Russia. Memorial is among those organisations that have refused to register 
as a ‘foreign agent’ and challenged the prosecutor's decision in court. As the legal battle continues, 
the organisation may face closure or criminal charges against its leaders. 

Overall,  the  lessons  from  Russia  are  sobering  and  call  for  a  careful  reflection  on  how  the  Sakharov 
Prize  relates  to  domestic  political  dynamics.  On  one  level,  Memorial  members  speak  warmly  of  the 
prize  and insist that it has helped  protect them.  Many activists hope that  on  a long-term trajectory 
civic  protest  is  growing  stronger  and  cannot  be  held  at  bay  indefinitely  by  an  increasingly  de­
legitimised regime. 

On  a  broader  level,  however,  the  international  community’s  human  rights  measures  in  Russia  have 
been behind the curve in terms of responding to the regime’s clampdown on civil society freedoms. 
The Sakharov Prize cannot be singled out as especially guilty in this sense; but it is part of a general 
field of external measures that in the case of Russia may need more rethinking. The key factor here is 
to  appreciate  just  how  far  the  Putin  project  has  depended  on  creating  the  ‘external  other’  as 
ideological glue for its own hold on power.  

38 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

3.5 

China, 2008: Hu Jia 

Hu Jia was awarded the Sakharov Prize for his human rights work in China, in particular his calls for an 
official  inquiry  into  the  1989  Tiananmen  Square  massacre  and  his  advocacy  of  HIV/AIDS  and 
environmental issues, which are largely absent from public debate in China. 

Hu Jia started his work as a human rights and democracy activist during the late 1990s, focussing on 
environmental and HIV/AIDs activism in China67. Between 2005 and 2007, Mr Hu and his wife, Zeng 
Jinyan, faced frequent harassment from the Chinese authorities, including being placed under house 
arrest for 168 days and his disappearance for 41 days in 200668. After Mr Hu and Ms Zeng testified at a 
European Parliament hearing on China's human rights practices via video conference, the authorities 
arrested Mr Hu, confiscated all his communications equipment, and placed his wife and child under 
home detention. On 3 April 2008, Mr Hu was sentenced to three-and-a-half years in prison and a one-
year  deprivation  of  his  political  rights69.  Mr  Hu  was  released  on  26  June  2011,  but  remains  under 
heavy surveillance at home70. 

The year 2008 was an important one for China. Chinese leaders hoped the use the 2008 Olympics in 
Beijing  to  raise  the  country’s  prestige.  However,  in  the  months  leading  up  to  the  Olympic  opening 
ceremony,  Chinese  security  forces  continued  to  suppress  basic  civil  liberties,  including  the  right  to 
assemble and the freedom of expression and association71. In response to ongoing rights abuses, on 
10  September  2007,  Hu  Jia  and  Teng  Biao,  a  human  rights  activist,  lawyer,  and  lecturer  at  Beijing’s 
University of Politics and Law, published in The Washington Post an article entitled ‘The Real China and 
the Olympics’, telling visitors that ‘the flowers, smiles, harmony and prosperity’ of the Beijing games 
‘are built on a base of grievances, tears, imprisonment, torture and blood’72. A month earlier, Mr Hu 
had co-signed, together with 42 Chinese activists, the open letter ‘One World, One Dream: University 
Human  Rights’.  It  called  for  greater  attention  to  human  rights  in  China  on  the  occasion  of  the 
Olympics73. 

Mr Hu was in prison at the time of the award. His wife Zeng Jinyan, denied the right to travel herself, 
accepted the prize on his behalf via video conference. According to Ms Zeng, the prison authorities 
informed Mr Hu of the EP’s decision to award him the prize. Ms Zeng said that when she saw Mr Hu 
on 21 November 2008, she ‘could  sense that he was  very happy’ with the news. As revealed by  Ms 
Zeng,  Mr  Hu  said:  ‘Perhaps  the  European  Parliament  was  thinking  of  the  work  I  did  in  the  areas  of 
AIDS and the environment in awarding the prize to me. Because what I did in terms of human rights 
was  very  far  from  sufficient  and  I  will  need  to  redouble  my  effort’74.  According  to  Ms  Zeng,  ‘The 
European  Parliament  has  from  the  outset  taken  an  interest  in  Hu  Jia’s  case  and  has  deployed 

67 Front Line Defenders. ‘China: Front Line welcomes the release of human rights defender and Sakharov Prize winner Hu Jia’, 

27 June 2011, available at: http://www.frontlinedefenders.org/es/node/15253 [Retrieved 15 August 2013].
 
68 Human Rights Watch, ‘Chronology of Hu Jia's case’, 26 February 2008, available at: 

http://www.hrw.org/es/news/2008/02/26/chronology-hu-jia-s-case [Retrieved 28 August 2013].
 
69 Ibid. 

70 ‘Chinese dissident Hu Jia released from jail’, BBC News, 26 June 2011, available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia­
pacific-13917882. 

71 A. Ramzy, ‘Failed government policies sparked Tibet riots’, Time, 26 May 2009, available at: 

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1900899,00.html. 

72 J. Hu and B. Teng, ‘The real China and the Olympics’, The New York Times, 10 September 2007, available at: 

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2008-04-05/opinions/36799447_1_teng-biao-human-rights-watch-hu-jia. 

73 Human Rights Watch, 26 February 2008, op. cit. 

74 J. Zeng, ‘Sakharov Prize Award 08 – Hu Jia – Message from Zeng Jinyan’, Reporters Without Borders, 17 December 2008, 

available at: http://archives.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=29728 [Retrieved 4 September 2013]. 


39
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
 
 
Policy Department DG External Policies 

considerable efforts on behalf of freedom for Hu Jia and other Chinese human rights activists, efforts 
that demand respect. It has never stopped drawing attention to the need for freedom to become a 
reality for the people of China’75. 

Mr Hu’s award in 2008 had special significance to other Chinese human rights activists too, especially 
since the year also marked the 60th anniversary of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights76. 
‘This  is  not  only  an  honour  for  Hu  Jia  as  an  individual;  it  is  also  an  expression  of  the  international  
community's concern for the deteriorating human rights situation in China [...] This award will serve as 
a great encouragement to those working for the cause of human rights in China. The public attention 
generated by the award will help advance the nascent Chinese rights defence movement, promote 
the realisation of universal human rights norms, and bring about in China the guarantee of the rights 
enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’77. To fellow activist Teng Biao, the Sakharov 
Prize is a valuable tool in Europe's human rights dialogue with the Chinese government. ‘The Chinese 
government  will  be  upset  [...]  But  as  a  responsible  nation  that  is  trying  to  integrate  into  the 
international  community,  China  has  to  understand  that  its  conduct  should  follow  international 
protocols.  It  should  embrace  the  criticism  as  an  opportunity  to  improve  China's  human  rights 
condition’78. 

With China’s international image tainted by its human rights record, French President Nicolas Sarkozy 
initially  threatened  to  boycott  the  Olympic  Games’  opening  ceremony.  Ultimately  the  leaders  of 
Germany,  Poland  and  the  Czech  Republic,  as  well  as  European  Parliament  President  Hans-Gert 
Pöttering,  announced  that  they  would  not  attend  the  ceremony  in  Beijing79.  In  turn,  Chinese 
authorities condemned attempts to politicise the Olympics, and its media accused the West of anti-
China  bias80.  Given  the  authorities’  control  over  information,  Chinese  citizens  had  to  rely  on 
government views as their only source of news. Fuelled by such nationalist sentiments, many Chinese 
expressed suspicion that the West was trying to detract from China’s emergence on the world stage81. 

Later in 2008, Chinese authorities heavily lobbied MEPs against awarding the Sakharov Prize to Mr Hu. 
In a letter dated the week before the prize was announced, the Chinese Ambassador to the EU, Song 
Zhe, warned that awarding Mr Hu the prize would ‘inevitably hurt the Chinese people once again and 
bring  serious  damage  to  China-EU  relations’82.  Further  comments  from  Chinese  Foreign  Ministry 
spokesman Liu Jianchao described the award as a ‘gross interference in China’s domestic affairs’ and 
expressed ‘strong dissatisfaction at the decision by the European Parliament to issue such an award 
to a jailed criminal in China’83. 

75 Ibid. 

76 Human Rights In China, ‘HRIC congratulates Hu Jia, recipient of the 2008 Sakharov Prize’, 23 October 2008, available at: 

http://www.hrichina.org/content/227. 

77 Ibid. 

78 J. Yardley, ‘Chinese activist wins rights prize’, The New York Times, 23 October 2008, available at: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/world/24prize.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 [Retrieved 5 September 2013]. 

79 J. Leibenluft, ‘Passing on the torch: why are world leaders boycotting the Beiing Ceremony?’, Slate, 2008, available at: 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2008/04/passing_on_the_torch.html. 

80 P. Bhattacharji & C. Zissis, ‘Olympic pressure on China’, New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 2008, available at: 

http://www.cfr.org/china/olympic-pressure-china/p13270. 

81 Ibid. 

82 Associated Press, ‘China warns EU over rights prize nominee’, USA Today, 22 October 2008, available at: 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-10-22-china-eu_N.htm. 

83 ‘China voices anger over EU rights prize for "criminal" Hu’, AFP, 23 October 2008, available at: 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jKAZQA3pVBQhgl1bk8anE5jJpDlg?hl=en. 


40 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

In awarding the prize to Mr Hu, EP President Pöttering remarked that ‘the European Parliament firmly 
and  resolutely  acknowledges  the  daily  struggle  for  freedom  of  all  Chinese  human  rights 
defenders’84.Graham Watson, leader of the EU liberal group, commented that ‘heavy-handed Chinese 
state  lobbying  to  influence  the  outcome  of  the  Sakharov  Prize  winner  only  plays  into  the  hands  of 
critics and reinforces the case for Hu Jia’85. As expressed by Jerzy Buzek (EP President, 2009-12), the EP 
felt especially strong about the 2008 prize winner ‘because his imprisonment in December 2007 can 
partly  be  seen  as  the  direct  consequence  of  his  participation  […]  in  a  hearing  of  the  European 
Parliament in November 2007 on human rights in China’86. 

However, in practice, the Sakharov Prize had little impact on the lives of Mr Hu and his family; Mr Hu 
remained in prison under harsh conditions until 2011 and Ms Zeng stayed under house arrest. Prison 
not  only  deprived  Mr  Hu  of  his  freedom  of  expression  and  movement,  his  health  also  deteriorated 
from  liver  disease  and  he  was  twice  denied  medical  parole  by  the  authorities87.  Meanwhile,  for  Ms 
Zeng the mental and physical stress of living under house detention and persistent police harassment 
was challenging: ‘I was unable to pursue job opportunities and so had no regular income […] I lived 
in a constant state of anxiety. The police were unrelenting in the pressure they placed on me. I could 
not  live  a  normal  life.  My  physical  and  mental  health  deteriorated’88.  To  stop  police  harassment,  in 
spring 2012 Ms Zeng announced via Twitter her separation from Mr Hu, and obtained a travel permit 
to  move  with  her  daughter  to  Hong  Kong.  She  continues  her  human  rights  work  from  there 
supported, in part, by the Sakharov monetary award. 

After Mr Hu’s release from prison on 26 June 2011, heavy surveillance, as well as instances of house 
arrest, continued. On the day of his release, Radio France Internationale reported that security forces 
blocked  reporters  from  interviewing  Mr  Hu89.  On  18  December  2012,  New  Tang  Dynasty  Television 
reported that Chinese internal security police officers had assaulted Mr Hu and warned him to stop 
his  online  activism.  Mr  Hu  also  reported  that  during  and  after  the  18th  Chinese  Communist  Party 
Congress, the authorities illegally placed him under house arrest and temporarily relocated him from 
Beijing  in  order  to  prevent  him  from  speaking  about  China’s  political  transition  and  his  personal 
situation90. As Xi Jinping took over the Chinese presidency in March 2013, Mr Hu reported via Twitter 
that  the  authorities  had  summoned  and  beat  him  during  an  official  inquiry  about  his  advocacy 
activities91.  Most  recently,  the  Chinese  authorities  denied  Mr  Hu’s  petition  to  visit  his  wife  and  five-
year old child in Hong Kong92. Nonetheless, Mr Hu  continues with his online activism, posting daily 

84 European Parliament, ‘Sakharov Prize 2008 awarded to Hu Jia’, 23 October 2008. 

85 Associated Press, 22 October 2010, op. cit. 

86 European Parliament, ‘EP President welcomes release of 2008 Sakharov Prize winner Hu Jia’, Press Release, 27 June 2011, 

available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=IM­
PRESS&reference=20081020IPR39973&language=EN. 

87 European Parliament, ‘Ailing health of Chinese dissident Hu Jia worries MEPs’, Article, 12 April 2010, available at: 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?language=en&type=IM-PRESS&reference=20100412STO72456. 

88 J. Zeng, ‘An interview with Zeng Jinyan曾金燕. By Elisa Nesossi’, The China Story, Canberra: Australian Centre on China in 

the World, The Australian National University, 2013. 

89 New Tang Dynasty Television, ‘Hu Jia released but monitored’, YouTube, NTDTV.com, 3 March 2013, available at: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8PA828oj5c [Retrieved 28 August 2013].
 
90 New Tang Dynasty Television. ‘Hu Jia agressé à so domicile’, YouTube, NTDFrench, 18 December 2012, available at: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK9f9X9WMeI [Retrieved 28 August 2013].
 
91 New Tang Dynasty Television, ‘Hu Jia summoned, beaten for criticizing Xi Jinping’, YouTube, NTDonChina, 14 March 2013, 

available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7LR1UVT68w [Retrieved 28 August 2013].
 
92 New Tan Dynasty Television. ‘Hu Jia denied visa to Hong Kong to see family’, NTDTV.com, 21 January 2013, available at: 

http://www.ntd.tv/en/news/china/20130121/76845-hu-jia-denied-visa-to-hong-kong-to-see-family.html. 


41
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
 
 
 
Policy Department DG External Policies 

updates on Twitter and maintaining a YouTube channel to document the travails of democracy and 
human rights in China93. 

Case study China: counterproductive? 

The  European  Parliament  awarded  the  Sakharov  Prize  to  two  Chinese  laureates,  Wei  Jingshen 
(1996) and Hu Jia (2008), both of whom engaged in political protest against the Chinese authorities. 
Neither award was able to hold back a tide of tighter human rights restrictions in China.   

In 1996, the Sakharov Prize went to Wei Jingshen, one of China’s most prominent political prisoners, 
in jail since 1979. With Deng Xiaoping’s death in 1997, US President Bill Clinton negotiated Mr Wei’s 
release  from  prison  and  exile  to  the  United  States  with  Chinese  President  Jiang  Zemin.  The 
Sakharov  Prize  probably  contributed  to  increase  pressure  on  the  Chinese  authorities  and  helped 
secure Mr Wei’s release. Broader political reform was absent from the Chinese agenda in this period, 
however. 

The  situation  in  2008  was  much  more  fraught,  and  the  Sakharov  Prize  played  into  acute  tensions 
between China and the international community. 

The  prize  award  to  Hu  Jia  came  when  China  sought  to  use  the  Beijing  Olympics  to  enhance  its 
international image. The prize was one of many expressions of international concern forthcoming at 
this  juncture,  as  the  human  rights  community  sought  to  use  the  Olympics  to  highlight  repression. 
Other  measures  included  threatened  and/or  actual  boycotts  on  the  part  of  several  prominent 
European politicians, which received more attention than the prize itself. 

This international spotlight did soften some formal  Chinese rhetoric. Chinese officials, including the 
Mayor  of  Beijing,  promised  that  the  games  would  ‘benefit  the  further  development  of  our  human 
rights cause’. 

improvements  were  not  forthcoming. 

However,  positive 
If  anything,  the  Chinese  regime’s 
defensiveness  led  it  to  adopt  even  more  repressive  tactics.  When  protests  erupted  in  March  2008 
against  Chinese  policies  in  Tibet,  the  Chinese  authorities  were  quick  to  use  force  to  disperse  the 
demonstrators.  Human  Rights  Watch  reported  that  Chinese  security  forces  broke  international  law, 
including  prohibitions  against  the  disproportionate  use  of  force,  torture  and  arbitrary  detention,  as 
well  as  the  right  to  peaceful  assembly.  During  the  Olympics,  the  Chinese  authorities  established 
official  protest  zones  in  Beijing  but  denied  all  applicants  who  petitioned  to  protest  during  the 
Olympics.  Although  the  Chinese  government  unblocked  some  English-language  web  sites,  it 
tightened control over Chinese-language media before, during and after the games. 

According to Amnesty International, the ‘Olympic Games in Beijing brought heightened repression 
throughout  the  country  as  authorities  tightened  control  over  human  rights  defenders,  religious 
practitioners, ethnic minorities, lawyers and journalists’. Mr Hu was among those jailed prior to the 
Olympics for ‘subverting the state’. 

Significantly, experts reported that many ordinary Chinese sympathised with the regime at this time 
because they suspected that the West was trying to spoil China’s moment of glory on the world stage. 

Chinese officials protested at the award to Mr Hu and threatened reprisals. However, China and the 
EU  soon  returned  to  pragmatic,  business-oriented  relations.  Beijing  unilaterally  cancelled  the 

93 @hu_jia. Twitter.com [Retrieved 28 August 2013]; Hu, Jia, YouTube [Retrieved 28 August 2013]. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
 
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

December  2008  EU-China  Summit  in  Lyon,  but  this  was  due  to  French  President  Sarkozy’s  plan  to 
meet with the Dalai Lama, not because of the Sakharov Prize.   

It  is  generally  accepted  that  human  rights  conditions  have  failed  significantly  to  improve  in  China. 
More  prominent  democracy  activists  have  been  detained.  The  attempt  to  use  2008  as  a  moment 
when China  might  be uniquely  susceptible to international  pressure failed to elicit tangible human 
rights improvements. 

The only positive impact attributable to the Sakharov Prize is a very indirect one: some claim that such 
international measures do keep human rights on the agenda and feed into Chinese citizens’ growing 
demands for more accountable and less corrupt governance. This may be plausible but is impossible 
to corroborate.  

3.6 

Sudan, 2007: Salih Mahmoud Mohamed Osman 

Salih  Mahmoud  Mohamed  Osman  was  awarded  the  Sakharov  Prize  for  his  work  as  a  human  rights 
lawyer in difficult circumstances of armed conflict and for his work against torture. 

A member of the Fur ethnic group, Mr Osman was born in 1957 in central Darfur, Sudan, where the 
conflict  that  started  in  2003  is  said  to  have  caused  the  death  of  approximately  400  000  people, 
displaced 2 million and destroyed the livelihoods of 3.2 million94. Over 300 000 people95 are estimated 
to  have  been  displaced  in  the  first  half  of  2013  alone,  as  the  crisis  enters  its  11th  year.  In  2004,  the 
United Nations declared the conflict as ‘the world's greatest humanitarian crisis’96. 

The Darfur conflict began in February 2003 when the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A) and 
Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) rebel groups took up arms against the Government of Sudan, 
accusing  the  authorities  of  marginalising  the  non-Arab  population.  The  government  responded  by 
arming  Janjaweed  militias  and  carrying  out  a  campaign  of  ethnic  cleansing  against  non-Arabs  in 
Darfur,  including  the  Fur,  Zaghawa,  and  Masalit  ethnic  groups.  The  Sudanese  government  and  the 
JEM  signed  a  ceasefire  agreement  in  February  2010,  with  a  view  to  holding  peace  talks.  But 
negotiations  have  been  disrupted  by  accusations  that  the  Sudanese  army  violated  the  February 
agreement.  According  to  Amnesty  International:  ‘In  the  southern  Sudan  and  now  in  Darfur  the 
Government  of  Sudan  has  tried  to  resolve  conflicts  whose  deep  causes  lie  in  problems  of 
discrimination and justice by condoning or ordering actions which have violated human rights. Only 
when the human rights of all people in Sudan are taken into account can a durable peace develop’97. 

Having been arbitrarily detained and arrested himself, Mr Osman98 fights to end torture, impunity and 
human  rights  abuses  in  Sudan.  He  provides  free  legal  assistance  to  conflict  victims.  From  2005  to 
2010, he was Member of the National Assembly of Sudan. 

94 Human Rights Watch, ‘Human Rights Watch honors Sudanese activist’, 26 October 2005, available at 

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/10/26/human-rights-watch-honors-sudanese-activist. 

95 ‘UN reports 300,000 people this year have fled fighting in Darfur’, United Nations Radio, 8 July 2013, available at 

http://www.unmultimedia.org/radio/english/2013/07/un-reports-300000-people-this-year-have-fled-fighting-in-darfur/. 

96 Amnesty International, ‘Sudan: Darfur: incommunicado detention, torture and special courts - Memorandum to the 

Government of Sudan and the Sudanese Commission of Inquiry’ , 8 June 2004, p. 3, available at: 

http://www.refworld.org/docid/412a06974.html. 

97 Amnesty International, ‘Sudan: empty promises? Human rights violations in government-controlled areas’, 2003, p. 40, 

available at: http://www.amnesty.org/es/library/info/AFR54/036/2003/en. 

98 Unless stated otherwise, laureate’s opinions were expressed during a FRIDE interview on 19 September 2013. 


43
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
Policy Department DG External Policies 

Mr Osman was awarded the Sakharov Prize in 2007, when the Darfur conflict was resulting in ‘many 
victims,  with  over  2  million  people  having  fled  their  villages’,  and  at  the  height  of  ‘international 
awareness’,  as  it  took  some  time  for  the  EU  to  build  a  ‘unified  position’  since  the  eruption  of  the 
conflict  in  early  2003.  For  Mr  Osman,  the  ‘first  great  surprise’  was  learning  that  he  ‘had  been 
nominated for this prize’. He felt ‘happy and glad’ for such ‘an honour’. When he received the news, 
he  was  attending  the  Global  Conference  on  the  Prevention  of  Genocide  at  McGill  University  in 
Canada.  He  describes  that  day  as  ‘quite  an  amazing  moment’  in  his  career.  Mr  Osman  did  not  face 
difficulties to travel to accept the award. In fact, he has only been subject to travel restrictions once, 
when he tried to leave the country for Kampala, Uganda. 

Mr Osman was very touched with the ‘big party’ that followed his nomination. Representatives from 
EU member states, from the US and Canadian Embassies, among others, attended a gathering at Mr 
Osman’s house in Wad Madanï, some 200km south of Khartoum. Together with other activists, family 
and  friends,  they  celebrated  ‘the  entire  day’  in  the  traditional  Darfur  tribe-style  ‘with  drums  and 
music’. 

Given  the  tight  government  control  over  media  in  Sudan,  Mr  Osman  was  uncertain  of  how 
newspapers and other local media would react. ‘Journalists managed to publish it in the end’ and Mr 
Osman  ‘was  mentioned  in  many  articles’.  For  Mr  Osman,  his  country  also  participated  of  his  joy,  as 
‘Sudan  finally  felt  like  they  had  somebody  whose  work  had  been  recognised  internationally’.  The 
government, however, ‘never celebrated or recognised the award, but was strictly silent’. The obvious 
reason’ is that, since this fight is ‘about defending rights and freedom’ and  voice out ‘human rights 
violations’, it was not in the government’s interest to address this, given its reluctance to ‘encourage 
or celebrate these trends’. 

Despite  having  received  several  other  international  awards  from  organisations  such  as  Amnesty 
International  (2004),  Human  Rights  Watch  (2005)  and  the  American  Bar  Association  (2006),  he 
considers the Sakharov Prize ‘special’ because ‘it comes from all 27 member states of the Union’99, and 
because it was awarded to him individually, and not as part of a larger group of activists. 

Mr Osman has been ‘defending those who have been illegally detained, or those victims of abuses as 
a  result  of  the  conflict  in  Darfur’,  without  ‘even  thinking  that  this  would  mean  anything  to  other 
people’. He was deeply touched when after many years of hard work, often at a high risk to himself, 
the European Parliament gave him ‘confidence and courage’ to continue his fight against impunity. It 
reassured him that he was not ‘alone’ in this struggle. Most importantly, the Sakharov Prize made it 
easier  for  him  to  carry  out  his  work.  Mr  Osman  felt  that  the  government’s  attitude  ‘improved 
considerably’ after the award. ‘The risk is still there’, he assures, but he is not systematically targeted 
as  he  used  to  be.  The  prize  also  led  to  broader  support  from  colleagues  both  locally  and 
internationally, not only in Africa, but also in the US and Asia.  

In Sudan, the prize helped to improve understanding of basic rights among Sudan’s constituencies, 
which may bring about political change in the upcoming elections, scheduled for 2015. 

According  to  Mr  Osman,  the  Sakharov  Prize  gave  him  an  opportunity  to  ‘give  a  voice  to  so  many 
people who agonise in Sudan’, but ‘the situation requires more attention and needs to be addressed 
by  the  international  community  and  be  brought  to  the  front  lines  of  newspapers  worldwide’.  The 
problems that ignited the conflict in 2003 – inter alia, land dispossession, political marginalisation and 

99 The Sakharov Prize was awarded to Salih Mahmoud Mohamed Osman in 2007, when the EU was composed of 27 states, 
prior to the adhesion of Croatia on 1 July 2013. 

44 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

unfulfilled promises – are still present. These issues, together with new ‘unmet demands to remove 
contradictions,  achieve  what  was  established  in  the  Bill  of  Rights  of  2005,  bring  national  laws  into 
conformance  with  international  standards  and  ensure  the  independence  of  the  judiciary’,  hinder 
Sudan’s progress. According to current estimates, the number of people affected by the war in South 
Kordofan runs as high as 700 000, with approximately 500 000 displaced within the rebel areas100. The 
war  in  the  Blue  Nile  state  has  displaced  around  200  000  people,  with  refugees  amounting  to 
approximately 150 000 in South Sudan and Ethiopia101. Atrocities are still being perpetrated and many 
of those responsible for past crimes against human rights have not yet been brought to justice. 

Whilst acknowledging the great importance of the Sakharov Prize, Mr Osman believes that the prize’s 
utility could be further increased by establishing a network that goes beyond the current ‘exchange 
of information and material’. He would like to build a solid platform for human rights, which would 
more vocally advocate human rights, be more (pro)active, have ‘more outreach’, as well as the ability 
to  ‘directly  address’  a  conflict  situation,  thus  further  strengthening  the  promotion  of  human  rights 
internationally. 

3.7 

Belarus, 2006: Aliaxandr Milinkevich 

Aliaksandr Milinkevich was awarded the Sakharov Prize for his continuous struggle for a democratic 
future in Belarus. 

Mr Milinkevich was born in 1947 in Hrodno, western Belarus. He is a scientist as was Andrei Sakharov. 
PhD in Physics and Mathematics, he is author of numerous publications in the field of physics, history 
of culture, education and science. He began his career in academia, but in the early years of Belarus’ 
independence in 1991, he worked in the Hrodno City Council. When President Alexander Lukashenko 
held a referendum in 1996 – with four questions on changing the date of the country's independence 
day,  amending  the  constitution,  changing  laws  on  the  sale  of  land  and  the  abolition  of  the  death 
penalty – which was widely criticised as unconstitutional, Mr Milinkevich resigned. Since then, he has 
founded  and  chaired  several  civil  society  initiatives.  He  also  became  more  engaged  in  politics.  In 
2001, he headed the presidential campaign of an opposition candidate.  

In October 2005, the United Democratic Opposition chose him as presidential candidate to run in the 
19  March  2006  elections.  Official  results  brought  about  the  victory  of  incumbent  President 
Lukashenko  for  a  third  presidential  term.  The  opposition  denounced  electoral  fraud  and  tens  of 
thousands took to the streets in central Minsk in protest. The day after the election, a tent camp was 
erected on October square in an attempt to stage an electoral ‘colour’ revolution similar to the ones 
that had taken place in Georgia and Ukraine a few months earlier. Yet, only five days later, on 24-25 
March, the police violently dispersed the protesters, resulting in one death. Between 500 and 1 000 
were  arrested,  including  opposition  candidate  Aliaksandr  Kozulin.  Since  2006,  Mr  Milinkevich  is  a 
leader  of the Movement for Freedom.  He did not participate in  the last 2010 presidential  elections, 
but continues to be one of the most active opposition politicians in Belarus. 

Having received the Sakharov Prize just a few months after the violent suppression of protests, for Mr 
Milinkevich the prize is not only his merit, but goes ‘for all those who were in the square in Minsk last 

100 International Crisis Watch Group, ‘Sudan’s spreading conflict (I): war in South Kordofan’, Africa Report 198, 2013, available 

at: http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/africa/horn-of-africa/sudan/198-sudans-spreading-conflict-i-war-in-south­
kordofan.aspx. 

101 International Crisis Watch Group, ‘Sudan’s spreading conflict (II): war in Blue Nile’, Africa Report 204, 2013, available at: 

http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/africa/horn-of-africa/sudan/204-sudans-spreading-conflict-ii-war-in-blue-nile.aspx 

45
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
 
Policy Department DG External Policies 

March, who have been thrown into prison and expelled from universities and workplaces. This prize is 
for all those who are carrying on with the fight’. He mentioned Mr Kozulin, who was sentenced to five 
and a half years in prison, as well as other opposition activists with similar fates. He also referred to 
the ‘freedom fighters who have disappeared without trace or have been murdered’.  

For  Mr  Milinkevich,  the  prize  has  allowed  him  to  expand  contacts  among  presidents  and  prime 
ministers  in  Europe  and  gain  their  countries’  support  for  a  democratic  Belarus.  The  prize  also  gave 
him protection. As the media was giving him a lot of attention, the authorities seemed hesitant to use 
repression  against  him.  The  prize  also  helped  consolidate  and  inspire  the  democratic  movement  in 
Belarus.  As  Mr  Milinkevich  says,  ‘it  has  shown  that  solidarity  and  responsible  work  has  brought  us 
support. It also gave optimism to Belarusians that ‘Europe has not forgotten us, Europe is with us’!’ Mr 
Milinkevich has participated in several roundtable discussions on human rights violations in Belarus 
after the parliamentary elections organised at the European Parliament. He remains engaged with the 
human rights cause and the fight against dictatorship in Belarus.  

According  to  Mr  Milikevich,  the  Sakharov  Prize  is  as  widely  known  in  Belarus  as  the  Nobel  Prize. 
Independent media wrote extensively about it, especially since this was the second Sakharov Prize to 
go  to  Belarus  in  just  two  years  (in  2004  the  prize  was  awarded  to  the  Belarus  Association  of 
Journalists).  Moreover,  since  then,  Belarusian  candidates  have  been  among  Sakharov  finalists  three 
times. 

‘Inspired by the Sakharov Prize, we established a Belarusian award named after Vasili Bykov, the most 
famous Belarusian writer and freedom fighter’. Since 2008, the Bykov Award for Freedom of Thought 
is given annually to Belarusian who fight for freedom and democracy. The ceremony takes place in 
the village of Bycky, where Bykov was born, on the site of a house-museum of the writer. ‘This way, 
the Sakharov Prize continues its life in Belarus’, adds Mr Milinkevich102 

The Belarusian government and pro-government media largely ignored or criticised the award. In the 
words of the then KGB chief, ‘Europe must be in real decline if it cannot find somebody better to give 
its  prize’103.  The  Secretary  of  the  Central  Election  Committee  made  similar  remarks,  accusing  the 
European Union of ‘euro-idiocy’104. 

The  prize  did  become  an  important  symbol  of  solidarity  and  recognition  of  Belarusians’  efforts  to 
leave in a free, democratic and European country. However, the Sakharov Prize laureate network still 
lacks concrete projects. ‘There is correspondence and there are declarations, but much more could be 
done by the laureates themselves, myself included. Our fame, our solidarity, can bring more results, 
especially given that we have the support of the European Parliament. There is a need for concrete 
activity’, he says. 

Pressure  on  civil  society  and  opposition  has  not  ceased  in  Belarus.  After  the  December  2010 
presidential election and the government crackdown on the opposition and peaceful protesters that 
followed, the number of political prisoners in Belarus has increased to record levels. Over 700 people 
were arrested, including almost all opposition candidates105. In response, the EU has expanded its visa 

102 FRIDE interview with Mr Milinkevich on 3 September 2013. 

103 B. Naviny, ‘Cухоренко назвал ангажированным решение Европарламента дать Милинкевичу премию Сахарова’, 27 

October 2006, available at: http://naviny.by/rubrics/politic/2006/10/27/ic_news_112_261147/. 

104 Деловая Газета, ‘Лозовик: К премии Милинкевичу я отнесся совершенно индифферентно’, Деловая Газета, 30 

October 2006, available at: http://bdg.by//news/news.htm?95889,68. 

105 Viasna Human Rights Centre, ‘Evaluation of events related to the presidential election: position of the Human Rights 

Center “Viasna” ’ , 20 January 2011, available at: http://spring96.org/en/news/40799. 


46 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

ban and asset freeze to over 240 individuals responsible for electoral fraud and repression, and over 
30 companies that are seen to be connected with the regime and its supporters.  

Today, many human rights defenders and activists, as well as members of the opposition, including 
presidential candidate Mikalai Statkevich, remain in jail106. Human rights defender Ales Bialiatski was 
sentenced  to  four  years  in  prison  in  November  2011  on  false  accusations  of  tax  evasion,  despite 
protests  from  the  international  community  and  human  rights  organisations107.  In  July  2013,  youth 
activist Andrei Haidukau was sentenced to one and a half years in jail for ‘unlawful cooperation with 
foreign organisations’. Civic activists who were released eventually had to move abroad due to fears 
of a new wave of prosecutions. Belarus remains the only European country where the death penalty 
has not been abolished and executions are still carried out. 

3.8 

Cuba, 2005: Ladies in White 

The  Cuban  peaceful  movement  for  the  release  of  all  political  prisoners  Ladies  in  White  (Damas  de 
Blanco) was awarded the Sakharov Prize for its peaceful struggle for freedom and dignity in Cuba. 

The Ladies in White emerged in 2003 as a spontaneous and heterogeneous movement made up of 
the wives and relatives of 75 dissidents arrested during the so-called Cuban black spring. Although all 
of  them  had  been  released  by  2011,  similarly  to  the  Mothers  of  the  Plaza  de  Mayo  Association  in 
Argentina (albeit in different ideological contexts), the Ladies in White and their peaceful and silent 
manifestations every Sunday in the streets of Miramar/Havana remain a symbol of hope for political 
prisoners and political liberties in Cuba.  

In 2011, Berta Soler, a microbiology technician at a hospital in Havana, assumed the leadership of the 
organisation following the death of Laura Pollán. Ms Soler was one of the five Ladies in White selected 
to receive the Sakharov Prize. Ms Soler became engaged with the movement because her husband 
was one of the 75 dissidents arrested in 2003 by the Castro regime. After his release, both rejected the 
offer  to  exile  and  decided  to  continue  to  fight  for  human  rights  and  the  freedom  of  thought  and 
conscience  in  Cuba.  According  to  Ms  Soler,  the  Ladies  in  White  are  not  a  political  group,  but  a 
movement that advocates for the freedom of political prisoners and support for their families.  

The Ladies in White learned about the prize award through a phone call from the EU office in Havana. 
According  to  Ms  Soler108  ),  the  prize  served  as  a  ‘shield’  and  protected  them  from  persecution  and 
repression by the Cuban government. Despite fears of repression, the Ladies in White saw the prize as 
an  important  recognition  of  their  work  and  never  considered  not  accepting  it.  According  to  Blanca 
Reyes,  another  member  of  the  organisation,  the  Ladies  in  White  did  not  expect  to  receive  such  a 
prestigious  prize,  as  their  organisation  has  no  political  colour  and  does  not  represent  any  political 
party. 

In  the  words  of  Ms  Reyes,  the  Cuban  authorities  branded  them  as  a  group  of  ‘crazy  women’  and 
prevented  them  from  attending  the  award-winning  ceremony  in  Strasbourg.  Ms  Reyes,  exiled  in 
Spain,  represented  the  Ladies  in  White  during  the  ceremony  but  declined  to  accept  the  prize  on 
behalf of her organisation, leaving an empty chair. This symbolic act was meant to denounce human 
rights  abuses  in  Cuba  and  the  government’s  denial  to  allow  the  members  of  the  organisation  to 
receive  the  prize  personally.  It  was  only  in  April  2013  that  three  members,  Belkis  Cantillo  Ramírez, 

106 Human Rights Centre Viasna keeps the list of political prisoners updated, see http://spring96.org/en/news/49539. 

107 Indeed, his situation is well-known abroad and he was nominated by the European Parliament for the second time for the 

2013 Sakharov Prize.  

108 FRIDE telephone interview with Berta Soler on 28 August 2013.
 

47
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
Policy Department DG External Policies 

Laura  Labrada  Pollán  and  Berta  Soler,  could  personally  collect  the  prize.  This  was  possible  due  to  a 
new  and  less  restrictive  migration  law  approved  by  the  Cuban  regime  in  January  2013.  In  her 
acceptance speech, Ms Soler highlighted the day-to-day abuses the organisation suffers and that the 
Cuban government is ‘afraid because we are prepared women and justice is on our side’. She finished 
her  speech  with  the  words  ‘Cuba  yes,  Castro  no,  freedom!’.  The  ceremony  served  to  increase  the 
organisation’s visibility in other countries. During her international tour, which lasted for 78 days, Ms 
Soler also received the Vaclav Havel Prize for Creative Dissidents on behalf of her organisation, and 
participated in several events in the United States.  

During their visit to Europe, the Ladies in White reiterated their concerns about the state of human 
rights in their country. They stressed that recent reforms by the Cuban government were of ‘cosmetic’ 
nature  and  only  served  to  improve  its  image  internationally.  Against  the  background  of  ongoing 
negotiations between the EU and Cuba over a cooperation agreement, the Ladies in White warned 
that the EU should remain principled with the regime.  

Back in Cuba, the government tried to discredit the organisation by broadcasting a video that implied 
that the money received would be used for private gain. According to Ms Soler, the money awarded 
and  other  funds,  including  from  the  Vaclav  Havel  Foundation,  will  be  used  to  improve  the 
infrastructure and networking of the movement. In a personal interview, she stressed that the money 
will be used in the organisation’s community life and to support the relatives of political prisoners in 
Cuba.  The  organisation  wishes  to  expand  and  modernise  its  equipment  and  infrastructure  to 
continue its activities on a more solid basis, even though no concrete plan has been drawn up yet. 

In the opinion of Ms Soler, the Ladies in White received the prize for being a credible movement of 
peaceful and conscious women in Cuba fighting for the liberty of their husbands and relatives, similar 
to the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo Association during the dictatorship in Argentina, although with 
different ideological grounds. She opines that the confidence entrusted to the Ladies in White by the 
international community and the EP was also due to the organisation’s transparency, the clearness of 
their goals and its non-violent demonstrations. 

Despite hopes that the prize would offer a degree of protection from harassment, intimidation and 
detentions, according to Ms Soler ‘the Cuban government ignores that’. She comments that on the 
same  week  of  the  official  ceremony  at  the  European  Parliament,  the  Cuban  authorities  beat  and 
arrested 62 Ladies in White at a peaceful protest in Havana. As this study was being finalised, another 
round of beatings and harassment took place on 17 November 2013. Ms Reyes, who resides in Spain, 
was refused entry into Cuba when she tried to visit her father who is sick. 

No  change  has  taken  place  with  respect  to  basic  freedoms  and  the  treatment  of  human  rights 
activists  by  the  Cuban  government.  According  to  Ms  Soler,  repression  is  the  same  or  has  even 
increased, particularly against the Ladies in White. Nonetheless, she feels that the Sakharov Prize has 
contributed  to  increasing  international  recognition  of  the  organisation  and  the  moral  and  spiritual 
support for the human rights cause. In the domestic context, it has helped them gain more visibility. 
According to Ms Soler, after the Sakharov Prize award, the number of their supporters grew from 90 
to  300,  and  the  organisation  opened  more  branches  in  different  provinces109.  The  prize  has  also 
facilitated contacts among laureates inside and outside Cuba. 

In  this  case,  the  prize  was  given  to  a  group  of  women  and  not  to  an  individual.  The  award  thus 
acknowledges  a  collective  effort  towards  freedom  of  thought.  The  prize  has  not  altered  Ms  Soler’s 

109 B. Soler, ‘Remarks during the 25th Anniversary Conference of the Sakharov Prize’, Strasbourg, 18 November 2013.  

48 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

personal  life,  but  as  an  activist,  she  has  gained  more  legitimacy  and  visibility  at  the  domestic  and 
international  levels.  Although  currently  there  is  no  direct  contact  with  the  Sakharov  Prize  laureate 
network, there is a lot of interest in being more involved in the future. In Cuba, the only country to 
have received it three times, the prize has had a significant impact, strengthening local human rights 
networks and helping bring different laureates around the same civic platform. 

3.9 

Nigeria, 2005: Hauwa Ibrahim 

Hauwa Ibrahim was awarded the Sakharov Prize for her ongoing commitment to human rights and 
the  rule  of  law  that  she  strove  to  uphold  as  a  lawyer  defending  the  poor,  powerless,  and  illiterate 
completely pro-bono in Sharia courts in northern Nigeria.  

Ms Ibrahim was born in a small, impoverished village in northern Nigeria in 1967. Influenced by her 
mother’s  conviction  that  education  was  the  only  way  out  of  poverty  and  determined  to  have  a  life 
that  was  different  from  most  girls  in  her  village,  she  managed  to  complete  secondary  school  and 
subsequently receive a university degree. Her professional career started in the prosecutor’s office in 
her state. As she developed further her professional skills and was increasingly entrusted with more 
difficult  cases,  she  decided  to  open  her  own  law  firm.  With  the  introduction  of  the  Sharia  law  in  a 
number of provinces in northern Nigeria in 1999, she increasingly took up cases of women sentenced 
to stoning or flogging for adultery and children sentenced to limb amputation for stealing. From 1999 
to 2008, Ms Ibrahim defended 157 such cases in Sharia courts, including those of Amina Lawal and 
Safiya Hussain, which attracted a lot of international attention. In addition to her legal practice, she 
has  carried  out  research  on  applications  of  Sharia  law  and  has  taught  the  subject  in  a  number  of 
academic institutions, in Nigeria and abroad. Since 2005, she was at different times, visiting professor 
at  Saint  Louis  University  School  of  Law  and  Stonehill  College,  a  world  fellow  at  Yale  University,  a 
Radcliffe  fellow,  and  a  fellow  at  both  the  Human  Rights  Programme  and  the  Islamic  Legal  Studies 
Programme at Harvard University.  

When the prize award was announced, Ms Ibrahim was in Yale working on her book Practicing Sharia 
Law:  Seven  Strategies  for  Achieving  Justice  in  Sharia  Courts.  She  was  amazed  at  the  troops  of 
cameramen that ‘landed’ in Yale to interview her, and was very pleased when the President of Yale 
made special mention of the prize during the university’s annual event. This sudden attention made 
her realise how important and powerful the prize could be110. This is when she decided, in her own 
words, ‘to become the spokesperson of the poor, the illiterate, and the marginalised’111. ‘This award 
tells  those  millions  of  women  and  children  in  northern  Nigeria,  who  are  poor,  powerless,  voiceless, 
and  illiterate  that  the  European  Parliament  does  not  just  hear  them  but  that  it  also  supports, 
encourages, and celebrates them’112. 

She  also  says  that  it  was  thanks  to  the  Sakharov  Prize  that  she  received  not  only  her  next 
appointment at Harvard but also university funding for publishing her book. Thanks to this money, 
she managed to distribute around 5 000 copies in Nigeria. It remains her ambition and hope to find 
additional money to translate the book into Arabic, so that it could reach those judges, lawyers and 
mullahs  who  do  not  read  English.  The  exposure  she  benefitted  from  during  her  stay  in  Harvard,  as 
well as access to resources, made her realise that her practical and hands-on strategy of working in a 
Sharia court may be of broader relevance for Islamic communities around the world. She defines this 

110 FRIDE telephone interview with Hauwa Ibrahim on 4 September 2013. 

111 European Parliament, ‘Past Sakharov winners speak out’, Interview with Hauwa Ibrahim, 30 January 2009, available at: 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=IM-PRESS&reference=20090106FCS45491&language=EN. 

112 European Parliament, ‘Acceptance speech of Hauwa Ibrahim at the European Parliament’, Debates, 14 December 2005. 


49
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
Policy Department DG External Policies 

broader  approach  as  that  of  dialogue.  She  is  strongly  convinced  that  the  question  of  Sharia  law 
should  be  dealt  with  in  dialogue  with  Islamic  authorities  through  improved  knowledge  of  the 
meaning and the basic principles of the Sharia. 

With her monetary reward, she has created an endowment that uses the annual interest (5%) to send 
children  to  school  in  northern  Nigeria,  as  she  strongly  believes  that  education  is  the  only  way  to 
combat  poverty  and  fundamentalism.  She  proudly  reports  to  have  helped  160  children  since  2008. 
Her strategy for doing that is modest but effective. She does not use intermediary organisations but 
works directly with mullahs and community leaders in the villages. She also never sends money but 
makes all the necessary purchases directly. Every year the budget is used to pay the so-called PTA fee 
of US$ 1 for those children who cannot pay it themselves, for buying chalk and pencils, and in those 
villages where there are no school buildings, for buying locally-produced foldable blackboards that 
can be used in open air. These very simple and inexpensive steps help ensure that children do not fall 
out of school and have the essentials for learning how to read and write. 

One of the signs of how her professional life changed after the Sakharov Prize is no doubt her fame. 
Even  though  she  still  goes  to  Nigeria  at  least  three  times  a  year,  she  only  goes  to  court  in  person 
when  other  lawyers  request  her  presence.  This  happens  when  the  cases  are  difficult  or  attract  so 
much public attention that a ‘heavyweight’ has to be brought in. This is in stark contrast to her early 
days as a lawyer. Ms Ibrahim recalls  how during the first five years of her lawyer practice she could 
never address a judge (always a man) directly but had to pass him notes. At the time of the interview 
with FRIDE in September 2013, her firm was dealing with 16 cases under the Sharia law. 

The news of the Sakharov Prize award was broadcasted widely in Nigeria and most importantly, it was 
translated  in  Hausa,  a  widely  spoken  local  language.  The  importance  of  Ms  Ibrahim’s  work  and  the 
debate around the issues she works on has been gradually sipping into society. Ms Ibrahim believes 
that  her  sustained  work  on  such  cases  and  especially  the  publicity  she  managed  to  attract  both 
domestically  and  internationally  and  the  public  debate  helped  transform  attitudes.  The  Sakharov 
Prize award was one of the crucial elements in this ongoing awareness raising campaign.  

It  is  not  only  her  own  standing  that  changed  with  the  prize;  the  issues  she  dealt  with  in  court 
gradually acquired new meaning. According to Ms Ibrahim, there has also been an important cultural 
and political shift in those provinces of Nigeria that apply the Sharia law. When it was first introduced 
in 1999, few people questioned the interpretation of Sharia that led to certain types of convictions. 
This has gradually changed. She reports that currently the number of convictions to death by stoning 
for adultery has dropped to almost zero. Even when such verdicts are passed, the governor, who is 
regularly  (re-)elected,  would  not  sign  them,  as  they  are  unpopular  with  the  public.  In  addition  to 
resonant  cases  of  stoning  for  adultery,  limb  amputation  for  stealing  is  increasingly  seen  as  a 
disproportionate punishment. As public awareness of corruption by government officials is growing, 
the hypocrisy of such a punishment that is only being applied to children from most underprivileged 
backgrounds is apparent to the public and widely discussed113. 

On a practical side, she thinks the EP could have a fund that supports flagship initiatives by some of 
its laureates. In her case, that could be not only the translation of her book into Arabic, but also an 
international  network  that  would  promote  inter-confessional  dialogue.  Extremist  organisations  that 
promote  intolerance  and  interpret  Sharia  in  ways  that  undermine  its  own  founding  principles  of 
equality and justice have become more vocal in Nigeria and around the world. These organisations, 
she argues, have to be taken on board and become part of a broader dialogue on common principles 

113 FRIDE telephone interview with Hauwa Ibrahim, op. cit. 

50 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

of  justice.  She  believes  that  alienating  such  organisations  will  only  strengthen  their  more  extremist 
positions, and suggests that her own experience in engaging the religious authorities in Nigeria could 
have  wider  relevance  for  establishing  such  dialogues114.  Sakharov  Prize  laureates  could  act  as 
spokespersons  on  different  issues,  while  its  network  could  become  a  catalyst  for  collaborations 
among different laureates on specific initiatives. 

3.10 

France, 2005: Reporters Without Borders 

Reporters  Without  Borders  (RWB)  was  awarded  the  Sakharov  Prize  in  2005,  along  with  the  Cuban 
protest  movement  Ladies  in  White  and  Nigerian  human  rights  lawyer  Hauwa  Ibrahim,  for  the 
organisation’s  contribution  to  freedom  of  expression  and  information,  especially  in  war-affected 
countries. 

Reporters Without Borders is a France-based international non-profit NGO. It defends and promotes 
freedom  of  information  and  freedom  of  the  press.  It  focuses  on  Internet  censorship  and  the  new 
media,  as  well  as  on  providing  material  and  aid  to  war  correspondents  and  journalists  working  in 
dangerous areas. 

RWB was nominated for the Sakharov Prize by the Alliance of Democrats and Liberals for Europe115). 
The organisation considered the award an important sign of recognition by the European Parliament 
and was proud to have been singled out116. 

Even  though  RWB  was  already  well-known,  the  Sakharov  Prize  helped  it  build  further  prestige 
internationally. Being  a Sakharov  laureate increased  the visibility of its campaigns  against countries 
that do not respect freedom of information. This was for example the case during the campaign for 
freedom of expression that the organisation launched during the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing. 

It  also  facilitated  greatly  the  organisation’s  access  to  different  European  institutions,  and  helped  it 
establish direct channels of communication with different MEPs. RWB feels that the prize has allowed 
it  to  put  more  pressure  on  the  member  states  represented  in  the  EP.  The  prize  has  given  the 
organisation more credibility and higher standing and has helped open more doors than in the past. 
Against  this  background,  RWB  laments  the  lack  of  coverage  of  the  Sakharov  Prize  by  the  French-
speaking media specifically. Certain personal rivalries and disagreements within French civil society 
led to a debate about whether the organisation was a worthy recipient after all. The fact that its then 
leader  Robert  Ménard  often  took  up  controversial  positions  in  public  debates  and  was  very 
outspoken fuelled the discords.  

During  his  acceptance  speech  at  the  European  Parliament117,  Mr  Ménard  cited  a  number  of  high-
profile cases that he thought represented certain bias, if not hypocrisy, given the amount of public 
and  political  support  given  to  some  cases  of  persecution  of  freedom  of  thought  at  the  expense  of 
other less high-profile or politically-controversial ones. He cited, for example, the kidnapping in 2005 

114 Ibid. 

115 ‘ALDE nominates Reporters Without Borders for Sakharov Prize as a tribute to journalists at risk’, Graham Watson MEP 

blog, available at: http://www.grahamwatsonmep.org/news/latest-news/156-alde-nominates-reporters-without-borders­
for-sakharov-prize-as-a-tribute-to-journalists-at-risk. 

116 FRIDE telephone interview with Olivier Basille on 16 September 2013. 

117 European Parliament, ‘Ladies, Ibrahim and Reporters joint Sakharov prize winners’, Focus, 27 June 2006, available at: 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+IM­
PRESS+20051017FCS01528+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN. 

51
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
Policy Department DG External Policies 

of Florence Aubenas118 in Iraq, saying that her story did not help attract attention to many more other 
journalists facing similar challenges around the world.  

In his acceptance speech, Mr Ménard thanked the European Parliament for the prize but underlined 
that  much  more  needs  to  be  done  in  terms  of  freedom  of  speech  around  the  world.  He  cited  in 
particular the fact that, at the time, ‘64 journalists (had) been killed in Iraq, twice as many that were 
killed  in  the  Vietnam  War’.  He  also  referred  to  Lebanon  with  its  then  ongoing  violence  against  and 
assassinations of prominent journalists. He also made reference to EP resolutions on Tunisia, urging 
the EU to follow through on the pledges made in those resolutions119. It is very important, he stressed, 
that  the  Sakharov  Prize  has  grown  into  such  high-profile  instrument,  yet  more  could  be  done  to 
ensure freedom of expression worldwide120. 

The  monetary  award,  which  in  this  case  was  shared  with  two  more  laureates,  was  used  to  support 
some of the organisation’s international operations.  

In  his  interview  with  FRIDE,  Mr  Olivier  Basille  from  RWB  suggested  that  the  prize  remains  isolated 
from  other  initiatives  on  freedom  of  expression  and  human  rights,  both  those  promoted  by  the 
European Union and by broader European civil society. He believes that its potential could be exerted 
more and that the European Parliament could be more strategic with regard to the prize. For one, the 
Sakharov  Prize  could  become  a  landmark  example  of  the  EP’s  commitment  to  human  rights.  He 
argued that the prize remains relatively unknown among the European public, so more effort should 
be put into publicising the Sakharov Prize and its achievements. 

Mr  Basille  has  further  shared  a  few  practical  suggestions,  such  as  establishing  an  operational 
relationship between European institutions and Sakharov Prize laureates. The laureates could serve as 
unique bridges between the EU and their home countries. Furthermore, the laureates could become 
goodwill ambassadors to try to help the cause of other laureates or human rights activists who face 
persecution  in  their  countries.  In  addition,  the  laureates  could  become  an  invaluable  source  of 
information  and  analysis  on  specific  issues  and  countries.  On  its  part,  RWB  could  contribute  with 
regular  monitoring  of  freedom  of  speech  around  the  world  as  well  as  strategic  analysis  on  these 
issues.  

On a more practical level, Mr Basille mentioned that freedom of mobility remains a big issue for many 
human rights activists. He suggested that the EP establish something like Sakharov visas to facilitate 
the  mobility  of  those  facing  threats  and  persecution.  More  ambitiously,  he  also  suggested  the 
possibility of instituting a rotating ‘co-presidency’ between the President of the European Parliament 
and  a  Sakharov  winner.  This  initiative  could  target  concrete  issues,  such  as  the  Anti-Counterfeiting 
Trade Agreement (ACTA), Internet neutrality, or Internet regulation. 

3.11 

Belarus, 2004: Belarus Association of Journalists 

The Belarusian Association of Journalists (BAJ) was awarded the Sakharov Prize for its commitment to 
freedom of expression and information in Belarus.  

118 Florence Aubenas is a French journalist. She was kidnapped in Iraq on 5 January 2005 and freed on 11 June 2005. Her 
kidnapping made the headlines in France in particular and media covered it extensively. 
119 On 10 November 2005, R. Ménard got a letter from the World Summit on the Information Society in which he learned that 
the Tunisian regime was denying him the right to enter the country to attend the conference. See Reporters Without 
Borders, ‘Robert Ménard, interdit d’entrée au SMSI à Tunis’, 10 November 2005, available at: http://fr.rsf.org/tunisie-robert­
menard-interdit-d-entree-au-10-11-2005,15572.html. 
120 European Parliament, 27 June 2006, op. cit. 

52 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

The  Belarusian  Association  of  Journalists  is  a  non-governmental,  non-profit  and  non-partisan 
association of media workers, which promotes freedom of expression and independent journalism in 
Belarus. It was founded in 1995, a year after Alexander Lukashenko became President of Belarus and 
started  his  campaign  against  independent  media.  BAJ  works  to  protect  the  civil,  social,  cultural, 
economic  and  professional  rights  of  its  members  and  to  create  the  necessary  conditions  for  a  free 
press, including journalists’ right to obtain and impart information without interference. BAJ has over 
1  000  members  who  work  in  several  media  and  publishing  companies,  some  of  which  are  state-
owned.  It  regularly  monitors  press  and  press  freedom  in  Belarus.  The  association  also  organises 
trainings to journalists. It works to increase public awareness of the right to freedom of information 
and  monitors  how  the  authorities  provide  access  to  information.  Zhanna  Litvina  is  its  founding 
president. 

Before founding BAJ in 1995, Ms Litvina had worked for Belarusian radio and television for 20 years. 
She  served  as  editor-in-chief  of  the  Belarusian  Youth  radio  station,  which  was  closed  down  by  the 
authorities in 1994. After that, she and her colleagues founded the independent Belarusian-language 
radio  station  Radio  101.2,  which  was  also  closed  down  by  the  authorities  in  1996.  She  was  for  five 
years  chief  of  the  Minsk  bureau  of  Radio  Liberty.  In  1997,  she  founded  Radio  Racyja,  which 
broadcasted programmes to Belarus from Poland121. 

According to Ms Litvina, the Sakharov Prize contributed to the recognition of the Belarus Association 
of Journalists internationally, though it had already cooperated with international human rights and 
journalists'  organisations  before.  In  2003,  it  received  the  Golden  Pen  of  Freedom  award  from  the 
World  Association  of  Newspapers.  ‘The  Sakharov  Prize  further  raised  our  authority’,  said  Ms  Litvina. 
The  money  was  spent  to  support  BAJ’s  organisational  development  and  to  establish  a  creative 
competition for journalists – ‘Free word’. ‘The award came very timely and helped to maintain BAJ in 
difficult times when we needed money to pay rent and salaries’, added Ms Litvina. 

Ms Litvina believes that the Sakharov Prize helped avoid threats to curb BAJ’s activities or even close 
it  down.  ‘The  Sakharov  Prize  was  a  message  to  the  authorities  [...]  At  the  same  time,  however,  the 
authorities  reacted  brutally  to  civil  society  becoming  more  active  in  Belarus  and  the  pressure  on 
ordinary members of BAJ has grown. This has been in line with the general policy of the state towards 
civil  activists  and  journalists.  Criminal  prosecutions  of  journalists  have  become  more  frequent.  It  is 
only  recently  that  the  authorities  have  stopped  the  criminal  prosecution  of  Andrzej  Poczobut, 
member of BAJ and correspondent of Polish Gazeta Wyborcza’. Mr Poczobut has been arrested several 
times. In 2011, he got a suspended three-year sentence for the defamation of President Lukashenko. 
From 2012 until very recently, he was under another investigation.  

In  March  2012,  Ms  Litvina,  together  with  several  other  journalists,  opposition  politicians  and  civic 
activists,  was  banned  from  leaving  the  country.  This  way,  Belarusian  authorities  responded  to  the 
extension of the EU visa ban for Belarusian officials and business entities supporting the regime.  

As  Ms  Litvina  said,  the  award  came  as  a  pleasant  and  important  surprise  for  the  association:  ‘The 
realisation of how it was important for civil society and journalists in Belarus came later. For us, it was 
important  that  Belarus  had  international  and  European  support  and  that  our  struggle  was  in 
partnership and cooperation’. 

121 Radio Racyja renewed its broadcasting in 2006 and today it broadcasts from Poland to Belarus, with an audience of 2.5 
million. 

53
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
Policy Department DG External Policies 

Ms Litvina said that the award was an important recognition of the difficult and dangerous work done 
by  Belarusian  journalists,  especially  at  such  a  difficult  period  for  Belarusian  journalism.  In  the  years 
following  the  presidential  campaign  of  2001,  25  newspapers  and  journals  were  closed  down  and 
many journalists faced criminal charges for criticising the president. Despite the conclusions reached 
in the Pourgourides report122 adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on 28 
April  2004,  Belarusian  authorities  were  not 
investigation  of  the 
disappearance of opposition politician and journalist Dmitri Zavadsky in 1999-2000, amongst others. 

interested 

impartial 

in  an 

There were no reactions to the prize from the state authorities. As Ms Litvina commented, ‘the tactic 
of  the  Belarusian  authorities  is  to  suppress  this  kind  of  information.  For  them,  our  award  was  not 
pleasant news, that's why they concealed it’. Among the official media, the first channel of Belarusian 
TV showed a story about the Sakharov Prize going to BAJ and added that the money from the award 
would be spent on establishing hostile radio stations around Belarus. 

The  Committee  to  Protect  Journalists,  an  international  press  freedom  organisation,  ranks  Belarus 
among  the  10  most  censored  countries  in  the  world.  Journalists  continue  to  be  repressed  and 
independent media are being closed down. On 19 December 2010, several BAJ members and other 
journalists were beaten and arrested during a rally against electoral fraud and many were sentenced 
for ‘mass  disorders’.  Offices of independent media were searched and their equipment confiscated, 
and some outlets had to close down or move their offices abroad. 

The  state  controls  the  biggest  distribution,  postal  and  typography  businesses.  In  2010,  Belarusian 
authorities  adopted  legislative  changes  to  increase  control  over  the  rapidly  growing  Internet.  Not 
only  professional  journalists  but  also  independent  bloggers  face  criminal  prosecution,  even  when 
they  are  not  posting  explicitly  political  content.  In  summer  2013,  a  worker  of  the  state-run  Minsk 
automobile factory was fired and sentenced to seven days in jail for posting on the Internet critical 
videos about the factory’s working days and crimes happening in his neighbourhood. 

Ms Litvina enlists many more problems facing free press in Belarus, including the government’s policy 
of economic discrimination of independent media and journalists, the lack of access to information, 
and  the  illegal  status  of  freelance  journalists.  She  also  highlights  how  opaque  and  abusive  of  their 
right  to  classify 
legislation  on  media  with 
international  standards  remains  a  top  priority  in  Belarus,  if  the  country  is  to  respect  freedom  of 
thought and of expression.  

information  public  authorities  are.  Harmonising 

Regarding  the  Sakharov  Prize  network,  Ms  Litvina  considers  it  important  for  the  network  to  speak 
with  a  single  and  firm  voice,  to  express  solidarity  and  defend  European  values.  BAJ  could  help  by 
disseminating  information  about  the  issues  raised  by  the  network.  In  post-Soviet  countries 
specifically, BAJ sees its role in advancing independent journalism and freedom of speech. BAJ hopes 
there  can  be  synergies  between  the  activities  of  the  Sakharov  Prize  network  and  other  initiatives 
aimed  at  the  region  such  as  the  EU's  Eastern  Partnership,  especially  the  Eastern  Partnership  Civil 
Society Forum, of which BAJ is member. 

122 Christos Pourgourides was a PACE special rapporteur on Belarus in 2004, who investigated the disappearances of 
opposition politicians. 

54 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

3.12 

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan and all the staff of the UN, 2003 

The Sakharov Prize was awarded to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan and all the staff of 
the  UN  in  recognition  of  the  organisation’s  contribution  to  peace,  human  rights  and  fundamental 
freedoms.  

In 2003, there was a blast at the United Nations headquarters in the Canal Hotel in Baghdad, Iraq, that 
took the lives of 22 UN staff. The prize was awarded in special memory of Sergio Vieira de Mello, the 
Secretary-General’s Special Envoy in Iraq, who died in the attack. Mr Vieira de Mello had worked for 
the United Nations for 34 years and was its third High Commissioner for Human Rights. He was also 
awarded posthumously the United Nations Award in the Field of Human Rights. The Sergio Vieira de 
Mello  Foundation  was  created  in  2007  to  honour  his  memory,  pursue  his  ideals  and  continue  his 
unfinished mission. 

As one of the survivors of the blast put it: ‘The bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad has had a 
huge impact on the UN and on the future of humanitarian action generally. It was a devastating and 
cathartic event. It was the UN's 11 September, changing forever the way it will view the world. In its 
wake, many in the international community feel that humanitarian action can no longer operate as it 
did  before’123.  The  blast  brought  to  the  fore  the  big  dilemmas  of  humanitarian  action:  neutrality, 
security  of  staff,  and  the  broader  aim  of  bolstering  multilateral  humanitarian  and  human  rights 
norms,  even  if  this  involves  a  restraint  on  the  national  interests  of  states.  In  this  context,  the  EP’s 
gesture of solidarity sent an important message.  

The  United  Nations  remains  the  symbol  of  post-Second  World  War  commitment  to  multilateralism 
and joint effort towards peace, security, social progress, and human rights. UN Secretary-General Kofi 
Annan, in particular, stood out for his commitment to human rights and the rule of law. He inspired 
and  oversaw  a  number  of  international  initiatives  that  not  only  had  a  huge  impact  on  the  UN’s 
activities but also changed the nature of international cooperation. Indeed, The Sakharov Prize was 
presented by President Cox as a sign of solidarity between the UN and the EU and its commitment to 
multilateralism. ‘Ours is a Union based on values of pluralist democracy, respect for the rule of law, 
the promotion of individual and minority rights, solidarity, sustainability, open economy and respect 
for cultural diversity […] This House strongly believes in the value and worth of the United Nations 
and its Charter, and in multilateralism’, emphasised Mr Cox during his opening remarks. On the same 
day,  the  European  Parliament  passed  a  resolution  to  strengthen  the  EU’s  political  and  financial 
support for the United Nations124. 

In  addition  to  his  peacebuilding  work,  Mr  Annan  pushed  forward  other  frontiers  in  international 
cooperation. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) adopted at the UN Millennium Summit in 
2000 were inspired by his report ‘We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the Twenty-First 
Century’. Not only did he push for global cooperation towards sustainable development, but he also 
helped transform approaches to development by promoting multi-stakeholder partnerships between 
public, private, and civic actors. During his two terms as UN Secretary-General, from 1997 to 2006, he 
worked  on  a  comprehensive  programme  of  reform  aimed  at  revitalising  the  UN  and  making  the 

123 G. Loescher, ‘“I lay trapped, hanging by my ruined legs”: Gil Loescher survived the suicide bomb that killed Sergio Vieira 

de Mello’, The Independent, 16 February 2004.  

124 European Parliament, ‘Report (A5-0480/2004) by Mr Laschet, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human 

Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, on the relations between the European Union and the United Nations’, 

[2003/2049(INI)], Debates, 29 January 2004, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=­
//EP//TEXT+CRE+20040129+ITEM-002+DOC+XML+V0//EN . 


55
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
Policy Department DG External Policies 

international system more effective. He also strengthened UN peacekeeping operations and pushed 
for  the  establishment  of  the  Peacebuilding  Commission  in  2005.  He  played  a  central  role  in 
establishing  the  inter-governmental  Human  Rights  Council,  as  well  as  in  the  creation  of  the  Global 
Fund  to  fight  AIDS,  Tuberculosis  and  Malaria.  One  of  his  landmark  initiatives,  the  ‘Global  Compact’, 
established the principles of corporate social responsibility and had a huge impact on international 
business. 

Since  leaving  the  United  Nations  in  2006,  Mr  Annan  has  remained  highly  active  in  international 
politics. He established the Kofi Annan Foundation, a non-profit organisation that works to promote 
better global governance. It supports Mr Annan in applying his unique experience and leadership in 
three key areas: peace and security, sustainable development, and human rights and the rule of law. 
The foundation provides analytical, communication, coordination and logistical resources that enable 
Mr  Annan  to  strengthen  the  capacity  of  local  and  international  actors  through  mediation,  political 
mentoring, advocacy, and advice. In early 2008, Mr Annan led the African Union’s Panel of Eminent 
African Personalities to help find a peaceful resolution to the post-election violence in Kenya. In 2012, 
he served as Joint Special Envoy of the UN and the Arab League to Syria. He is also the Chairman of 
the Africa Progress Panel and of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa. 

In  2001,  two  years  before  being  awarded  the  Sakharov  Prize,  Mr  Annan  and  the  UN  were  jointly 
awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for ‘their work for a better organised and more peaceful world’. Kofi 
Annan was particularly distinguished for ‘bringing new life to the organisation and for giving priority 
to human rights’. The Nobel Peace Prize committee singled out, in particular, the renewed emphasis 
on  human  rights  and  effective  response  to  such  new  challenges  as  HIV/AIDS  and  international 
terrorism,  as  well  as  Mr  Annan’s  ability  to  employ  effectively  the  UN’s  limited  resources  under 
changing and increasingly challenging global circumstances125. 

3.13 

Cuba, 2002: Oswaldo José Payá Sardiñas 

Oswaldo José Payá Sardiñas was awarded the Sakharov Prize for his brave dissent against the Castro 
regime and his commitment to democratic reform in Cuba. 

Mr Payá126 was one of Cuba’s most active and vocal dissidents, who dedicated his life to improve that 
of Cuban citizens, trying to bring democracy and freedom to Cuba. He cared little, if at all, about the 
personal  consequences  of  his  actions,  despite  receiving  several  death  threats  from  the  Cuban 
government over the course of his life. Mr Payá died at the age of 60 on 22 July 2012, in a car accident 
near the city of Bayamo, some 800 km east of Havana127. Mr Payá was born seven years before Ernesto 
‘Che’ Guevara and Fidel Castro declared the final triumph of the Cuban Revolution against Fulgencio 
Batista128 on 1 January 1959. According to Nilda Jerez, a close family friend, ‘Payá did not seem to take 
anything  seriously  as  a  child’129.  This  changed  radically  with  the  seizure  of  power  by  Castro’s 
revolutionaries  and  the  events  that  followed.  Because  of  their  ties  to  the  Catholic  Church  and  their 
disapproval of the communist ideology, Mr Payá’s family was stigmatised from the very beginning of 

125 ‘The Nobel Peace Prize 2001, United Nations, Kofi Annan’, Nobelprize.org, 12 October 2001, available at: 

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2001/press.html. 

126 Unless stated otherwise, opinions were expressed in FRIDE email interviews with Mr Payá’s widow, Ofelia Acevedo Maura, 

on September 2013. 

127 Y. Sánchez, ‘La disidencia cubana se queda huérfana’, El País, 23 July 2012, available at: 

http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2012/07/23/actualidad/1343024525_311717.html. 

128 See ‘Breve Historia de Cuba’, undated, available at: http://www.cubagob.cu/otras_info/historia.htm. 

129 See Movimiento Cristiano Liberación, ‘Anécdotas sobre Oswaldo Payá’, undated, available at: 

http://www.oswaldopaya.org/es/anecdotas-sobre-oswaldo-paya/. 


56 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

the  revolution.  The  early  days  of  the  regime  were  ‘days  of  terror’  for  his  family.  These  years  ‘would 
forever mark Payá and his family’, claims Regis Iglesias130. 

Mr Payá stood firm to his self-appointed compromise towards freedom and democracy for the Cuban 
people from a very young age. Already in primary school, he refused to be a member of the Pioneer’s 
Unit,  the  step  prior  to  joining  the  Union  of  Young  Communists131.  Mr  Payá’s  family  has  lived  under 
surveillance ever since. He was jailed at the age of 17 and sentenced to three years of forced labour 
on Isla de la Juventud (at the time Isla de los Pinos). ‘His openly critical behaviour towards the regime 
cost him his  freedom’, declares Mr Iglesias132. Far from shunning his cause, Mr Payá’s imprisonment 
fuelled his activism. In 1988, he founded the Christian Liberation Movement (CLM) and shepherded it 
until his death. This civil society organisation, which peacefully opposed the Cuban government, was 
aggressively persecuted by the regime, and many of its members faced detention and abuse. In 1998, 
he initiated the Varela Project, which sought free and responsible participation of all Cubans in the 
economic  and  political  life  of  their  country.  The  grassroots  Varela  Project  is  considered  by  some 
observers  as  one  of  the  greatest  achievements  of  Cuban  dissidence  to  date133.  Backed  by  the 
Constitution,  at  a  time  when  the  Cuban  opposition  movement  was  virtually  inexistent134,  Mr  Payá 
collected  25  404  signatures,  more  than  the  number  needed,  demanding  a  referendum  on 
fundamental  rights  and  civil  freedoms  in  Cuba.  The  government  ignored  his  petition  and  instead 
declared the socialist system irrevocable135. 

The Sakharov Prize was granted to Mr Payá, the first Cuban to receive this award, in October 2002, 10 
years before his death. The circumstances of his death remain highly disputed. The official version of 
the  Cuban  government  differs  substantially  from  that  of  his  family  and  other  dissidents136.  Harold 
Cepero, a fellow Cuban accompanying him, also died in the accident. The driver, Ángel Carromero, a 
Spanish politician of the right-wing Popular Party, reportedly lost control of the car and hit a tree. Mr 
Carromero  and  Jens  Aron  Modig,  President  of  Sweden’s  Young  Christian  Democrats,  survived  the 
accident.  Controversy  soon  arose,  as  many  reported  having  seen  a  car  run  into  Mr  Payá’s  vehicle.  
Some  believe  that  the  accident  was  orchestrated  by  the  Government  of  Raúl  Castro.  Government 
officials had often threatened Mr Payá, saying that he would not live to see the fall of the regime, if it 
ever materialised137. Mr Payá’s family feels that the EU and EP could have done more, by reacting to 
the numerous death threats the laureate received and helping an independent investigation into the 
car crash138. 

Mr Payá was at his aunt’s house when he received the news over the telephone that the European 
Parliament had awarded him the Sakharov Prize. ‘Friends both inside and outside of Cuba called first 

130 Regis Iglesias is spokesman for the Movimiento Cristiano de Liberación and manager of the Varela Project, two flagship 

movements of Cuba’s dissidence founded by Oswaldo Payá. He is also a former political prisoner. See ‘Perfil biográfico de 

Oswaldo Payá’ (undated), available at: http://www.solidaridadconcuba.com/oswaldo/bio/oswaldo_paya_biografia.htm. 

131 Ibid. 

132 Ibid. 

133 See ‘Movimiento Cristiano de Liberación’, undated, available at: http://www.oswaldopaya.org/es/movimeinto-cristiano­
liberacion/ ; and ‘Proyecto Varela’, undated, available at: http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/varela.htm. 

134 Ibid. 

135 Sánchez, 2012, op. cit.
 
136 D. Cave, ‘Oswaldo Payá, Cuban leader of petition drive for human rights, dies at 60’, The New York Times, 23 July 2012, 

available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/world/americas/oswaldo-paya-60-cuban-human-rights-fighter­
dies.html?_r=0. 

137 See ‘OP: Cuban human rights defender dies under mysterious circumstances’, Notes from the Cuban Exile Quarter, 22 July 

2012, available at: http://cubanexilequarter.blogspot.com.es/2012/07/oswaldo-paya-cuban-human-rights.html. 

138 R. M. Payá, ‘Remarks during the 25th Anniversary Conference of the Sakharov Prize’, Strasbourg, 18 November 2013. 


57
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
 
Policy Department DG External Policies 

and the media soon followed’, recalls Ofelia Acevedo, Mr Payá’s widow, who ‘did not even have time 
to cook that day because the phone did not stop ringing’. The European Parliament, acknowledging 
Mr Payá’s ‘enormous and unprecedented efforts’ towards change on the island, had for the first time 
given the prize to a Cuban. The following days were filled with profound happiness and joy. ‘At work; 
amongst neighbours; many let us feel their delight. Some were very discrete and others were more 
vocal  in  their  support,  depending  on  their  social  and  political  status  within  the  Cuban  regime’, 
explains  Ms  Acevedo.  A  common  sentiment  ‘spread  throughout  the  island  within  days’,  as  people 
started to realise they were not alone. The prize ‘sent the message that the world had not forgotten 
Cuba and that the people were not alone [...] Finally, solidarity had arrived’, says Ms Acevedo. 

The Cuban government responded immediately. The prize ‘offended and  disturbed’ Cuban officials 
profoundly. They ‘used every possible option within their reach – threatening signatories and laying 
off  sympathisers,  etc  –’  to  destroy  Cuba’s  ‘unified  opposition  project’,  which  found  its  maximum 
expression then, as it does today, in the Varela Project, explains Ms Acevedo. She recalls the efforts 
undertaken  by  Castro  to  infiltrate  regime  loyalists  disguised  as  dissidents,  and  exacerbate  existing 
rivalries, to break the unity and thus bring down the project from within. 

‘Oswaldo  Payá  could  never  have  dreamed  to  be  allowed  to  attend  the  award  ceremony’,  says  Ms 
Acevedo. Yet, in mid-December 2002, Mr Payá addressed the European Parliament. He dedicated the 
prize to ‘all Cubans’, as he believed that, in awarding the Sakharov Prize, Europe wished to transmit 
that Cubans, too, ‘are entitled to rights’. 

‘The  house  had  been  locked  from  the  outside  overnight  two  days  before  the  ceremony’,  recalls  Ms 
Acevedo.  ‘The  walls  were  plastered  with  posters  and  stickers  depicting  all  kinds  of  threats  and  two 
state  security  Ladas’139  were  parked  nearby.  ‘Our  kids,  still  quite  young  and  scared,  could  not 
understand what was going on and why they did that to our home’, cries Ms Acevedo. Mr Payá did 
not hesitate and publicly denounced what was happening.  

‘We went to bed completely exhausted that night’, continues Ms Acevedo, but we soon woke up to 
the sound of ‘strong, repeated knocks on the door’. Mr Payá rushed to open the door and found his 
sister, who told him he had been granted a travel permit. ‘He took a plane that same night’, says Ms 
Acevedo. ‘It was his only chance to speak out for the people of Cuba’, she adds. ‘The Sakharov Prize 
was to Oswaldo, as it was to everybody who fought alongside him, and for those within Cuba who 
were aware of this award, the international recognition of the Cuban fight for freedom, and as such, 
an acknowledgement of the fact that we live under a regime that does not recognise freedoms, nor 
the most basic of human rights’, underlines Ms Acevedo. Back in Cuba, the regime initiated an active 
repression, ‘incarcerating the leaders of the dissidence who had worked with the Varela Project, and 
the  entire  coordinating  council  of  the  CLM,  sentencing  them  to  many  years  in  prison’.  The  regime 
used ‘all means imaginable’ to destroy Mr Payá’s image and his projects. ‘But they never succeeded’, 
states Ms Acevedo. ‘The CLM, inspired by Oswaldo, resurfaced’.  

Oswaldo Payá ‘just wanted for Cubans to have their rights’. He donated the monetary reward to the 
branch of his movement located outside Cuba. 

Mr Paya's family now lives in the US. In September 2013, his wife and daughter travelled to Europe to 
meet some MEPs in the name of Mr Payá’s struggle for freedom and democracy in Cuba. In a FRIDE 
interview carried out during the same month, they stressed:  

139 The world ‘Ladas’ makes reference to the flagship Soviet carmaker. 

58 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

We, Oswaldo’s family, were and are profoundly proud of him. The Sakharov Prize filled our family with 
joy and has done so every day until today. It meant a lot to Oswaldo. It empowered him to tell the 
world about the yearning for civil rights and liberties of the Cuban people. Oswaldo Payá dedicated 
his entire life to the pursuit of freedom. 

3.14 

Israel and Palestine, 2001: Nurit Peled-Elhanan and Izzat Ghazzawi 

In 2001, along with Angolan Dom Zacarias Kamwenho, the Sakharov Prize was given to Israeli peace 
activist Nurit Peled-Elhanan and Palestinian writer and pacifist Izzat Ghazzawi, in recognition of their 
contribution to dialogue and understanding between their two peoples. 

Nurit Peled 

Nurit Peled is an Israeli Professor of Language and Education at Hebrew University, Jerusalem. She is 
well-known  for  her  struggle  for  the  creation  of  a  Palestinian  state  and  for  her  criticism  of  those 
Western  policies  that  foster  anti-Muslim  views.  Her  daughter  Snadar  was  killed  in  the  1997  Ben 
Yehuda  Street  suicide  attack  in  Jerusalem.  Nevertheless,  she  continued  with  her  peacebuilding 
activism, and her commitment to the promotion and defence of human rights was strengthened. Ms 
Peled is a member and co-founder of the Russell Tribunal140 for Palestine. Founded in March 2009, it 
aims at promoting peace and justice in the Middle East141. Ms Peled was a well-known human rights 
activist  before  she  was  awarded  the  Sakharov  Prize.  She  remains  engaged  in  the  Parent’s  Circle 
Families forum, a grassroots organisation of Palestinian and Israeli families who have lost immediate 
family members due to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict142. She is not involved in any other civil society 
projects, as she prefers inter-personal contacts to organisational work143. 

Her co-laureate and peace advocate Izzat Ghazzawi had a similar tragic experience, having lost a child 
of  his  own  in  1996.  The  two  laureates  therefore  represent  the  struggle  for  reconciliation  between 
Israeli and Palestinians. Nicole Fontaine, then President of the European Parliament, said that giving 
Ms Peled the Sakharov Prize was meant to express a ‘deep attachment to supporting all those who, 
through their daily acts, despite a difficult historical conjuncture and despite the pressure of events, 
are ceaselessly working for better relations between people’144. Attributing the Sakharov Prize to Ms 
Peled in 2001 was very significant. The second Intifada had started a year before, and the degree of 
violence  between  Israelis  and  Palestinians  made  it  then  hard  to  believe  that  there  could  be  peace 
between  the  two  peoples.  Ms  Peled  was  one  of  those  symbols  that  allowed  for  believing  that,  far 
beyond the peace talks and the need for political leaders to resume negotiations, there were citizens 
who were acting in the name of peace. 

Ms Peled does not feel that the Sakharov Prize received much attention in Israel. She argues that with 
the exception of a few media outlets (such as Haaretz) and human rights organisations that denounce 
human  rights  abuses  and  call  for  dialogue,  most  public  debate  is  not  about  peacebuilding  or 
reconciliation.  In  fact,  she  continues  to  feel  as  persona  non  grata  in  Israel  and  her  freedom  of 

140 The Russell Tribunal, inspired by the International War Crimes Tribunal, was founded in 1966 by Lord Bertrand Russell, 

Nobel laureate for literature, to investigate crimes committed in Vietnam. It was chaired by prominent personalities such as
 
Jean-Paul Sartre, Lelio Basso, and Simone de Beauvoir, among others.  

141 See Russell Tribunal on Palestine, available at: http://www.russelltribunalonpalestine.com/en/. 

142 See The Parents Circle, available at: http://www.theparentscircle.com/. 

143 FRIDE interview with Nurit Peled on 1 October 2013. 

144 European Parliament, ‘Speech by Mrs Nicole FONTAINE, President of the European Parliament,  

at the Sakharov Prize award ceremony’, 12 December 2001, available at: 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/former_ep_presidents/president-fontaine/speeches/en/sp0107.htm. 


59
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
Policy Department DG External Policies 

expression is often curtailed. She recognises nonetheless that there is a lot of interest in her activism 
in Europe, and being a Sakharov Prize laureate helps her interactions with human rights organisations 
and media. 

The  government’s  reaction  to  the  prize  was  highly  confrontational.  When  the  European  Parliament 
shortlisted  Ms  Peled,  an  ‘aggressive  lobby’,  including  the  Israeli  Embassy  and  the  Foreign  Ministry 
formed against her. The fact that the EP stood its ground convinced Ms Peled that it was important 
that she accept the Sakharov Prize145). 

Yet,  Ms  Peled’s  view  is  that  intra-European  disagreements  over  the  Israeli-Palestinian  conflict  are 
paralysing  European  action.  In  fact,  when  the  European  Commission  considered  the  idea  of 
boycotting Israeli products that came from Palestine in July 2012146, the European Parliament did not 
support  it  and  remained  divided  on  the  issue.  Given  the  difficulties  of  diplomatic  action,  it  is  even 
more  important  that  the  EP  puts  more  effort  into  promoting  bottom-up  driven  dialogue  and 
peacebuilding initiatives and helps improve the overall public debate on issues related to the conflict, 
in Europe as well as in Israel and Palestine. A change in public opinion is likely to have an impact on 
leadership and diplomatic relations. 

Izzat Ghazzawi 

Izzat Ghazzawi (1951-2003) was a prominent Palestinian writer147. He specialised in literature and was 
a professor of the subject at Birzeit University. His son, Ramy, was killed at the age of 16 in the yard of 
his school by the Israeli army while he was trying to help one of his wounded friends148. This painful 
event  occurred  at  the  beginning  of  the  Palestinian  Intifada  and  it  encouraged  Mr  Ghazzawi  to 
become  active  in  defending  the  rights  of  Palestinians.  He  was  imprisoned  several  times  by  Israeli 
authorities, including in 1989-91. Many of his writings dealt with the Palestinian suffering vis-à-vis the 
Israeli occupation. He was also a member of the Palestinian Council for Justice and Peace. Before the 
Sakharov Prize, he was awarded the International Prize for Freedom of Expression in Stavanger (1995).  

Mr Ghazzawi is remembered as a prolific and talented writer. He was well-known in Palestine as well 
as  in  the  Arab  world  before  he  obtained  the  Sakharov  Prize.  Mr  Ghazzawi  knew  how  to  translate 
people’s feelings and visions in a very poetic manner. One of his most famous novels, ‘Mount Nebo’, 
transposed  a  well-known  biblical  story  to  the  situation  of  contemporary  Palestinian  refugees.  The 
Sakharov  Prize  gave  him  further  international  recognition,  it  helped  promote  his  literary  work  and 
raise awareness about the suffering of Palestinians. Mr Ghazzawi was also one of those intellectuals 
who  believed  in  peaceful  dialogue.  He  co-published  a  book  with  Italian  photographer  Oliviero 
Toscani  and  Israeli  writer  Abraham  Yehoshua  that  dealt  with  relations  between  Israelis  and 
Palestinians and stressed the need for reconciliation.  

Yet,  because  of  his  pacifist  stand,  he  faced  suspicion  from  Palestinians  and  Israelis  alike.  In  fact,  he 
asked not to be photographed next to Ms Peled during the award ceremony in Strasbourg149. Despite 
his own commitment to reconciliation and dialogue between the two peoples, he was weary of the 
possible mediatic backlash that an appearance with an Israeli could unleash. Ms Peled points out the 

145 ‘Unsung Heroes’, Haaretz, 3 April 2003, available at: http://www.haaretz.com/unsung-heroes-1.14140 

146 ‘EU to block funding of entities in Israeli settlements’, The Financial Times, 16 July 2013, available at: 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/96304cdc-ee01-11e2-816e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2ggHVe1nf. 

147 See list of his main writings at: http://www.arabworldbooks.com/authors/izzat_ghazzawi.htm. 

148 See I. Ghazzawi, ‘To the Martyr Rami al-Ghazzawi. Eulogy to his son Rami’, Palestine-Israel Journal, available at: 

http://www.pij.org/details.php?id=881. 

149 FRIDE interview with Nurit Peled, op. cit. 


60 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

fact that Birzeit University in particular was very suspicious of Israelis and their possible presence on 
campus.  Mr  Ghazzawi  had  to  be  careful  not  to  undermine  his  standing  and  credibility  in  Palestine. 
Yet, Ms Peled says that the Sakharov Prize allowed her to develop good and cordial relations with Mr 
Ghazzawi. 

Unfortunately, Mr Ghazzawi did not live long enough to benefit fully from the Sakharov Prize. He died 
in 2003, two years after receiving the prize. His death brought a lot of tributes from Palestinian writers 
that  had  known  him  during  his  life150.  Mr  Ghazzawi  had  been  struggling  for  freedom  of  expression 
long before his son Ramy was killed, and he kept this commitment despite his personal tragedy. 

Case Study Israel and Palestine: against the grain 

The  case  of  Palestine  suggests  that  the  domestic  impact  of  the  Sakharov  Prize  can  be  rendered 
negligible and almost be lost from view when violence and tension are so serious that they consume 
the overwhelming attention of local media and civil society. This should not be understood as a call 
for not giving the prize to countries captured by armed conflict. Rather, the EP should be aware of the 
distinct challenges that such contexts represent. 

In 2001, when the Sakharov Prize was jointly awarded to an Israeli, Nurit Peled, and a Palestinian, Izzat 
Ghazzawi, Palestine was amidst the Second Intifada, one of the most violent moments in its history. In 
September 2000, following a visit by former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount, 
Palestinians took to the streets to criticise what they considered a ‘provocation’. In turn, Israel reacted 
by  sending 
its  police  and  security  forces  to  dissuade  Palestinians  from  continuing  their 
demonstrations. The resulting violence opened a new cycle of war between Israelis and Palestinians. 

Severe human rights abuses were committed by both sides. Israel detained more Palestinian political 
prisoners.  In  2002,  it  started  building  the  notorious  wall  around  the  West  Bank.  Illegal  Israeli 
settlements in Palestine expanded. Restrictions on the freedom of movement of Palestinians by the 
Israeli Defence Forces increased. The Palestinians own proto-state governance structures themselves 
became more opaque, corrupt and authoritarian. 

The prize was not reported in most media. Civil society did not react in any high-profile fashion either. 
Israeli laureate Ms Peled speaks bitterly of a huge gap between her country and the Western world, of 
which  Israel  believes  to  be  part,  and  of  how  peace  education  that  has  such  high  standing 
internationally remains a marginal issue in Israel. 

At the time of the award, such deep mutual suspicion existed between Palestinians and Israelis that a 
prize  celebrating  rapprochement  was  going  against  the  grain  of  local  opinions.  Mr  Ghazzawi  even 
asked not to be photographed next to Ms Peled during the award ceremony in Strasbourg. Yet, the 
two laureates agreed that he would talk on behalf of both, using first person plural in his speeches. 

The  Sakharov  award  effectively  promoted  the  role  of  civil  society  in  bottom-up  conflict  resolution. 
This  is  widely  recognised  to  be  important  and  admirable,  but  of  somewhat  limited  value  while  the 
high-politics  diplomacy  surrounding  the  crisis  remains  so  inauspicious,  and  the  role  of  the  EU  so 
limited. 

An  impressive  number  of  NGOs  are  active  in  Palestine.  A  number  of  organisations  and  youth 
movements  are  involved  in  reconciliation  and  peacebuilding  on  the  ground.  Yet  the  joint  Israeli-
Palestinian Sakharov Prize did not pave the way towards greater engagement between the EU and 

150 See for example Nidal Hamad’s tribute at: http://www.safsaf.org/06adab_arabi/izzat_06_nidal.htm. 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
                                                               
Policy Department DG External Policies 

such bridge-building initiatives between the two communities. 

The lesson from this award is that in contexts of acute violence, the EP and the EU should invest more 
into making sure that the positive value of the Sakharov Prize does not get drowned out. 

3.15 

Angola, 2001: Dom Zacarias Kamwenho 

Dom  Zacarias  Kamwenho  was  awarded  the  Sakharov  Prize  for  his  contribution  to  peace  and 
reconciliation in Angola. 

Zacarias  Kamwenho,  born  5  September  1934  in  Chimbundo  (Bailundo),  Huambo,  Angola,  is  an 
Angolan  archbishop  and  peace  activist.  In  2001,  he  acted  as  a  mediator  in  the  Angolan  civil  war, 
contributing  to  ending  the  conflict  that  lasted  for  over  25  years.  He  also  chaired  the  Episcopal 
Conference of Angola and São Tomé and Príncipe (CEAST) and the Ecumenical Committee for Peace 
in Angola (COIEPA), which was established in April 2000 and brings together the Catholic CEAST, the 
Angolan  Evangelical  Alliance  (AEA)  and  the  Council  of  Christian  Churches  in  Angola  (CICA).  He  was 
made  bishop  in  1974  and  in  1997,  he  became  the  Archbishop  of  Lubango.  On  6  September  2009, 
after having turned 75 years old, he was awarded the title of Archbishop Emeritus of Lubango. 

Dom Zacarias was the first clergyman, the second Portuguese-speaking (after Xanana Gusmão) and 
the second African (after Nelson Mandela) to receive the Sakharov Prize. Dom Zacarias could hardly 
believe it when he received a call from MEP José Ribeiro e Castro, who had put forward his candidacy, 
informing him that he had been awarded the 2001 EP Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought. He was 
‘perplexed  and  confused’151.  At  the  time,  he  was  attending  to  some  personal  health  problems  in 
Verona,  Italy,  at  the  hospital  of  the  Missionários  Pobres  Servos  da  Divina  Providência  (Poor  Servants 
Missionaries  of  the  Divine  Providence).  Upon  hearing  the  news,  the  religious  community  at  the 
missionaries’ residence later that evening drank a toast on his behalf, which also ‘surprised’ him. An 
endless number of telephone calls and congratulatory messages followed, and Dom Zacarias began 
to realise the great importance of the prize and the responsibility it entailed. For Dom Zacarias, this 
prize  represented  an  acknowledgment  from  the  international  community  of  the  efforts  of  the 
Catholic  Church  and  other  Christian  denominations  that  are  constantly  fighting  to  bring  an  end  to 
war and promote peaceful dialogue between conflicting parties. Among these is the COIEPA, which 
Dom Zacarias promoted, supported and presided, whilst also chairing CEAST. For Dom Zacarias, the 
prize was also a question of ‘national responsibility’. 

On  12  December  2001,  he  was  in  Strasbourg  for  the  award  ceremony.  He  remembers  being  the 
laureate with the largest number of supporters present, mainly Angolans who had travelled from all 
over  Angola  and  others  who  were  based  in  Portugal.  From  Angola,  in  particular,  the  singer  Raúl 
Indipwo, who travelled to France together with his band and his guitar, was authorised to sing in the 
building;  one  of  his  songs  said  ‘I  am  going  to  take  you  [the  prize]  with  me’.  From  Portugal,  among  
others,  Maria  de  Jesus  Barroso  Soares,  the  wife  of  former  President  Mário  Soares  and  then  Socialist 
MEP, who also supported Dom Zacarias’ candidacy, attended.  

At  home,  the  Angolan  government  and  the  political  elite  viewed  the  news  positively.  The  Angolan 
Ambassador  to  Belgium,  and  Fragata  de  Morais,  from  the  Popular  Movement  for  the  Liberation  of 
Angola  (MPLA),  were  present  at  the  ceremony.  President  Xanana  Gusmão,  the  first  Portuguese­

151 Unless stated otherwise, Dom Zacarias’ opinions cited here are based on FRIDE telephone and email interviews carried 
out in September 2013. 

62 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

speaking  to  have  received  the  prize,  congratulated  Dom  Zacarias  effusively  during  a  meeting  in 
Brussels. He also received congratulatory messages from the Angolan President of the Republic, José 
Eduardo  dos  Santos,  from  the  Angolan  Ambassadors  to  Portugal,  Italy,  Russia,  and  Israel,  as  well  as 
other  political  entities,  and  even  from  Jonas  Savimbi,  leader  of  the  União  Nacional  para  a 
Independência  Total  de  Angola,  UNITA  (National  Union  for  the  Total  Independence  of  Angola),  the 
second-largest  political  party  in  Angola  and  one  of  the  main  conflicting  parties  in  the  civil  war. 
Founded  in  1966,  UNITA  fought  alongside  the  MPLA  in  the  Angolan  War  for  Independence  (1961– 
1975) and then against the MPLA in the ensuing civil war (1975–2002). Dom Zacarias believes that the 
Sakharov  Prize  helped  to  increase  pressure  for  ending  the  conflict  peacefully.  It  was  no  longer 
possible (if ever) for those who wished to end war with war to justify their means.  

On  4  April  2002,  the  Day  of  Peace,  when  MPLA  and  UNITA  military  commanders  signed  a 
Memorandum  of  Understanding  as  an  addendum  to  the  Lusaka  Protocol  in  Luena  that  brought  an  
end  to  the  conflict,  Dom  Zacarias  recalls  with  gratitude  and  emotion  when  MPLA  militant  André 
Mingas  sang  a  peace  song,  which  he  dedicated  to  Dom  Zacarias’  vital  work  as  a  peace-builder, 
wishing  him  a  rapid  recovery  from  his  health  problems.  The  news  about  the  prize  was  widely 
published and broadcasted in Angola and Portugal, in particular, even though few negative remarks 
from  critics  were  voiced  as  well.  On  12  December  2001,  Angola  woke  up  with  the  news  that  an 
Angolan,  born  in  Bailundo,  was  Sakharov  prize-winner.  According  to  a  local  account,  the  whole 
Luanda  stopped  to  follow  the  news  of  the  award-winning  ceremony.  Still  today,  sometimes  Dom 
Zacarias  is  mentioned  by  the  Angolan  press  during  reports  about  EP  events.  Since  then,  many 
intellectuals  have  taken  an  interest  in  Andrei  Sakharov,  his  life  and  his  cause.  There  is  also  greater 
interest in following the activities of the European Parliament.  

The prize helped increase support for the work of Dom Zacarias by other activists and organisations, 
among them Open Society, as well as several MEPs, in particular from the Italian Popular Party, who 
invited him to their annual meeting in Rimini. The prize also helped to disseminate and expand the 
outreach  of  his  cause.  For  example,  he  was  able  to  build  a  primary  school  (named  after  him)  in  his 
town of Chimbundo – the main sponsors of this project wanted to disseminate the news that a 2001 
Sakharov  prize  co-winner  had  originated  from  that  region,  and  that  human  rights  and  freedom  of 
thought are important values that Europe continues to protect and promote throughout the world. 

Human  rights  and  freedom  in  Angola  have  improved  since  the  prize  award,  yet  in  Dom  Zacarias’ 
opinion, there is still a long way to go. There are still many pending challenges to address, which are 
deeply-rooted  and  stem,  in  part,  from  the  legacy  of  war,  such  as  corruption  and  the  lack  of  ethical 
values. Nowadays, Dom Zacarias continues to work hard to improve the lives of those least favoured 
and  to  uphold  the  rights  of  man  in  Angola  and  abroad.  His  day-to-day  life  has  not  changed  much. 
There is always work to do and someone to help. For Dom Zacarias, ‘there is no retirement for those 
who  serve  the  Church.  The  mission  continues.  One  has  to  serve  until  the  end’.  He  will  continue  his 
mission of ‘spreading the Gospels of Peace and Freedom’. 

Dom Zacarias is a firm believer that through joint efforts it is easier to make a difference in the world. 
Immediately after receiving the prize, during a meeting with other laureates, he expressed his wish to 
remain  in  contact  and  he  did,  for  a  while,  with  Cuban  Oswaldo  José  Payá  Sardiñas  and  a  couple  of 
others.  But  with  time  he  lost  contact.  He  would  be  glad  to  participate  in  the  EP  Sakharov  Prize 
network,  especially  now  that,  as  Archbishop  Emeritus,  he  can  develop  his  own  programmes  in 
addition to those of the Archdiocese of Lubango. His message in view of the deteriorating situation of 
human rights in many parts of the world is that by bringing together and amplifying many different 
voices that ask for peace and justice, the chances of success are increased greatly. 

63
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy Department DG External Policies 

3.16 

Spain, 2000: ¡Basta Ya! 

The civic movement ¡Basta Ya! (Enough is Enough) was awarded the Sakharov Prize for its advocacy 
against terrorism and political violence in Spain.  

In 1997, Miguel Ángel Blanco, a member of Ermua's town council for the Spanish right-wing Popular 
Party,  was  kidnapped  and  brutally  murdered  by  ETA152.  Public  unrest  and  civil  resistance  against 
terrorism, violence and oppression unleashed by this crime (referred to as the ‘Ermua spirit’) fostered 
the  establishment  of  Foro  Ermua  (Ermua  Forum).  It  aimed  at  fighting  against  ETA  violence  and 
promoting  individual  and  social  freedoms  in  the  Basque  Country.  While  earlier  organisations 
promoted silent, passive resistance against terrorism, Foro Ermua, and subsequently ¡Basta Ya!, called 
for  peaceful  but  active  and  visible  forms  of  civil  resistance.  This  was,  they  argued,  the  only  way  to 
defeat oppression and oblivion in their society that helped perpetrate the crimes. 

Inspired by Foro Ermua, ¡Basta Ya! was created in 1999 by a group of intellectuals, activists and other 
civil  society  representatives  who  joined  forces  to  create  a  broader  platform,  encompassing  several 
ideologies  and  political  parties.  Their  central  argument  was  that  ETA  was  not  just  an  isolated 
phenomenon, and that it flourished in a political climate of intolerance to which the Basque Country 
authorities contributed with their nationalist rhetoric and policies, as Fernando Savater, co-founder of 
¡Basta Ya!, underlined during his Sakharov Prize acceptance speech in 2000. 

According  to  Carlos  Martínez  Gorriarán153,  co-founder  and  former  member  of  Basta  Yá!,  the  shift 
towards  anti-nationalism  helped  mobilise  a  significant  part  of  the  non-nationalist  political  and 
intellectual circles in the Basque Country and in exile around the anti-terrorist cause. When discussing 
what  was  distinct  about  ¡Basta  Ya!,  Iñaki  Ezkerra,  co-founder  and  former  president  of  Foro  Ermua, 
mentions  the  opposition  to  all  forms  of  nationalism,  as  well  as  its  non-violent,  active  attitude  and 
visibility.  The  movement  reached  unprecedented  levels  of  support  across  the  country  in  1999  and 
2000.  ¡Basta  Ya!  attracted  a  wide  range  of  intellectuals  among  its  prominent  founders  such  as  Jon 
Juaristi, Maite Pagazaurtundua, Arcadi Espada, Carmen Iglesias, Javier Urquizu, Agustín Ibarrola, María 
San  Gil,  Rosa  Díez,  Fernando  Savater,  Iñaki  Ezkerra  and  Carlos  Martínez  Gorriarán.  All  of  them  were 
part of the constitutionalist, non-nationalist bloc of Basque civil society. 

According  to  Mr  Martínez  Gorriarán,  the  recognition  of  ¡Basta  Ya!’s  activities  by  the  European 
Parliament  through  the  Sakharov  Prize  was  politically  controversial.  With  the  prize,  the  European 
Parliament  and,  in  broader  terms,  the  European  Union  acknowledged  that  within  its  own  borders, 
European  citizens  suffered  limitations  on  basic  freedoms  in  their  daily  lives.  The  prize  placed  the 
spotlight on this oppression, and moved the Basque issue from a local debate to the European public 
sphere. Often misrepresented outside Spain as a minor nationalist fight of rural people seeking self-
determination,  the  political  situation  in  the  Basque  Country  began  to  be  discussed  not  only  as  a 
Spanish,  but  also  as  a  European  problem.  Common  comparisons  of  the  Ulster  in  Ireland  with  the 
Basque  Country  as  non-resolved  conflicts  in  Western  Europe  were  gradually  dismissed.  The  Basque 
issue was recognised as unique.  

Officially, the Basque autonomous government and the centre-right Basque Nationalist Party PNV-EA 
showed indifference to the prize award. Other organisations supporting ETA’s armed activity, notably 
its own political wing, Herri Batasuna (Popular Unity) fiercely attacked the EU for taking sides in what 

152 Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (Basque Homeland and Freedom). 

153 The opinions of Mr Martínez Gorriarán and Mr Ezkerra are quoted from FRIDE interviews on 26 and 27 August 2013, 

respectively.  


64 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

they  referred  to  as  ‘the  conflict’.  According  to  those  organisations,  all  victims  of  the  ‘conflict’  were 
equal  and  should  be  equally  respected.  They  refused  to  recognise  any  difference  between  those 
killed  by  ETA,  on  the  one  hand,  and  ETA  members,  the  so-called  ‘political  prisoners’,  who  were 
tortured  or  killed  during  illegal  paramilitary  campaigns  in  the  1970s  and  1980s.  Therefore,  the 
Sakharov Prize created a divide between the constitutional and nationalist blocs. Some of the more 
radical  nationalist  politicians  stated  that  the  European  Parliament’s  awards  were  a  complot  by  the 
Spanish government and certain EU officials. This position was contested by the Spanish government, 
which repeatedly proclaimed its support of ¡Basta Ya!’s aspirations but denied influencing in any way 
the prize nomination process. 

The Sakharov Prize not only gave international visibility to the situation in the Basque Country, but 
above all, it became a token of recognition and prestige. Mr Martínez Gorriarán highlights that, for the 
first  time,  a  Basque  organisation  was  recognised  for  its  work.  It  was  also  the  first  time  that  an 
organisation  from  an  EU-country  was  awarded  the  prize.  Activists  and  members  of  ¡Basta  Ya! 
perceived  the  award  as  the  ultimate  recognition  of  and  support  to  their  work  in  the  fight  against 
terrorism and intolerance. Other Basque organisations with similar directions of work that welcomed 
the prize where Foro el Salvador (Salvador Forum), Gesto por la Paz (Gesture for Peace), Jóvenes por la 
Paz  (The  Youth  for  Peace),  Denon  Artean  and  the  Association  of  Victims  of  Terrorism.  International 
human rights organisations that had not been particularly vocal about Basque terrorism before the 
prize finally called for international recognition and acknowledged the seriousness of ¡Basta Ya!’s and 
other organisations’ work, according to Mr Ezkerra. 

The prize also presented an opportunity for the movement’s representatives to interact directly with 
European  institutions  and  politicians.  The  reception  in  Strasburg  was  ‘highly  emotional’,  says  Mr 
Martínez  Gorriarán.  There,  after  Mr  Savater’s  acceptance  speech,  ¡Basta  Ya!’s  delegation,  formed  by 
more  than  40  people,  had  the  possibility  to  meet  all  political  groups  present  in  the  European 
Parliament,  discuss  their  position  and  views  about  the  Basque  political  situation  and  express  their 
feelings  of  gratitude  to  the  plenary  and  to  the  President.  According  to  Mr  Martínez  Gorriarán,  the 
funds  granted  along  with  the  prize  were  used  to  foster  promotion  activities  and  conduct  protests 
against the political situation in the Basque Country, but also for other organisational costs. 

¡Basta  Ya!’s  nature  has  changed  over  the  years,  as  the  social  and  political  situation  in  the  Basque 
Country and Spain evolved. In 2007, the so-called ‘Plataforma Pro’ was conceived by some members 
of ¡Basta Ya!. It led to the creation, in September 2007, of Unión, Progreso y Democracia (UPyD, Union, 
Progress and Democracy), a social-liberal party represented in the national Spanish Congress. For Mr 
Martínez  Gorriarán,  these  changes  do  not  mean  that  ¡Basta  Ya!’s  spirit  and  ideals  are  no  longer 
present; the cause for human rights is a never-ending one, and ¡Basta Ya!’s reasons to fight are still 
valid for others. 

Members of the movement attribute high value to the Sakharov Prize network, and would like to see 
it  strengthened.  They  see  it  as  a  forum  for  discussion  and  exchange  on  human  rights.  It  is  stressed 
that the EU’s nature as a stronghold of democracy and human rights in the world has to be preserved, 
and the Sakharov Prize is one of the best ambassadors for this purpose. 

3.17 

East Timor, 1999: José Alexandre ‘Xanana’ Gusmão 

José Alexandre ‘Xanana’ Gusmão was awarded the Sakharov Prize for his struggle for East Timor’s self-
determination  and  commitment  to  his  country’s  reconstruction  after  it  became  independent  from 
Indonesia as Timor-Leste in 2002.  

Kay  Rala  Xanana  Gusmão  (20  June  1946,  Manatulo,  East  Timor),  born  José  Alexandre  Gusmão,  is  a 
former guerrilla fighter, a poet and a symbol of resistance in his country. Xanana Gusmão received the 

65
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy Department DG External Policies 

prestigious  Sakharov  Prize  in  1999  for  his  role  in  the  independence  struggle  of  East  Timor  from 
Indonesia154). He was also awarded the Sydney Peace Prize (2000), the North-South Prize, North-South 
Observatory  (European  Union)  (2002),  the  UNESCO  Félix  Houphouët-Boigny  Peace  Prize  (2002),  to 
name just a few155. On 14 April 2002, three years after he was awarded the Sakharov Prize, he became 
the President of Timor-Leste, with an overwhelming 83% of the votes156. He served as President of the 
Republic until the end of his term in May 2007. He is founder of the National Congress for Timorese 
Reconstruction  (Conselho  Nacional  de  Reconstrução  de  Timor),  and  currently  occupies  the  post  of 
Prime Minister. 

East Timor received independence from Portugal in 1975, yet as a result of the Indonesian invasion in 
December  1975,  it  was  not  until  May  2002  that  the  country  became  independent  as  Timor-Leste. 
Since 1975, Mr Gusmão was active in the Marxist Revolutionary Front for East Timor's Independence 
(Frente Revolucionária de Timor-Leste Independente, FRETILIN)157 and became its elected leader in 1981. 
In 1988, Mr Gusmão broke away from FRETILIN and created a wider resistance coalition – the National 
Council of Maubere Resistance (CNRM). Ten years later, in 1998, it turned into CNRT (National Council 
of Timorese Resistance) and Mr Gusmão was appointed its leader and president. Xanana Gusmão was 
successful in initiating formal negotiations with the Indonesian Armed Forces (ABRI/TNI), as well as in 
building broad coalitions under the Policy of National Unity. He also became a prime target for the 
Indonesian government, which arrested him in November 1992 and sentenced him without fair trial 
to life imprisonment. His sentence was later changed to 20 years, and he was put under house arrest 
in  1999.  The  Sakharov  Prize  came  at  a  crucial  moment  when  international  pressure  on  Indonesian 
President Habibie to allow for East Timor’s self-determination was mounting.  

On 7 September 1999, Xanana Gusmão was released from house arrest in Salemba (Central Jakarta). 
‘As  a  free  man,  I  promise  to  do  everything  in  my  power  to  bring  peace  to  East  Timor  and  my 
people’158, were the first words he pronounced after having been freed159. He is often identified as the 
‘Mandela  of  Timor’  because,  as  the  South  African  leader  Nelson  Mandela,  he  also  encouraged 
reconciliation  rather  than  retribution  as  the  best  way  of  ‘healing  the  country's  wounds’.  Then  EP 
President Nicole Fontaine called him ‘a spokesman for peace, justice and freedom for his country’160. 

His struggle continued as he returned to East Timor, this time with the aim of rebuilding the country 
almost from scratch. Indonesian forces responded to the referendum for independence, held in East 
Timor on 30 August 1999 and in which 78.5 % of the East Timorese voted ‘yes’, by destroying 80% of 

154 ‘The European Parliament awards human rights prize to Gusmao’, Japan Economic Newswire KYODO English, 16 December 

1999; ‘The European Parliament honors East Timor's Gusmao’, Reuters News LBA, 29 October 1999; European Parliament, 

‘Timor Oriental necesita apoyo no solo financiero’, Boletín informativo, Diciembre 1999-Enero 2000, Año XII, número 10. 

155 Government of Timor-Leste, ‘Prime Minister’s biography’, available at: http://timor-leste.gov.tl/?p=3&lang=en. 

http://www.easttimorgovernment.com/government.htm. 

156 J. García, ‘Nace el primer país del siglo XXI’, El País, 19 May 2002, available at: 

http://elpais.com/diario/2002/04/16/internacional/1018908019_850215.html. 

157 At the beginning FRETILIN was a resistance movement that after independence turned into a leftist political party in East 

Timor. 

158 European Parliament, ‘Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought’, Brochure, 2004, p. 16, available at: 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/comparl/afet/droi/sakharov/sach2004_en.pdf. 

159 In fact, when Xanana Gusmão came back from house arrest, he started talks with anti-separatist militia leaders in order to 

unite the country. 

160 Speech given by Xanana Gusmão in Strasbourg on 15 December 1999. See ‘Alexander Gusmao receives the prize 

awarded by the EP’, Agence Europe AGEU, 16 December 1999. 


66 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
 
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

the country’s buildings  and infrastructure  and killing an estimated 1 000 civilians161. In this context, 
the Sakharov Prize not only meant recognition of East Timor’s struggle for independence, but it was 
also a crucial sign of support for its future.  

In his acceptance speech at the European Parliament, Mr Gusmão said he felt ‘very happy to receive 
the  prize  awarded  by  those  elected  by  European  citizens’,  of  this  Europe  ‘that,  like  us,  has  known 
genocide and courage’162. He was proud of ‘the rare opportunity of seeing and walking through the 
corridors and halls of the seat of democratic power in Europe’163. He emphasised, ‘This is a symbol of 
the  struggle  of  a  people  that  always  believed  in  democracy  and  human  rights.  I  just  represent  this 
struggle’164. But first and foremost, he asked for international support to his newly independent state. 
Mr Gusmão highlighted, ‘We are in a crucial phase, and we feel very fragile, very weak as preparing 
ourselves for an independence that represents a new life for our people’165. There was an urgent need 
not only for economic and financial support from the EU but also for social, administrative, political 
and above all for human and psychological help. ‘There will be no development without democracy’, 
he underlined166. 

Mr  Gusmão  received  particularly  warm  support  from  Portuguese  Prime  Minister  Antonio  Guterres, 
who underlined that ‘the European Union feels great solidarity with the Timorese people and all their 
concerns’  and  that  a  new  state  with new  institutions  as  well  as  successful  economic  reconstruction 
‘will ensure a democratic state that will be able to contribute to peace in the region’167. Mr Gusmão 
was the first Portuguese-speaking laureate to receive the Sakharov Prize. Timor-Leste’s relations with 
the EU and its member states remain active. The EU has collaborated and invested (economically) in 
Timor-Leste  to  support  the  country  on  its  way  to  achieve  a  stable  democracy  and  sustainable 
development168.  As  Mr  Gusmão  underlined  in  a  recent  interview,  ‘As  Timor-Leste  was  a  colony  of 
Portugal for over 400 years, our nation’s history, heritage and culture will be forever intertwined with 
Portugal and Europe’169. 

Fourteen  years  have  passed  since  the  East  Timorese  leader  was  released  from  house  arrest  in 
Indonesia and since he received the Sakharov award. In a recent interview170, Mr Gusmão highlighted 
the  importance  of  the  prize  by  saying  that  it  provided  international  legitimacy  to  the  Timor-Leste 
cause and sent a positive message of hope to its population. The prize was given in a critical time in 
the history of a country that had been colonised for over 400 years and occupied for more than 20. It 
came at a crucial time when the people finally became ‘masters of their fate’. It was very well-received 
by society. 

161 Freedom House, ‘East Timor 2013’, Freedom in the World 2013, available at: 

http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2013/east-timor-0. 

162 Agence Europe AGEU, 16 December 1999. 

163 Ibid. 

164 Ibid.; See ‘Resistance leader accepts Sakharov prize in name of Timorese people’, BBC Monitoring Service: Asia-Pacific
 
BBCFE, 17 December 1999. 

165 Agence Europe AGEU, 16 December 1999. 

166 Ibid. 

167 ‘East Timor's Gusmao gets EU support, but no fresh aid’, AFP, 23 March 2000. 

168 Since 2000, Timor-Leste has received a total of EUR 337 million in assistance from the EU. See The European Union, 

External Action, ‘EU Relations with Timor-Leste’, available at: http://www.eeas.europa.eu/timor_leste/index_en.htm,
 
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-262_en.htm ; See also ‘Country Strategy Paper and National Indicative 

Programme (Timor-Leste/European Union), period 2008-2013’, available at: 

http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/scanned_tl_csp10_en.pdf. 

169 FRIDE email interview with Xanana Gusmão on 26 September 2013. 

170 Ibid. 


67
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
 
 
 
Policy Department DG External Policies 

Prime  Minister  Gusmão  believes  that  an  instrument  like  the  Sakharov  Prize  can  be  particularly 
effective  in  denouncing  infringements  on  the  freedom  of  expression.  He  also  believes  that  it  is  
important  to  strengthen  the  communication  between  old  and  new  laureates,  and  between  the 
laureates and the European Parliament171. 

3.18 

Kosovo, 1998: Ibrahim Rugova 

Ibrahim  Rugova  was  awarded  the  Sakharov  Prize  for  his  contribution  to  Kosovo’s  struggle  for  self-
determination and the promotion of peaceful means of resistance.  

Mr  Rugova,  often  referred  to  as  the  ‘Father  of  the  Nation’  or  the  ‘Gandhi  of  the  Balkans’,  was  a 
prominent  Kosovo  political  leader,  scholar  and  writer,  posthumously  declared  a  ‘Hero  of  Kosovo’. 
Throughout the 1970s, Mr Rugova was active as a journalist and editor-in-chief of student magazines 
and academic periodicals. As a response to then President Slobodan Milošević’s policies, in 1989 Mr 
Rugova and a number of other activists set up the Democratic League of Kosovo Party (LDK), of which 
he became leader. After unofficial elections on 24 May 1992, Mr Rugova became the first President of 
the  self-proclaimed  Republic  of  Kosova.  Even  though  he  had  to  go  underground  as  the  conflict 
escalated,  Mr  Rugova  remained  committed  to  his  cause  of  promoting  Kosovo’s  self-determination 
through  non-violent  means.  In  March  2002,  he  was  elected  again  as  the  first  post-war  President  of 
Kosovo. He died of cancer on 21 January 2006. 

In  the  early  1990s,  as  part  of  his  strategy  of  non-violent  resistance,  Mr  Rugova  succeeded  in 
channelling traditional forms of political and social affiliation into a non-violent state-making effort. 
During  his  first  ‘unofficial’  presidency,  Mr  Rugova  worked  to  ensure  the  viability  of  the  newly-
proclaimed  republic,  despite  pressure  and  discrimination  from  Belgrade.  He  helped  create  a  wide 
encompassing and impressively articulated educational system that, according to some sources, was 
organised  in  private  houses  and  could  reach  85%  of  the  population.  He  also  built  administrative, 
medical and media structures for ethnic Albanians. A comprehensive mechanism of self-taxation was 
put  in  place.  A  large  part  of  the  resources  for  maintaining  the  parallel  state  came  from  the  big 
Kosovo-Albanian diaspora: workers abroad would voluntarily contribute 3% of their income through 
a  dense  net  of  informal  channels,  despite  controls  by  the  central  authorities  and  the  international 
embargo  on  Yugoslavia.  Mr  Rugova  expanded  the  parallel  system,  establishing  structures  for  tax 
collection inside Kosovo as well. 

The  approach  advocated  by  Mr  Rugova  was  based  on  non-violent  resistance  and  peaceful  self­
organisation.  He  strongly  believed  that  sustainable  self-determination  for  Kosovo  was  only 
achievable  through  dialogue.  This  strategy,  though  highly  successful  in  the  early  days  after  the 
proclamation of the Republic of Kosova, started losing broader support among Kosovars as hardship 
grew and little tangible assistance was delivered from the international community. While repression 
and  human  rights  abuses  continued,  the  only  results  achieved  via  the  non-violent  resistance  and  a 
track-two,  low-profile  mediation  by  the  Comunità  Sant’Egidio  were  two  distinct  agreements  on  the 
reintegration of Albanian language education in public schools and on university buildings. While a 
part  of  the  agreement  was  implemented,  the  process  sank  on  the  cliffs  of  interpretation  and 
implementation problems. 

The  Dayton  peace  talks,  to  which  Kosovo  leaders  were  not  invited,  supposed  a  watershed  for  the 
Kosovo conflict and a lethal blow to Mr Rugova’s strategy. Not only was this seen as a demonstration 
that the ‘peaceful way’ was bringing Kosovo nowhere, but international recognition of the borders of 

171 Ibid. 

68 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

the  Republica  Srpska  meant  that  ‘[t]he  international  community  responded  to  the  facts  on  the 
ground  rather  than  high-minded  principles  of  non-violence  –  not  the  force  of  argument  but  the 
argument of force’172. 

As  Mr  Rugova’s  hope  in  great  powers’  willingness  was  frustrated  and  his  popularity  with  activists 
waned, other political strategies were gaining ground, among which that of Adem Demaçi, a former 
political prisoner and 1991 Sakharov laureate, who called for general mobilisation of an Intifada-like 
form. 

With  the  rise  of  the  Kosovo  Liberation  Army  (KLA),  Mr  Rugova’s  legitimacy  and  approach  came  
increasingly  under  attack  from  within  Kosovo.  It  is  around  this  time  in  December  1998  that  he  was 
awarded  the  Sakharov  Prize  for  Freedom  of  Thought  by  the  European  Parliament  that  came  as  an 
important recognition of his strategy. 

According to Professor Morozzo della Rocca, who contributed to the Comunità Sant’Egidio mediation, 
and  who  was  in  contact  with  Mr  Rugova  at  that  time,  Mr  Rugova  experienced  the  prize  as  other 
awards  he  would  receive  in  those  days:  ‘With  joy  but  without much  showiness’173.  Mr  Rugova  must 
have seen the prize as a ‘positive distraction, or diversion’ in a most difficult and tense moment, one 
in which his own legitimacy was faltering174. The very moment when his strategy came under harsh 
criticism at home – parts of Kosovo were kept off-limits by the KLA and his political opponents were 
portraying  him  as  enemy  collaborator  –  Mr  Rugova  was  praised  and  honoured  by  the  European 
Parliament  for  choosing  ‘[t]he  path  of  non-violence  and  negotiation  in  the  search  for  a  political 
solution guaranteeing basic freedoms for the people of Kosovo’175. 

In  his  speech  at  the  award  ceremony,  Mr  Rugova  underlined  that  the  prize  was  an  ‘[i]mportant 
recognition of our peaceful struggle and our sacrifices’; he recognised how, over the previous decade, 
the European Parliament was among those international institutions that reacted first to the situation 
in  Kosovo  and  in  support  to  its  people176.  He  pointed  out  how  since  March  of  the  same  year  the 
situation  in  Kosovo  had  been  ‘extremely  tragic’,  with  many  people  killed  and  villages  and  towns 
falling to massive destruction177. The best solution, he argued, would be one of independence with all 
‘necessary guarantees for the Serbs in Kosovo’. In Mr Rugova’s view, Kosovo’s independence would 
have  been  a  stabilising  factor  guaranteeing  peace  in  the  broader  region.  He  stressed  in  his  speech 
that  the  best  way  to  achieve  this  situation  would  be  through  an  international  protectorate  and  a 
period of transition178. 

Only a few weeks after having been awarded the prize, Mr Rugova received very different treatment 
at another international forum. Negotiations between Serbians and Albanians in Rambouillet, France, 
were an international humiliation for Mr Rugova: although he was the legitimate president elected by 
Kosovo-Albanians,  US  State  Secretary  Madeleine  Albright  wanted  the  young  KLA  leader,  Hashim 
Thaci, to lead the Kosovo-Albanian delegation.  

172 Human Rights Watch, Under Orders: War Crimes in Kosovo, New York: Human Rights Watch, 2001, available at: 

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/10/26/under-orders-war-crimes-kosovo. 

173 FRIDE email interview with Professor Morozzo della Rocca on 4 September 2013. 

174 Ibid. 

175 European Parliament, ‘Award of the Sakharov prize’, Debates, 4-530: 201, 16 December 1998, available at: 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/pdf/cardoc/11_2009/Rugova_19981216_EN.pdf. 

176 Ibid. 

177 Ibid. 

178 Ibid. 


69
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
Policy Department DG External Policies 

In the aftermath of the war, Mr  Rugova’s  authority, political  legitimacy and leadership were heavily 
contested by KLA leaders and his strategy of civil resistance and pacifism seemed to have alienated 
substantive portions of the Kosovo society. Initially guerrilla members were welcomed as heroes, but 
their alleged involvement in organised crime and political violence against LDK opponents and other 
ethnic  groups  in  Kosovo  quickly  eroded  their  support.  Mr  Rugova  regained  public  esteem  and 
political  legitimacy  in  the  first  elections  held  since  the  end  of  hostilities,  in  October  2000.  In  March 
2002, following long political negotiations, the Kosovo parliament appointed Mr Rugova as the new 
President of post-war Kosovo. 

During  his  presidency,  he  continued  his  struggle  for  Kosovo’s  independence,  advocating  for  its 
achievement  through  peaceful  means  and  agreement  by  all  parties  involved.  He  remained 
committed to forging close ties with the United States and the European Union.  

His public support and popularity did not prevent him from being the target of a grenade attack in 
2005, which he escaped unhurt. His death in January 2006 left a vacuum in the faction-ridden political 
scene  in  Kosovo  in  a  crucial  moment  in  which  the  province  was  embarking  on  the  process  of 
negotiating a political solution. 

Although  during  the  war  Mr  Rugova  was  not  able  to  exert  the  full  potential  of  his  non-violent 
strategy, he won international respect due to his peaceful nature of opposition to Serb dominance179. 
His  undisputed  achievement  is  the  fact  that  he  managed  to  promote  and  realise  a  programme  of 
peaceful civil disobedience supported collectively by Kosovo-Albanians, in challenging circumstances 
and  for  a  sustained  period  of  time.  Its  potential  and  real  contribution  is  even  more  striking  if  one  
compares it with other Balkan leaders’ strategies during those years180. A potential that the Sakharov 
Prize duly celebrated.  

3.19 

Algeria, 1997: Salima Ghezali 

Salima  Ghezali  was  awarded  the  Sakharov  Prize  in  recognition  of  her  contribution  to  promoting 
freedom of thought and human rights in Algeria. 

Ms  Ghezali  is  an  Algerian  writer  and  journalist.  Since  the  beginning  of  the  1990s,  she  has  been 
outspoken in the defence of women’s rights. She is President of the Association for the Emancipation 
of  Women.  She  is  founding  member  of  the  Association  of  Women  in  Europe  and  the  Maghreb, 
President of the Association for the Advance of Women, and founder of the review Nyssa (Women). 
She was also active in promoting democratic rule in Algeria. Her advocacy of freedom of expression 
attracted  a  lot  of  criticism  from  both  the  Algerian  government  and  Islamists.  In  addition  to  the 
Sakharov Prize, she was awarded the Olof Palme (1997) and Theodor-Haecker (1999) prizes.  

As  editor-in-chief  of  the  Algerian  weekly  La  Nation  in  the  1990s,  Ms  Ghezali  adopted  a  very 
courageous position in promoting a pacifist stance on the war. Her position attracted a lot of criticism 
from  both  the  Algerian  government  and  Islamists.  In  fact,  her  review  was  banished  in  1996  on  a 
formal excuse of its ‘accumulated debts’181. Yet, these difficulties did not discourage Ms Ghezali from 
continuing  with  her  public  advocacy.  In  her  own  words:  ‘It  is  necessary  to  remind  people  of  the 

179 ‘Ibrahim Rugova Ethnic Albanian leader: the Gandhi of the Balkans’, BBC News, 26 January 2006 [Retrieved 13 September 

2013].
 
180 M. Cereghini, ‘Rugova, la forza e la debolezza’, Rovereto: Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso, 23 January 2006 [Retrieved 13 

September 2013]. 

181 Ms Ghezali explains that financial difficulties were due to a sudden decision by a number of companies and organisations 

to stop advertising in her publication, leaving it without the necessary income.
 

70 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
 
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

principles  that  form  the  basis  for  the  human  society,  and  to  allow  vigilance  to  rule.  This  is  the  best 
way to ensure that civilisation triumphes over backwardness’182. 

The  political  situation  in  Algeria  at  the  time  of  the  award  in  1997  was  highly  volatile,  with  Islamist 
groups  spreading  violence  in  the  country.  Indeed,  in  December  1991,  Algeria’s  first  multi-party 
elections  since  independence  were  cancelled  after  the  military  expressed  concerns  that  the  Islamic 
Salvation  Front  would  get  to  power.  The  result  was  the  beginning  of  the  Algerian  civil  war,  which 
officially lasted for 10 years even though violence between the regime and Islamists continues today. 
The  Algerian  regime  benefitted  from  strong  Western  support  in  its  fight  against  Islamists  that 
inadvertently  helped  create  and  strengthen  the  ‘state  of  exception’,  with  dire  consequences  for 
political freedoms. 

When  Ms  Ghezali  learnt  about  the  award  through  her  friends  at  Amnesty  International,  she  felt 
encouraged and hopeful. In a recent interview183, she remembered that the human rights community 
in Algeria seemed so small and powerless that a lot of hope was put in principled support from other 
democracies.  Ms  Ghezali  acknowledges  that  the  Sakharov  Prize  provided  her  with  more  visibility 
domestically and internationally. As she became more known, institutions interested in the defence 
of human rights approached her to offer their support. She also said that the prize gave her additional 
physical protection because she acquired so much visibility. 

in  February  1998  for 

At the same time, the way the prize was publicised was not very satisfactory. The news of a European 
delegation  congratulating  the  Algerian  government 
‘democratic 
achievements’ came as a blow to Ms Ghezali and Algerian human rights defenders in general184. No 
discussion of the government’s complicity in curtailing freedom of expression followed. Neither did 
the  delegation  make  an  effort  to  meet  with  representatives  of  civil  society.  At  the  time,  Ms  Ghezali 
reacted  by  saying:  ‘It  is  appropriate  to  talk  about  a  European  defeat  vis-à-vis  France  […].  These 
European  deputies  have,  at  best,  a  superficial  knowledge  of  Algeria’185.  Such  statements  reflected  a 
popular belief that France was encouraging the European Parliament to contribute in every possible 
way to Islamist defeat. While Ms Ghezali never defended Islamists, she did not think opposing them 
justified poor human rights record and suppression of political freedoms.  

its 

Alike  a  number  of  other  laureates,  Ms  Ghezali  had  to  face  a  defamation  campaign  that  exploited 
feelings of suspicion towards everything Western rooted in Algeria’s colonial history. The government 
was  quick  to  label  anyone  defending  human  rights  as  serving  foreign  actors  with  the  aim  of 
destabilising the country. The Sakharov Prize was portrayed as another proof of her ‘collusion’ with 
foreign  actors186.Ms  Ghezali’s  origin  in  Kabylia,  a  region  located  in  northern  Algeria  that  is  often 
portrayed by the majority of Algerians as ‘non Arab’, was often used as pretext for further derogatory 
remarks.  When  Ms  Ghezali  joined  the  Front  des  Forces  Socialistes  (FFS,  Socialist  Forces  Front),  an 

182 ‘Citoyenneté contre barbaries’, Le Monde Diplomatique, May 1996. Salima Ghazali says that because of this sentence, the 
then Algerian Minister of Interior, Mostefa Benmansour, criticised Le Monde Diplomatique for undermining the ‘peacefulness 
of public life’. 
183 FRIDE telephone interview on 2 September 2013. 
184 See the delegation’s report following the visit: European Parliament, ‘Background Note 98.004 Algeria: Ad hoc delegation 
report’, 2 March 1998, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/press/sdp/backg/en/1998/b980302.htm. 
185 ‘Interview avec Salima Ghezali’, Algeria Watch, 14 February 1998, available at: http://www.algeria­
watch.org/farticle/Ghezali.htm. 
186 While the Algerian official media tries not to promote hatred against human rights defenders, the average reaction of 
Algerian people to what they consider to be a ‘collusion with Western actors’ is generally violent. One can notice that on the 
Algerian social fora in general. 

71
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
 
Policy Department DG External Policies 

Algerian political party founded by a Berberian, of which Kabylians are a branch, the hostility of her 
detractors only grew further.  

Ms Ghezali feels that although the Sakharov Prize rewards and celebrates individuals, the EP should 
invest  more  efforts  into  bringing  the  spotlight  onto  the  countries  they  come  from.  More  direct 
engagement  with  the  population  is  necessary  to  build  coalitions  for  reform.  Lack  of  information, 
prejudice  and  heavy-handed  presence  of  some  member  states  in  the  region  breeds  suspicion,  and 
the perceptions of the Arab Spring are mixed. In Ms Ghezali’s analysis, many Algerians withdrew from 
mass protests in their country for fears of a ‘Libyan scenario’. There is also resentment against all Arab 
countries  being  lumped  together  under  one  label187.  Some  Algerians  even  argue  that  Algeria  has 
nothing to do with regional movements that occurred following the Arab Spring, since Algerians had 
already  started  to  go  to  the  streets  decades  before188.  The  Algerian  regime  remains  the  sole 
beneficiary of these dynamics, so more could be done to engage its population. The Sakharov Prize 
could become an important platform. More engagement with civil society is particularly important, as 
human rights defenders remain disunited and heavily persecuted. Building their capacity and helping 
boost mobilisation will bring positive results whenever greater political opening is created in Algeria.  

In Ms Ghezali’s view, the EU’s engagement with governments in the region should be complemented 
by  comprehensive  and  sustained  engagement  with  civil  society  actors.  The  Sakharov  Prize  and  its 
network  could  be  an  important  building  block  in  this  respect,  but  for  now  they  remain  mainly  an 
instrument  for  spreading  information  without  any  real  engagement  on  the  ground.  In  the  case  of 
Algeria, adopting a tougher stance vis-à-vis the Algerian regime, and referring more frequently to the 
importance of human rights, is crucial for the consolidation of the rule of law in the country. 

3.20 

China, 1996: Wei Jingsheng 

Wei  Jingsheng  was  awarded  the  Sakharov  Prize  for  his  courageous  opposition  against  the  Chinese 
Communist Party and his commitment to democratic reform and freedom of expression.  

Mr  Wei  is  one  of  the  world’s  best-known  Chinese  human  rights  activists.  A  son  of  committed 
members  of  the  Chinese  Communist  Party  and  a  former  Red  Guard  during  the  Cultural  Revolution 
(1966-76),  Mr  Wei  first  came  to  prominence  in  China  when  he  authored  the  essay 
‘Fifth 
Modernisation,’  publicised  on  Beijing’s  Democracy  Wall  in  1978.  In  Mr  Wei’s  first  public  criticism  of 
China’s governance system, he argued that without democracy, China could not truly modernise189. 
For  assailing  not  only  the  Communist  Party,  but  also  specifically  attacking  Deng  Xiaoping  as  a 
dictator,  Mr  Wei  was  arrested  on  29  March  1979  and  sentenced  to  15  years  in  prison190.  He  was 
released  on  14  September  1993,  but  arrested  again  on  1  April  1994  and  sentenced  to  another  14 
years in prison. Mr Wei was released in November 1997 on medical parole and immediately deported 
to  the  United  States.  In  addition  to  the  Sakharov  Prize  for  Freedom  of  Thought,  Mr  Wei  was 
distinguished  with  the  Robert  F.  Kennedy  Memorial  Human  Rights  Award  (1996),  the  National 

187 This is perceptible in particular in the Algerian official media. It defends the attitude of the regime, which is generally 

critical of the absence of unity of the Arabs when it comes to promoting their ‘common interests’. FRIDE regular field 

missions in Algeria confirm the persistence of these sentiments. While the regime is criticised by the population for its 

policies, dissidents and critics of the government are automatically defended in return. 

188 See B. Mikail, ‘Algeria’s Deceptive Quiet’, FRIDE Policy Brief, March 2012, available in English, Spanish and French at: 

http://www.fride.org/publication/997/algeria's-deceptive-quiet. 

189 S. Woodman, ‘About Wei Jingsheng’, undated, Wei Jingsheng Foundation, available at: 

http://www.weijingsheng.org/wei/en.html [Retrieved 15 August 2013].
 
190 Ibid. 


72 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

Endowment  for  Democracy  Award  (1997),  the  International  Activist  award  by  the  Gleitsman 
Foundation (1993), and the Olof Palme Memorial Prize in 1994191, among others. 

it  to 

international 

In 1978 China was undergoing profound social, economic, and political changes. Deng Xiaoping had 
emerged  as  the  country’s  de  facto  leader,  and  by  1979,  China  had  begun  some  economic 
liberalisation  that  opened 
investment.  While  the  Communist  Party  still 
monopolised state power, some level of public dissent was allowed when it suited the state’s political 
calculations. Answering Deng Xiaoping’s call publicly to criticise the government, ‘a series of workers, 
intellectuals, and artists posted their thoughts and statement on a piece of wall in Beijing’192.The 1978 
Democracy  Wall  is  considered  to  be  the  first  spontaneous  public  political  discussion  in  communist 
China193. Deng Xiaoping permitted such dissent because it helped his power struggle against rivals in 
the  Communist  Party,  but  he  swiftly  shut  down  the  Democracy  Wall  movement  when  his  rule  was 
directly challenged by Mr Wei and other democracy activists. 

As  Mr  Wei  was  in  prison  when  EP  President  Klaus  Hänsch  awarded  him  the  Sakharov  Prize  on  11 
December  1996,  his  sister,  Shanshan  Wei-Blank,  accepted  the  award  on  his  behalf194.  Alike  most 
Chinese  prisoners  of  conscience,  Mr  Wei  had  little  contact  with  the  outside  world,  had  no  direct 
access  to  independent  news  sources,  and  was  only  permitted  rare  contacts  with  his  family.  Upon 
hearing  the news  about  winning  the Sakharov  Prize  from  his  sister  and  brother,  Mr  Wei responded 
with  hope  and  defiance.  As  expressed  in  Ms  Wei-Blank’s  acceptance  remarks,  Mr  Wei  ‘was  very 
surprised and pleased to hear that he was to receive this special tribute from Europe, the birthplace of 
human rights and democratic thought’. Because the prize came from the European Parliament, ‘Wei 
Jingsheng sees this award as an act of encouragement and support from the European people, not 
just  for  himself  but  for  the  entire  human  rights  movement  in  China’195.  However,  due  to  the 
prohibition of political discussions while in prison, Mr Wei was unable to convey further thoughts to 
Ms Wei-Blank about what the prize meant to him at the time196. 

Life in prison was difficult. Conditions were harsh and nutrition was poor, contributing to worsening 
prisoners’  health  conditions197.Given  Mr  Wei’s  high-profile  status  and  his  refusal  to  submit  to  the 
authorities, he was given especially harsh treatment, and his family was only permitted to visit him 
once per year. He was not allowed visits from friends or supporters198. 

Refusing the Sakharov Prize was never an option. As a human rights activist, ‘I had the responsibility 
towards the Chinese people to continue advocating for democratic development in China. The prize 
was not for me to refuse’199. 

However,  the  Sakharov  Prize  had  little  immediate  impact  on  Mr  Wei’s  work  or  his  life  in  China.  He 
remained  in  prison  and  largely  isolated  from  his  family,  his  friends  and  his  network  of  supporters. 
Indeed,  the  immediate  effects  of  the  Sakharov  Prize  are  difficult  to  measure.  With  the  Chinese 

191 Ibid. 

192 Woodman op. cit.; M. Goldman, ‘The Twentieth Anniversary of the Democracy Wall Movement,’, Harvard Asia Quarterly, 11 

April 1999. 

193 N. Yoshihara, ‘Wei JIngsheng’, Los Angeles Times, 21 June 1998, available at: 

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/jun/21/opinion/op-62120. 

194 FRIDE telephone interview with Wei Jingshen on 28 August 2013. 

195 Ibid. 

196 FRIDE telephone interview with Wei Jingsheng, op. cit.
 
197 Wei, J., ‘CIA in Tibet Wei Jingsheng Interview Excerpts’, MrPopochannel, 11 May 2012. 

198 FRIDE telephone interview with Wei Jingsheng, op. cit.
 
199 FRIDE telephone interview with Wei Jingsheng, op. cit.
 

73
 

 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
 
 
Policy Department DG External Policies 

authorities exercising absolute control over information within the country, the Chinese population’s 
perception of the prize was in line with the Communist Party’s propaganda. Overall, many in China 
continue to see the Sakharov Prize, alongside Western criticism of China, as an attempt to hinder the 
country’s economic and political rise.  

But  according  to  Mr  Wei,  ‘I  remained  stubborn  regarding  my  pro-democracy  views,  despite  the 
Chinese government’s intolerance towards my advocacy work’200. International support, such as the 
Sakharov  Prize,  is  of  ‘immense  value’,  declared  Ms  Wei-Blank  at  the  award-winning  ceremony.  ‘It 
instils a new self-confidence in many people and motivates them to continue committing themselves 
to the human rights movement’201. At a measurable level, the financial award that accompanied the 
prize helped Mr Wei and his family through the difficult period while he was in prison. 

Once  he  was  released  and  exiled  to  the  United  States,  the  Sakharov  Prize  and  other  similar  awards 
proved to be an immense asset to Mr Wei and the human rights community. More than a monetary 
award, the prize opened doors for Mr Wei in the US and Europe as he continued his pro-democracy 
work; it gave Mr Wei access to the media, to influential individuals, and to US and European policy­
makers202. 

For Mr Wei, organisation remains one of the most significant challenges for the broader human rights 
movement. ‘The majority of Chinese people already understand why we need democracy […] So, the 
most crucial task is to get all activists and demonstrators united in one common effort, because this is 
the  only  way  we  can  succeed’203.  He  believes  that  the  Sakharov  network  should  engage  more  with 
former  prize-winners.  According  to  Mr  Wei,  as  a  strong  backer  of  the  global  pro-democracy 
movement, the Sakharov Prize could have a profound impact if the EP further expanded its support 
to include a bureau, earmarked funding, and staff to help support and popularise the work of former 
Sakharov Prize winners. 

3.21 

Turkey, 1995: Leyla Zana 

Leyla Zana was awarded the Sakharov Prize for her struggle for the rights of Kurdish people in Turkey. 

Born in the province of Diyarbakir in southeast Turkey in 1961, Ms Zana was the first Kurdish woman 
to  win  a  seat  in  the  Turkish  parliament  in  1991.  The  1995  Sakharov  Prize  laureate  has  since  then 
become  a  renowned  Kurdish  spokesperson  in  Turkey.  Ms  Zana  dropped  out  of  school  because  she 
could  not  understand  Turkish,  the  language  of  instruction.  Her  family  married  her  to  Mehdi  Zana 
when she was 14 years old. Her husband was the mayor of Diyarbakir and one of the leaders of the 
Kurd  nationalist  movement.  But  soon  charges  of  separatism  were  brought  against  Mr  Zana  during 
Turkey’s military rule in 1980. After spending many years in jail, he articulated his opinion vis-à-vis the 
situation  of  Turkish  citizens  of  Kurdish  origin  before  the  European  Parliament's  Subcommittee  on 
Human Rights in December 1992. He was sentenced to four more years in 1994. 

Ms Zana managed to get her high school diploma by studying on her own. In the 1980s, she began her 
activism, while following her husband from one prison to another. She started reading about Turkish 
politics while regularly participating in protests. She also started working with the local human rights 
association  of  her  province.  During  a  protest  in  1988,  she  was  detained  for  a  week  and  brutally 
interrogated under torture. 

200 Ibid. 

201 European Parliament, 11 December 1996, op. cit. 

202 FRIDE interview with Wei Jingsheng, op. cit.
 
203 Wei, 18 November 1998, op. cit. 


74 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
                                                               
 
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

Ms Zana continued with her peaceful fight and in 1991, she presented her candidacy to the Turkish 
parliament. She claims that it was not her who chose such a path, but the people who wanted her to 
fight  for  them.  She  felt  it  was  her  responsibility  to  represent  them  in  parliament.  With  84%  of  the 
votes,  she  became  the  first  Turkish  women  representative  from  Kurdish  origin  in  the  Turkish 
parliament. 

At  her  inauguration  speech,  Ms  Zana  swore  to  ‘take  this  oath  for  the  brotherhood  between  the 
Turkish people and the Kurdish people’204. This last sentence not only mentioned the Kurds, but was 
also pronounced in Kurdish, a language banned in Turkey at the time. Consequently, in 1994, Ms Zana 
and other Kurdish MPs were stripped of their parliamentary immunity and arrested, and their party 
was banned. She was condemned to 15 years in prison on charges of separatism and for belonging to 
an illegal organisation, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). Even the colours of her clothes were used 
as evidence against her, as an expression of Kurdish identity. She would spend 10 years in a Turkish 
jail while her husband, son and daughter were in exile.  

Internationally,  there  were  protests  against  Ms  Zana’s  arrest,  especially  from  human  rights 
organisations, to pressure the Turkish government to release her.  

Ms Zana believes that ‘the award has given international recognition to my struggle. The aim of that 
struggle  is  to  establish  domestic  peace  in  Turkey  and  a  truly  pluralistic  secular  democracy,  which 
respects  the  universal  values  of  freedom  and  human  rights.  The  legitimate  rights  of  the  Kurdish 
people  to  their  own  identity  must  also  be  recognised’205.  The  Sakharov  Prize  gave  Ms  Zana’s  fight 
more legitimacy, as it was recognised by European countries, which continued to pressure the Turkish 
government to release Ms Zana and other Kurdish deputies.  

The reaction of pro-government Turkish media was rather neutral, simply reporting the event without 
mentioning any official reaction from the authorities. Meanwhile, Kurdish media extensively praised 
the award. In fact, Kurdish media covering the Sakharov Prize referred to Ms Zana as an ‘ambassador 
of peace’. The Kurdish platform Halklarin Kardeşliği underlined that recognition of Kurdish politicians 
by the EU would help pave the way to decreasing the number of military operations in eastern Turkey 
and increasing the chances of finding a peaceful solution to the Kurdish problem206. 

Ms Zana’s case has been considered by the EU as a crucial criterion of Turkey’s democratisation and 
reform process. Former European Commission President Romano Prodi called for her release during a 
hearing before the Turkish parliament. In September 1998, the European Parliament again called on 
the Turkish authorities for Ms Zana’s immediate release. At the same time, however, the Ankara State 
Security Court sentenced her to another two years in jail for inciting race hatred, due to an article she 
published in the People's Democracy Party (HADEP) bulletin about Nevruz, the Kurdish New Year, in 
which she referred to the Kurds’ distinctive identity, their ancestral traditions and their fight to resist 
oppression. 

After prolonged negotiations with the Turkish authorities, some MEPs were allowed to visit Ms Zana 
in  jail.  Ms  Zana  and  her  fellow  Kurdish  prisoners  were  finally  released  in  June  2004,  although  her 

204 A. Goodman & J. González, ‘Kurdish Political Prisoner Leyla Zana Released After a Decade in Jail’, Democracy Now!, 10 June 

2004, available at: http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/10/kurdish_political_prisoner_leyla_zana_released. 

205 S. Ludford (Liberal Democrat, Member of the European Parliament for London), ‘Leyla Zana finally collects Sakharov Prize 

for Freedom of Thought after ten years in prison’, 12 October 2004, available at: 

http://www.sarahludfordmep.org.uk/node/1539. 

206 Halklarin Kardeşliği, ‘Zana Nereye?’, 15 October 2004, available at: 

http://arsiv.ydicagri.net/Sayilar/083/83halklar_zana.htm. 


75
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
Policy Department DG External Policies 

sentence  was  not  completely  dropped.  On  8  July  2004,  her  appeal  began.  Pressure  from  the  EU 
during  negotiations  for  Turkey’s  accession  to  the  Union  most  probably  contributed  to  her  being 
freed. 

After being released, Ms Zana was finally able to collect the Sakharov award, nine years after having 
received it. She went to the European Parliament and addressed the Group meeting of the Alliance of 
Liberals and Democrats in Europe on 13 October 2004. On the following day, Ms Zana gave a speech 
at the EP in a ‘solemn session’207.The newspaper Sabah, somewhat close to the government's views, 
published Ms Zana's acceptance speech without any further commentary. On the other hand, Milliyet 
columnist Güneri Civaoğlu evaluated Ms Zana's award quite positively, comparing her role in Turkey 
to that of Nelson Mandela in South Africa. He also stated that Ms Zana's potential to bring peace in 
Turkey was higher than Abdullah Öcalan’s, PKK founder and leader208. 

In 2005, Ms Zana co-founded the Democratic Society Party (DTP). In 2009, the party was banned by 
Turkey’s  Constitutional  Court,  a  ban  questioned  and  condemned  by  the  then  EU  presidency.  A 
controversial idea put forward by her new party was to reorganise Turkey into a set of federal states, 
one of them being Kurdistan.  

On 17-18 November 2010, the European Parliament hosted the 7th International Conference on EU, 
Turkey  and  the  Kurds,  where  Ms  Zana  gave  a  speech  in  which  she  declared  that  ‘the  fact  that 
politicians, civil society representatives and human rights advocates are still being detained […] is a 
clear violation of rights as well as an indication of the paradoxical approach of those who claim they 
want a solution’209. 

Ms Zana was re-elected to parliament in the general elections held on 12 June 2011. But in May 2012, 
she was again sentenced by a provincial Turkish court to 10 years in prison for allegedly violating the 
penal code and the anti-terror law in nine different speeches between 2007 and 2008 by spreading 
Kurdish propaganda in favour of the PKK. The court referred to Ms Zana stating in a speech that PKK 
leader  Abdulla  Öcalan  should  be  regarded  as  one  of  three  Kurdish  leaders  during  the  Newroz 
celebration  in  Diyarbakir.  The  country's  Supreme  Court  of  Appeals  overturned  the  ruling  and  has 
ordered  a  retrial.  Ms  Zana  then  sent  the  following  statement  to  the  European  Union  Turkey  Civic 
Commission (EUTCC): 

The case against me is a violation against freedom of thought, and represents a threat to every Kurd 
in Turkey. The decision of the court is just another way to repress, silence and punish the Kurds. The 
mentality governing this country is that problems can be resolved by anti-democratic and repressive 
means and that unfair trial can provide political and social peace. But despite all this, our people will 
claim their legitimate rights, and will continue to struggle for this as long as it takes210. 

The  next  legislative  elections  in  Turkey  will  take  place  in  2015  and  the  confirmation  of  Ms  Zana’s 
prison term is not applicable whilst she enjoys parliamentary immunity. On the other hand, however, 

207 Ludford, 12 October 2004, op. cit. 

208 G. Civaoğlu, ‘Zana'nın Koşusu’, Milliyet, 15 October 2004, available at:http://www.milliyet.com.tr/zananin-kosusu/guneri­
civaoglu/siyaset/yazardetayarsiv/15.10.2004/91370/default.htm. 

209 ‘Leyla Zana speech at European Parliament Conference’, Global Rights, 20 November 2010, available at: 

http://www.globalrights.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=780:leyla-zana-speech-at-european­
parliament-conference&catid=32:turkish-kurdish&Itemid=72. 

210 N. J. Harbitz, ‘Leyla Zana sentenced to 10 years in prison’, Human Rights House, 5 December 2008, Available at: 

http://humanrightshouse.org/Articles/9499.html. 


76 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

it is particularly unhelpful at a time when the EU is attempting to start delayed accession negotiations 
with Turkey. 

Ms Zana’s trial was closely monitored by the European Commission. The EUTCC declared that the trial 
was  unfair  and  lacked  independence.  It  called  on  the  EU  and  the  international  community  to  take 
political action and strongly condemn Turkey. European Parliament President Martin Schulz called for 
a  fair  trial  and  appeal  process  for  Ms  Zana.  Since  Turkey  has  signed  the  European  Convention  on 
Human  Rights,  Mr  Schulz  argued  that  ‘the  European  Parliament  expects  it  [Turkey]  to  abide  by  it’. 
According to Mr Schulz, Ms Zana thanked him for ‘the Parliament's unwavering support’211. 

Although  facing  a  new  trial,  Ms  Zana  continues  to  fight  for  a  peaceful  solution  for  the  Kurdish 
minority issue in Turkey. In a famous speech in June 2012 addressed to the Turkish prime minister, 
she argued that: 

The  most  powerful  figure  could  stop  this  if  he  wants  to  […]  the  present  government  and  Recep 
Tayyip Erdoğan, the head of this government. The name who heads the most powerful government 
in  the  history  of  this  country  could  resolve  this  issue  if  he  wants  to.  I  believe  he  could  resolve  this 
problem. I never lost my hope and faith in this. And I do not want to. If I did, I would be gone by now. 
What all of us have to do now is to encourage the prime minister to resolve this problem and let him 
know that we are with him212. 

Ms  Zana  was  then  able  to  achieve  something  that  was  once  unthinkable.  She  was  received  by  the 
head of the Turkish government himself to begin to discuss solutions to the Kurdish conflict.  

Most recently, Ms Zana has spoken about the condition of the Kurds with regards to the Arab Spring, 
stating that ‘a new process has begun in the Middle East, proving dictatorial regimes can no longer be 
accepted’213. She sees this as an ‘overall resistance against injustice’214, which could benefit the Kurds. 
While continuing to be an independent member of the Turkish parliament, she still faces the risk of 
imprisonment, potentially after the 2015 legislative elections. 

3.22 

Bangladesh, 1994: Taslima Nasreen 

Taslima Nasreen was awarded the Sakharov Prize for her courageous stance in defence of freedom of 
thought and expression.  

Ms Nasreen was born in 1962 in Mymensingh, formerly East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. Following in 
her  father’s  footsteps,  she  was  trained  as  a  doctor  and  practiced  gynaecology  in  a  family  planning 
clinic in her home town. Her work gave her daily exposure to how women’s bodies were subjected to 
most unfair treatment under the banner of cultural and religious traditions. 

She became a prolific writer of poetry and prose and has published extensively since 1982. She has 
also  written  very  popular  columns  on  women’s  rights  in  newspapers  and  magazines.  In  1993,  her 
novel  Lajja  (Shame)  on  the  Muslim  persecution  of  Hindus  made  her  famous  worldwide,  but  at  the 
same  time  also  put  her  life  in  danger.  After  a  series  of  physical  and  other  attacks,  as  well  as  death 

211 European Parliament, ‘Opening - Schengen, Serbia's new President, Leyla Zana and Asmaa Mahfouz’, Press Release, 11 
June 2012, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20120608IPR46525/html/Opening­
Schengen-Serbia's-new-President-Leyla-Zana-and-Asmaa-Mahfouz 
212 M. Esayan, ‘Leyla Zana's contribution to peace’, Today’s Zaman, 27 March 2013, available at: 

http://www.todayszaman.com/columnists/markar-esayan-310905-leyla-zanas-contribution-to-peace.html. 

213 A. Sert, ‘A Woman, a Kurd, and an Optimist’, The New York Times, 19 February 2013, available at: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/world/europe/20iht-letter20.html. 

214 Ibid. 


77
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
  
Policy Department DG External Policies 

threats, from Islamist fundamentalist groups, she had to flee the country in 1994. Numerous fatwas 
were issued against her and a price was set on her head. The Sakharov Prize awarded to her in 1994 
during  these  turbulent  events  expressed  the  solidarity  of  the  European  people  with  her  cause  and 
granted  her  some  protection.  She  spent  10  years  in  exile  in  the  West.  In  2004,  she  was  allowed  to 
relocate to Kolkata in the Indian West Bengali state, but had to flee again in 2008. She has not been 
allowed to enter Bangladeshi or West Bengali soil since. She currently lives in New Delhi.  

Ms Nasreen has published over 30 poetry books, essays and novels, which have been translated into 
more than 20 languages. Her work was recognised twice by the West Bengali literary  prize Ananda 
Purashkar (for Lajja/Shame in 1993 and for the autobiographical Amar Meyebela/My Girlhood in 2000). 
She was also distinguished with the Simone de Beauvoir Prize in 2008, in recognition of her writing on 
women’s  rights.  She  has  received  more  than  20  other  awards  and  honours  from  human  rights 
organisations and academic institutions. She holds honorary doctorates from the University of Ghent, 
the American University of Paris, Université Catholique de Louvain and Paris Diderot University. She is 
also an honorary citizen of the city of Paris and several other cities in Europe. 

The Government of Bangladesh reacted very negatively to Ms Nasreen’s nomination for the Sakharov 
Prize. The Bangladeshi Embassy sent an angry letter to the European Parliament requesting that the 
prize be given to somebody else215. This came as no surprise as the relationship between Ms Nasreen 
and  the  Bangladeshi  government  was  and  remains  highly  conflictive.  The  government  banned  her 
book Lajja in 1993 and in 1994 filed a case against her on charges of hurting the religious feelings of 
Bangladeshi people. Initially a non-bailable arrest warrant was issued forcing her into hiding. She was 
later  granted  bail  from  the  high  court  and  forced  to  leave  the  country.  When  she  re-entered 
Bangladesh  in  1998  to  be  with  her  ailing  mother,  another  arrest  warrant  was  issued  against  her 
forcing her to leave once again. From 1999 to 2004, the government banned four other books by Ms 
Nasreen.  Ironically,  the  ban  in  2004  came  together  with  the  UNESCO  Prize  for  the  Promotion  of 
Tolerance and Non-Violence. In 2002, she was sentenced in absentia to one year in prison on a charge 
of  writing  derogatory  comments  about  Islam.  Her  Bangladeshi  passport  was  revoked  and  has  not 
been re-granted since. She has not been able to return to her home country, not even to be with her 
dying father in 2002. Her repeated appeals to have her passport returned or at least a visa to enter the 
country have been either denied or ignored. During a recent visit, the European Parliament expressed 
readiness to help her with diplomatic pressure on this issue. 

The  Sakharov  Prize,  together  with  other  international  awards,  raised  Ms  Nasreen’s  visibility  and 
recognition abroad. She has been invited to speak at various high-profile international events. From a 
popular  writer,  she  has  become  an  ambassador  and  spokeswoman  for  the  rights  of  women  and 
secularism. She is an honorary member of numerous international networks working on these issues. 
In 1998-9, as Ms Nasreen faced new threats, the Council for Secular Humanism began a campaign in 
her  defence  collecting  letters  addressed  to  the  Government  of  Bangladesh  as  well  as  a  number  of 
prominent political leaders. The letters were signed, among others, by Salman Rushdie and two Nobel 
Prize  laureates,  Wole  Soyinka  and  Steven  Weinberg216.  The  European  Union  Ambassador  to 
Bangladesh at the time greatly facilitated Ms Nasreen’s safe exit from the country and her arrival in 
Sweden. The European Parliament voiced its active support to Ms Nasreen in a resolution urging ‘the 
authorities  to  do  their  utmost  to  guarantee  the  life  and  safety  of  Taslima  Nasreen,  to  stop  all  legal 

215 FRIDE email interview with Taslima Nasreen on 30 September 2013. 

216 All the letters can be consulted at http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=columns&page=letters. 


78 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

proceedings against her and to allow her to travel freely’217. Symbolically, in May 2013 she received 
one  of  the  first  Universal  Citizenship  passports  from  the  Organisation  for  Universal  Citizenship,  an 
international organisation that supports freedom of movement and settlement. 

Given her personal experience of persecution, Ms Nasreen has also become a spokesperson for many 
progressive  Bangladeshi  bloggers who are threatened for writing about religious issues. The recent 
Shahbagh movement demanding the prosecution of war criminals from the 1971 War of Liberation 
gave  rise  to  an  active  online  debate  about  the  role  of  the  leading  Islamist  party  and  the  role  of 
religion  in  a  modern  state  more  broadly.  As  violence  broke  out  between  protesters  and  militant 
Islamist groups, and three bloggers branded as ‘atheists’ were brutally killed, Ms Nasreen launched a 
number of warnings on her blog and in the media about the need to protect freedom of expression 
and the lives of those who have the courage to speak against the majority218. Unique experiences of 
personal struggle like hers could become a source of inspiration and knowledge about how best to 
help activists facing similar threats. 

In a recent interview, Ms Nasreen underlined that the Sakharov Prize and its network could become 
more  important  for  promoting  human  rights  internationally.  She  suggested  pursuing  more 
purposeful outreach and a more active stance in public debates on human rights. This could include, 
for  example,  conferences  and  festivals  on  human  rights  issues,  at  which  important  human  rights 
campaigners would be invited to talk. She also suggested a greater online presence, especially with 
social networks, and wider publicising of the prize and the work of its laureates. 

3.23 

Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1993: Oslobodjenje 

The daily newspaper Oslobodjenje was awarded the Sakharov Prize for its commitment to freedom of 
expression  and  of  information,  and  for  the  courage  its  staff  and  journalists  showed  throughout  the 
Bosnian war from 1992 to 1995.  

Oslobodjenje was founded in 1943 and remains one of the major dailies in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Its 
name  means  ‘liberation’  and  is  taken  from  a  newspaper  set  up  by  partisans  during  the  German 
occupation of Yugoslavia. Over the years, the newspaper has built a reputation for independence that 
it tries to maintain. 

The Sakharov Prize came at the height of the Bosnian war, which started in spring 1992. Despite the 
heavy fighting, the newspaper kept its course and was published uninterruptedly without missing a 
single day. It lost three people, and over 20 other employees were injured, some of them by sniper 
bullets while working. The newspaper’s headquarters were completely destroyed and the team had 
to continue the production from an atomic bomb shelter, literally working at the frontlines. Defined 
as ‘Sarajevo’s “Daily Miracle”’ by The Washington Post219, Oslobodjenje was distributed by volunteers. 
To reduce the danger of unnecessary trips to and from the building, journalists worked one week on, 
one  week  off,  sleeping  and  eating  inside  the  building.  Other  reporters  worked  out  of  their  homes, 

217 European Parliament, ‘Resolution of 3 December 1998 on Romania's application for membership of the European Union, 

with a view to the European Council to be held in Vienna (11-12 December 1998)’, (A4-0428/98), available at: 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/enlargement/positionep/resolutions/031298b_en.htm. 

218 For her analysis see her blog entries from February and March 2013 at 

http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima/author/taslima/, as well as her article ‘Why I Support Shahbagh’, Hindustan Times, 2 

March 2013, available at: http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/ColumnsOthers/Why-I-support-Shahbagh/Article1­
1020268.aspx. 

219 ‘Sarajevo’s “Daily Miracle”’, The Washington Post, 2 September 1992. 


79
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
Policy Department DG External Policies 

writing on manual typewriters and dictating at night to editors in the basement bomb shelter of the 
ruined headquarters building220. 

During  the  siege  of  Sarajevo,  the  newspaper  was  purposefully  targeted  by  the  Serbian  forces,  its 
building shelled continuously and people distributing the paper on the streets targeted with sniper 
fire. In an interview at the time, its Editor-in-Chief Kemal Kurspahic said: ‘I think they are attempting to 
destroy  us  with  a  special  intensity  because  of  what  we  stand  for.  We  have  a  staff  that  reflects  the 
national composition of our society almost exactly – one-third of our reporters and editors are Serbs, 
about the same as the population of Bosnia as a whole. And we write about Sarajevo and Bosnia in a 
way that reflects something the Serbian forces deny – that Serbs and Muslims and Croats can work 
and live together in harmony’221. 

Indeed, in addition to its dedication to providing free information, the newspaper has always stood 
out for its independence and its commitment to pluralism and tolerance. Before the war broke out, 
the newspaper managed to liberate itself from the one-party control in 1989. Subsequently, in 1991, 
it  defended  itself  from  the  nationalist  takeover-attempt  by  the  three  ethnic  groups  to  apportion 
senior  editorial  positions  at  the  paper  on  the  basis  of  communal  identification  by  winning  the 
Constitutional  Court  case  for  its  independence.  Indeed,  in  his  acceptance  speech,  newspaper 
representative Zlatko Dizdarevic underlined: ‘Everything we have done to date with the newspaper 
[…]  has  been  aimed  at  defending  and  preserving  a  Bosnia-Herzegovina  that  is  multiethnic, 
multinational,  cosmopolitan,  and  tolerant’.  The  newspaper  united  Bosniaks,  Croatians,  and  Serbs  as 
well as  other minorities and was – and remains today222 – committed to ‘communal life, with all its 
wealth  of  variety  and  diversity’223.  The  paper  has  often  publicly  disagreed  with  the  Muslim-led 
Bosnian  government,  and  has  continued  its  long-standing  practice  of  printing  in  both  the  Cyrillic 
script used by Serbs and the Latin script used by Croats and Muslims, alternating its pages between 
the two. 

The challenges of survival during the war went beyond finding the newsprint and sufficient fuel for 
the printing machines. The editorial line had to manoeuvre between different political positions;  as 
the  war  continued,  differences  of  opinion  within  the  newspaper  increased  and  several  Serbian 
employees  left.  The  newspaper’s  survival  depended  on  the  benevolence  of  the  state  that  provided 
rations  of  diesel  fuel;  of  the  United  Nations  Protection  Force  (UNPROFOR),  which  helped  with 
transportation; and of the local criminal gangs and war commanders, who had to be persuaded into 
not  targeting  its  staff.  Maintaining  an  independent  editorial  line  was  as  much  of  a  challenge  as 
finding paper and ink224. 

The  Sakharov  Prize  came  at  a  moment  when  the  newspaper,  in  the  words  of  Mr  Dizdarevic,  was 
‘inundated with prizes’225. Between 1992 and 1995, it received 10 different prizes and awards. On the 
first anniversary of the Bosnian war on 5 April 1993, to honour the work of its journalists, more than 
40 newspapers around the world reprinted selected articles from Oslobodjenje in their local languages 
raising the circulation of the newspaper that day to more than 20 million copies226. The Oslobodjenje 

220 ‘Perils of telling the truth in a shattered land’, The Independent, 3 August 1992.
 
221 ‘Sarajevo Paper Defies War by Staying in Print’, The New York Times, 7 October 1992, available at: 

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/07/world/sarajevo-paper-defies-war-by-staying-in-print.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm. 

222 FRIDE email interview with Vildana Selimbegovic, current Editor-in-Chief of Oslobodjenje, on 14 September 2013. 

223 European Parliament, Formal Sitting, 14 December 1993. 

224 T. Gjelten, Sarajevo Daily: A city and its newspaper under siege, New York: Harper Collins, 1995.
 
225 Ibid. 

226 A similar initiative was taken on 16 September 2013; FRIDE email interview with Vildana Selimbegovic, op. cit.
 

80 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
 
 
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

delegation  arrived  at  the  European  Parliament  for  the  Sakharov  Prize  award-winning  ceremony  as 
world-known celebrities, yet the fact that the award was coming from the European Parliament had 
great  significance  for  the  newspaper.  At  a  time  when  the  role  of  the  ‘international  community’  in 
Bosnia remained ambivalent, recognition from the European Parliament of the newspaper that stood 
for peace and dialogue represented an important message. 

International  media  reaction  to  the  Sakharov  Prize  award  made  up  for  the  information  vacuum 
created  by  the  war  at  home.  Over  20  articles  about  Oslobodjenje  were  published  by  all  major 
international  newspapers  in  1993-4,  including  The  New  York  Times  and  The  Washington  Post.  As  the 
reprinting articles initiative shows, there was a lot of solidarity towards Oslobodjenje journalists in the 
world  press.  This  solidarity  helped  the  newspaper  to  start  international  distribution  in  late  1993. 
Published  in  Ljubljana  and  distributed  by  a  German  company,  a  weekly  edition  of  the  newspaper 
contributed to the free flow of information about the war.  

The war is long over but Oslobodjenje’s struggle for independence is not. At the end of the war, the 
government claimed the newspaper to be state property because it used to be state-owned during 
communism and its ownership was not clarified before the war. The journalists clearly saw this as a 
final blow to their profession. The newspaper was privatised by the Slovenian fund Kmecka Druzina 
instead, yet, was not managed well and ended up on the verge of bankruptcy. It was subsequently 
bought by a family of Sarajevo businessmen who helped repay the debts and modernise the paper. 
The struggle for financial independence, however, continues227. 

Mehmed Halilovic, former Oslobodjenje editor-in-chief and ombudsman for Bosnia and Herzegovina, 
said that print media remained the best source of information and analysis. Yet, there were still too 
many  examples  of  state  authorities  infringing  on  media  freedom228.  Despite  many  challenges,  the 
newspaper  has  grown  and  now  it  also  publishes  a  weekly  news  magazine,  Dani,  an  online  edition, 
and  a  regional  web  portal  called  Business  Plus  together  with  editors  from  Slovenia,  Croatia,  Serbia, 
Montenegro,  and  Macedonia.  The  newspaper  is  keen  on  working  towards  the  broader  goal  of 
boosting independent journalism in the region and on cooperating with other journalist associations 
in Europe229. The Sakharov Prize network can be one of the channels through which such cooperation 
could grow. 

3.24 

Argentina, 1992: Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo Association 

The Argentinean Asociación Madres de Plaza de Mayo (Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo Association) was 
awarded  the  Sakharov  Prize  for  its  peaceful  protest  against  military  rule  and  its  contribution  to 
political change in their country.  

The  Mothers  of  the  Plaza  de  Mayo  is  an  association  of  Argentine  mothers  whose  children 
‘disappeared’  during  the  Dirty  War  of  the  military  dictatorship,  between  1976  and  1983.  Peaceful 
protests that took place on the Plaza de Mayo in front of the Presidential Palace started on 30 April 
1977. In their attempt to break the silence and isolation enforced by the dictatorial rule, the Mothers 
organised  peaceful  protests  in  public,  protected  only  by  the  visibility  that  the  busy  capital  centre 
afforded them.  

227 Ibid. 

228 ‘News media in the Balkans feeling way with new freedoms’, Freedom Forum, 7 September 2001, available at: 

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=14346. 

229 FRIDE email interview with Vildana Selimbegovic, op. cit.
 

81
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
Policy Department DG External Policies 

In  1979,  Hebe  de  Bonafini  became  president  of  the  association.  A  seamstress  with  only  elementary 
education, she became one of the most active and politically-vocal mothers after the loss of her two 
sons, Jorge, on 8 February 1977, and Raúl, on 6 December 1977, as well as that of her daughter-in-law, 
María Elena Bugnone, on 25 May 1978. She would later define herself as a political, party-less activist. 

As  president  of  the  Mothers’  association,  Ms  de  Bonafini  has  spoken  actively  in  defence  of  her 
conception of human rights, both in Argentina and abroad, and has gained international recognition. 
Her strong personality, zeal and awareness of her children’s revolutionary ideals led her to embrace 
such  aspirations  and  progressively  to  diversify  the  activities  of  the  association230.  After  the  end  of 
dictatorial  rule,  the  association  became  involved  in  issues  such  as  education,  founding  the 
Universidad Popular Madres de Plaza de Mayo (Popular University of the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo), the 
media and culture. A cultural centre called Nuestros hijos (Our children) is situated at the Escuela de 
Mecánica  de  la  Armada  (a  former  illegal  detention  centre  during  the  dictatorship).  The  organisation 
also participated in a large-scale federal housing project for the poor. In 1999, the Mothers received 
the UNESCO Prize for Peace Education. 

Following  the  return  to  civilian  rule  in  1983  in  Argentina,  divisions  began  to  appear  within  the 
organisation  regarding  what  the  Mothers  believed  to  be  President  Raúl  Alfonsín’s  overly  cautious 
policy to prosecute Dirty War perpetrators. In 1985, Alfonsín established the Trial of the Juntas, yet in 
response to the threat of a military coup, he decided to limit the proceedings to nine leading military 
junta members, later acquitting five of them. 

The Mothers’ association split in 1986, establishing two groups of around 2 000 members each: Ms de 
Bonafini's  Mothers  of  the  Plaza  de  Mayo  Association,  and  the  Mothers  of  the  Plaza  de  Mayo  - 
Founding Line. Under the leadership of Ms de Bonafini, the Mothers increasingly took a more radical 
political approach. At the centre of contention between the different Mothers were the question of 
testimonies  to  the  Comisión  Nacional  de  Desaparecidos  (National  Commission  for  Missing  Persons, 
CONADEP), identification of the bodies of the missing in exhumations and acceptance of the financial 
compensation of  USD 250 000 (Law 24.411, a historic monetary reparation  law) per missing person 
offered by the government. Law 24.231, which established the figure of missing detainee, was  also 
opposed. Ms de Bonafini’s Mothers opposed these measures because they did not acknowledge the 
death  of  their  children.  The  government  could  do  little  to  appease  these  demands,  as  allegedly  all 
detainees were dead. But the Mothers’ main objective was that all members of the dictatorship and 
the rest of the military involved in the Dirty War be brought to justice: ‘Aparición con vida y castigo a 
los culpables’ (‘Return alive those who have disappeared and punish the guilty’). 

These  political  positions  heightened  disagreements  between  the  Mothers  and  President  Carlos 
Menem. They fiercely protested against the president’s human rights  policies, namely the Full  Stop 
and  Due  Obedience  Laws,  as  well  as  the  presidential  pardons  that  freed  most  of  the  human  rights 
violators of the dictatorship.  

It was during this period that the organisation received the Sakharov Prize (1992). This distinction by 
such  a  prestigious  political  institution  in  recognition  of  their  cause  was  greatly  appreciated  by  the 
Mothers, especially when in their countries they were considered ‘crazy women’. Reports about the 
award in the Argentinean press, however, were scarce. Recognition from the government and from 
other  political  organisations  was  low,  except  for  a  few  individuals  but  not  parties231.  Solidarity  was 
also scarce from other human rights organisations, which provided rhetorical but not actual support. 

230 FRIDE interview with Hebe de Bonafini on 28 August 2013. 
231 Ibid. 

82 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

According  to  Ms  de  Bonafini,  this  was  a  government  crusade  against  the  association.  When  they 
received  the  prize,  the  Mothers  felt  ‘happy,  protected,  and  honoured’;  it  was  a  sort  of  ‘blow  to  the 
establishment’, in spite of the little support received by the media, she said232. 

The prize gave more meaning to their struggle since it afforded recognition from men and women 
belonging to an institution that represents the interests of European citizens, though this perception 
was  not  shared  by  their  country  and  their  struggle  in  Argentina  continued.  The  prize  undoubtedly 
gave great visibility to the organisation worldwide. It also gave them confidence and renewed energy 
to continue their work. Ms de Bonafini travelled to Strasbourg together with two Mothers from her 
association,  Aída  Ramírez  Abella  and  María  del  Rosario  Cerutti.  Ms  de  Bonafini  spoke  about  human 
rights and freedom of speech, as well as world hunger, the need to continue fighting and to uphold 
revolutionary ideals. The money received was used to continue the work of the association, improve 
its offices and carry out a series of other activities233. 

Tensions  with  the  government  disappeared  under  the  Nestor  Kirchner  and  Cristina  Fernández  de 
Kirchner administrations. President Nestor Kirchner received Ms de Bonafini within days of his coming 
to  office  on  25  May  2003,  and  regularly  consulted  her  during  his  tenure.  In  January  2006,  Ms  de 
Bonafini  announced  that  her  organisation  would  discontinue  its  annual  March  of  Resistance  in 
recognition  of  President  Kirchner’s  successful  human  rights  policies.  The  association  has  benefited 
from  increased  government  funding  during  the  Kirchner  administrations,  and  has  extended  its 
influence through the newspaper La Voz de las Madres, their radio station, and the Popular University 
of the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo. 

Meanwhile,  although  the  other  branch  of  the  organisation  (the  Mothers’  Founding  Line) 
disassociated themselves from Ms de Bonafini’s Mothers, they also supported Kirchner’s human rights 
policies. Despite some past disagreements, the same applies now to the Grandmothers of the Plaza 
de Mayo – a group of women looking for their grandchildren who were born in captivity to mothers 
who ‘disappeared’. In many cases, the children were handed over to their parents’ kidnappers.  

Relations  between  Ms  de  Bonafini’s  Mothers  with  other  human  rights  organisations  at  the  national 
and international levels vary. The Mothers tend to be associated with other organisations with leftist 
and progressive ideologies rooted in similar conflict situations. Due to their ideological stance, they 
do  not  relate  to  movements  or  organisations  that  stand  on  different  political  grounds,  such  as  the 
Cuban Ladies in White. 

3.25 

Kosovo, 1991: Adem Demaci 

Adem Demaci was awarded the Sakharov Prize for his peaceful contribution to the self-determination of 
Kosovo.  

Mr Demaci, often referred to as ‘the Nelson Mandela of Kosovo’, is a human rights activist, writer and 
politician.  He  was  born  and  raised  in  Pristina,  where  he  studied  law.  He  also  studied  literature  in 
Belgrade and education in Skopje. He has spent 28 years in prison in 1958-1961, 1964-1974 and 1975­
1990 for criticising Yugoslavia’s treatment of its Albanian population.  

Mr Demaci was arrested for the first time in 1958, when he was sentenced to three years in prison for 
publishing a series of articles in the Albanian language magazine Jeta e Re (New Life)234. These articles 
denounced the oppression by Yugoslav authorities of Kosovo-Albanians, especially during the period 

232 Ibid. 
233 Ibid. 
234 M. Paker, ‘Adem Demaci. Censorship of Yugoslavian Dissidents’, in Index on Censorship 3 (5): 42-42, 1984. 

83
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
Policy Department DG External Policies 

in which Aleksandar Rankovic was head of the security service235. The articles were collected in a book 
on blood vendettas in Kosovo published in Belgrade under the title Gjarpijt e Gjakut (The Serpents of 
Blood),  which  was  banned  in  Yugoslavia.  Upon  his  release  from  prison,  Mr  Demaci  founded  the 
clandestine  Revolutionary  Movement  for  the  Unification  of  Albanians.  This  initiative  cost  him  a 
second  10-year  sentence  for  alleged  crimes  against  the  Yugoslav  people  and  state  236.  After  the 
adoption of the 1974 Yugoslav Constitution that granted Kosovo the status of autonomous province, 
he  was  sent  to  prison  for  the  third  time  for  15  years  because  he  insisted  on  greater  autonomy  and 
political rights for Kosovo-Albanians237. Accounts from the trial suggest that Mr Demaci and 18 others 
were  tried  for  their  political  activities,  although  he  was  not  charged  with  the  use  or  advocacy  of 
violence238. In the 1980s, Mr Demaci was considered one of the most prominent political dissidents in 
Yugoslavia,  and  certainly  Kosovo’s  most  famous  political  prisoner239.  During  those  years,  Amnesty 
International recognised him as a prisoner of conscience240. 

Mr Demaci was liberated on 28 April 1990 and engaged in human rights activism. Shortly before his 
release, he issued a statement in which he expressed support for the non-violent resistance promoted 
by Ibrahim Rugova. This position was reiterated in the dedication of his book The Serpents of Blood: 
‘[N]ot to those who raise their hand in crime, but to those who extend their hand in reconciliation’241. 
On 21 November 1991, the European Parliament awarded Mr Demaci the Sakharov Prize, recognising 
that he had served one of ‘the longest prison sentences for political reasons ever imposed in Europe 
since  the  Second  World  War’242.  The  prize  came  after  the  EP  raised  the  issue  of  Kosovo  in  1989  by 
issuing a resolution, which condemned the repressive measures undertaken in Kosovo243. 

In  his  speech  at  the  award  ceremony,  Enrico  Vinci,  then  Secretary-General  of  the  European 
Parliament, explained how the prize aimed at paying tribute to ‘the integrity of a man, who for more 
than three decades has opposed an authoritarian and intolerant regime’244. The prize came at a very 
difficult  moment  for  Yugoslavia.  The  European  Parliament  hoped  to  send  the  message  that  further 
violence  would  only  exacerbate  oppression  and  human  rights  violations.  From  Mr  Vinci’s  speech,  it 
emerged  that  the  European  Parliament  was  giving  its  support  to  the  human  rights  campaign  in 
Kosovo, while denouncing the ‘dramatic conditions in which the people of this region of Europe are 
forced to live’245. 

Mr Demaci received the news that he was awarded the prize whilst he was in Istanbul to meet with 
other  Albanian  activists  committed  to  the  freedom  of  Kosovo246.  While  the  news  was  greeted  with 

235 Ibid. 

236 H. Clark, Civil Resistance in Kosovo, London & Sterling, Virginia: Pluto Press, 2000, p. 38. 

237 Paker, 1984, op. cit. 

238 Ibid. 

239 R. Elsie, Historical Dictionary of Kosovo, Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press, 2010, pp.73–4. 

240 S. Erlanger, ‘Champion of Free Kosovo Now Urges Moderation’, The New York Times, 10 August 1999, available at: 

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/10/world/champion-of-free-kosovo-now-urges-moderation.html [Retrieved 20 August 

2013].
 
241 Quoted in Clark, 2000, op. cit., p. 57. 

242 European Parliament, 3-412/83, 10 December 1991. 

243 Resolution of 12 July 1990, Official Journal of the European Communities C 231/175 

(on human rights in Kosovo, joint resolution replacing Docs. B-3 1418 and 1447/90); 

Resolution of 11 October 1990, Official Journal of the European Communities C 284/129 

(on Kosovo, joint resolution replacing Docs. B3-1747, 1759, 1786 1820/90) 

244 European Parliament, 10 December 1991, op. cit. 

245 Ibid. 

246 FRIDE email interview with Adem Demaci on 24 August 2013.
 

84 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
 
 
 
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

surprise and enthusiasm by his fellows, friends and relatives, he was already aware that he had been 
nominated for the prize247. 

The award received little media coverage, with the exception of a newspaper in Kosovo. No Serbian 
outlet broadcast the news. Mr Demaci prepared his acceptance speech in Tirana, surrounded by other 
activists248. He saw it as an opportunity to address all the most salient questions for Kosovo at the time 
in  front  of  the  European  Parliament.  He  proudly  recalls  being  applauded  three  times  and  felt 
particularly honoured as the first Albanian to give a speech in the Palais de l’Europe249. 

In his speech, Mr Demaci praised the prize as paying homage to the people of Kosovo, ‘a peace-loving 
nation  inspired  by  liberty’250.  He  highlighted  how  freedom  of  speech  is  the  first  necessary  step 
towards democracy, and how it was precisely thanks to freedom of speech that the bitter truth about 
the  Albanians  in  Yugoslavia  had  come  to  the  fore.  For  him,  ‘without  freedom  of  speech  there is  no 
dialogue,  without  dialogue  truth  cannot  be  found,  and  without  truth  progress  is  impossible’251.  He 
denounced  the  discrimination  against  Albanians  all  over  Yugoslavia  and  the  violence  exerted  by 
Serbia against Kosovo-Albanians that had transformed Kosovo into one immense prison. In his view, 
violence  was  disintegrating  the  functioning  of  the  Albanian  community,  ‘destroying  from  top  to 
bottom  the  media,  education,  health,  culture,  banking  and  finance,  and  the  economic  and  legal 
systems it had established, and finally dismantling the whole existing political system’252. 

In Mr Demaci’s opinion, the prize represented a turning point in Europe’s attitude towards Kosovo-
Albanians.  His  hope  at  the  time,  in  view  of  the  rise  of  opposition  parties  throughout  the  Yugoslav 
space  and  the  emergence  of  secession  movements  in  Slovenia  and  Croatia,  was  that  a  new  era  of 
‘multipartyism’ and self-determination was near. 

The  prize  had  a  significant  impact  on  his  work  and  activities,  making  him  at  the  same  time  more 
resolute and uncompromising in supporting freedom of thought and speech. Moreover, it increased 
the  financial  and  logistical  support  he  received  from  his  fellow  co-nationals,  enabling  the 
engagement of human rights activists all over Kosovo. The prize also served to boost stronger links 
with international organisations. At the same time, he argues, the award contributed to making the 
Sakharov Prize and other European Parliament activities more visible in Kosovo. Mr Demaci felt his life 
became busier with work and responsibilities. As Chairman of the Pristina-based Council for Defence 
of  Human  Rights  and  Freedoms  (1991-95),  he  was  involved  in  collecting  and  documenting  human 
rights violations perpetrated by the Serbian police and administration, as well as providing support to 
the  families  of  political  prisoners.  The  Council  helped  shape  international  public  opinion  about 
human rights violations in Kosovo.  

However,  the  prize  had  no  impact  on  the  circumstances  of  other  human  rights  activists,  whose 
persecutions became harsher, including incarceration, kidnapping and murder. The killing of activists 
in the cities and countryside also became more frequent. 

247 Ibid. 

248 Ibid. 

249 Clark, 2000, op. cit. 

250 European Parliament, 10 December 1991, op. cit. 

251 Ibid. 

252 Ibid. 


85
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
Policy Department DG External Policies 

Between  1991  and  1993,  he  was  the  editor-in-chief  of  the  Pristina  magazine  Zëri  (The  Voice)253).  In 
1993, the year in which Mr Demaci was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, following the attempt 
by  Serbian  authorities  to  close  down  Rilindja,  an  Albanian-language  press  and  publishing  house  in 
Kosovo, Mr Demaci, together with 13 other Albanian writers and journalists, started a protest which 
culminated in a hunger strike254. 

In  December  1996,  Mr  Demaci  entered  politics  by  replacing  Bajram  Kosumi  as  the  head  of  the 
Parliamentary Party of Kosovo, a small party that increasingly disagreed with the strategy pursued by 
Ibrahim Rugova’s Kosovo Democratic League. During this period, his proposal of a confederation of 
states consisting of Kosovo, Montenegro and Serbia under the name of ‘Balkania’ made headlines not 
only in Kosovo but also in the international press. 

In 1998, he was appointed political representative of the newly formed Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), 
thus  taking  a  prominent  role  in  its  political  wing255.  In  an  interview  with  The  New  York  Times,  he 
refused  to  condemn  the  KLA’s  use  of  violence,  stating  ‘the  path  of  nonviolence  has  gotten  us 
nowhere. People who live under this kind of repression have the right to resist’256. He resigned shortly 
before the NATO intervention, on 2 March 1999, during the peace negotiations in Rambouillet, which 
he attended as the political representative of KLA. Mr Demaci criticised and ultimately opposed the 
agreement for not guaranteeing Kosovo’s independence257. During the war (1998-9), he remained in 
Pristina serving as KLA political representative258. At the end of the war, he became Director of Kosovo 
Radio and Television, a position that he left in 2004. Today, Mr Demaci is the leader of the League of 
Writers of Kosovo. 

Being a Sakharov laureate is less and less an important part of Mr Demaci’s identity. In an interview to 
the European Parliament in 2009, he shared his feeling that ‘the European Parliament has not utilised 
the  human  capital  that  it  has  with  the  winners  of  the  prize’259.  He  advocates  for  a  more  proactive 
stance on the part of the institution, one that is not limited to annual commemorations and events 
related  to  the  Sakharov  Prize,  but  which  is  committed  to  the  protection  of  human  rights  whose 
violations occur daily in many parts of the world260. This can be done, in his view, by enhancing the 
authority and importance of the laureates, and by following their fate back home 261. Thus, Mr Demaci 
urges,  a  change  in  attitude  from  the  European  Parliament  is  needed.  For  those  Sakharov  laureates 
that are in prison, as was the case of Hu Jia in 2009, the European Parliament should raise awareness 

253 International Crisis Group, ‘ICG Kosovo Spring Report’, 1 March 1998, available at: 

http://www.refworld.org/publisher,ICG,,SRB,3ae6a6ec4,0.html [Retrieved on 20 August 2013].
 
254 T. Barber, ‘ “Kosovo's Mandela” on hunger strike: Adem Demaci is among 14 ethnic Albanians protesting at growing 

Serbian oppression’, The Independent, 2 June 1993, available at: 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/kosovos-mandela-on-hunger-strike-adem-demaci-is-among-14-ethnic­
albanians-protesting-at-growing-serbian-oppression-tony-barber-reports-1489190.html [Retrieved 27 August 2013].
 
255 Elsie, 2010, op. cit. 

256 C. Hedges, ‘Kosovo Leader Urges Resistance, but to Violence’, The New York Times, 13 March 1998, available at: 

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/13/world/kosovo-leader-urges-resistance-but-to-violence.html?pagewanted=2 
[Retrieved 20 August 2013].
 
257 ‘Kosovo rebel leader quits’, BBC News, 2 March 1999, available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/289021.stm
 
[Retrieved 25 August 2013].
 
258 J. Rowland, ‘Kosovo leader calls for NATO troops’, BBC News, 27 May 1999, available at: 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/353916.stm [Retrieved 20 August 2013].
 
259 A. Demaci, ‘Dictatorships thrive under a culture of forgetting’, Interview with the European Parliament, 15 December 

2009, Strasbourg, France.
 
260 FRIDE email interview with Adem Demaci, op. cit. 

261 Ibid. 


86 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

about their fate and their fight through weekly reports on TV, radio and newspapers. Mr Demaci adds 
that  ‘dictatorships  thrive  by  promoting  a  culture  of  forgetting  and  it  is  important  to  counteract 
that’262. 

3.26 

Myanmar, 1990: Aung San Suu Kyi 

Aung San Suu Kyi was awarded the Sakharov Prize for her non-violent struggle for democratic change 
in Myanmar. 

Aung San Suu Kyi was born in 1945 into a prominent Burmese family. Her mother was a diplomat and 
her  father,  General  Aung  San,  was  a  revolutionary  leader,  often  referred  to  as  the  father  of  modern 
Burma. Her father was assassinated two years after her birth, and only six months before Burma was 
proclaimed independent from the British colonial rule. Aung San Suu Kyi kept a keen interest in her 
father’s personality and conducted research into his career, as well as on the political history of Burma 
at the time, resulting in a series of publications in the 1980s. She lived abroad, mostly in England, until 
1988,  when  she  went  to  Burma  to  assist  her  mother  after  a  severe  stroke.  Four  months  afterwards, 
mass demonstrations around the country were violently suppressed by the military regime. Aung San 
Suu Kyi became active in the newly-founded National League for Democracy that demanded the end 
of military rule and called for multi-party elections. Several months later, in 1990, Aung San Suu Kyi 
was refused the right to stand for election and placed under house arrest. As she refused to leave the 
country  and  step  down  from  political  life,  her  imprisonment  continued  for  almost  15  years,  cutting 
her off from her husband and two sons, though not from human rights activists in Burma and around 
the  world,  for  whom  she  remained  an  icon  and  an  inspiration.  As  Burma  started  a  tentative  reform 
process, she finally re-entered politics and won in the parliamentary by-elections in April 2012. Later 
the same year, she officially announced her intention to run for president in 2015.  

The  1990  Sakharov  Prize  was  the  first  important  international  prize  awarded  to  Aung  San  Suu  Kyi, 
shortly after she was placed under house arrest. The announcement came as diplomats in Rangoon 
said  Burma's  military  government  had  decided  to  extend  her  detention263.  In  her  own  words,  ‘1990 
was  a  year  of  great  significance  in  Burmese  politics’;  it  was  the  year  of  first  democratic  elections  in 
over  two  decades.  The  fact  that  the  European  Union  reacted  forcefully  to  the  crackdown  of  the 
military on Aung San Suu Kyi’s party and on herself personally was highly significant. Aung San Suu 
Kyi  underlined  that,  ‘When  the  European  Parliament,  the  European  Union,  and  the  European 
Commission  recognised our movement, it gave us strength to go on despite great odds [… it was] 
solidarity,  not  only  from  our  own  people  but  the  world  at  large’  that  helped  her  and  her  party 
persevere over more than two decades of oppression264. 

Although  the  Sakharov  Prize,  along  with  increased  international  attention  to  Aung  San  Suu  Kyi’s 
situation,  no  doubt  contributed  to  her  relative  safety  under  arrest,  the  overall  political  climate  in 
Burma at the time grew worse. Observers attributed growing persecutions to the military’s insecurity 
and  anger  with  the  political  opposition265.  Not  only  was  the  junta  accused  of  killing  thousands  of 
opponents and systematically torturing political detainees, but according to a report from the United 
Nations  Human  Rights  Commission266,  it  also  fired  and  disciplined  some  15  000  civil  servants  and 

262 Ibid. 

263 ‘Burmese Dissident Honoured’, The Independent, 24 January 1991. 

264 European Parliament, Plenary Session, 22 October 2013, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep­
live/en/plenary/video?debate=1382436615693. 

265 ‘Myanmar Said to Purge Civil Service: Opposition Leader’s Candidacy for Nobel Focuses International Ire’, The Washington 

Post, 14 October 1991. 

266 ‘UN Report Condemns Burmese Regime’, The Independent, 27 February 1991.  


87
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
Policy Department DG External Policies 

conducted  extensive  purges  in  the  military  itself267.  The  regime  also  unleashed  a  defamatory 
campaign against Aung San Suu Kyi. Exploiting the fact that she was married to a British citizen, the 
regime tried to build up popular fears of the country being ‘ruled by the CIA’ or indeed by ‘someone 
married to a foreigner’. The press published a number of offensive cartoons depicting Aung San Suu 
Kyi’s children as ragamuffins of mixed race268. 

Aung San Suu Kyi has always had a special relationship with Europe, not only because of her links to 
England,  but  also  because  she  was  so  deeply  inspired  by  European  thinking  on  democracy  and 
human rights. Authors like Czechoslovak Vaclav Havel became her source of strength and vision. In 
her Sakharov Prize acceptance speech, which she could finally deliver in person more than 20 years 
after the award, she recalled how much it had meant for her during her arrest to read the works of 
Andrei  Sakharov  that  had  been  sent  to  her  on  that  occasion.  Writings  by  prominent  dissidents  had 
been an inspiration and the international recognition that she  belonged to  the same great cause  a 
source  of  strength269.  According  to  Zoya  Phan,  her  representative  in  the  20th  Sakharov  Prize 
Anniversary  ceremony  and  international  coordinator  at  Burma  Campaign,  UK:  ‘The  Sakharov  Prize 
that she was given was not just recognising her and her activities and her work for democracy and 
human rights but it also kept her safe and gave her higher international profile and kept Burma in an 
international  agenda’270.  Her  case  no  doubt  became  a  symbolic  case  for  Burma  and  any  attempt  at 
political liberalisation would have been seen as incomplete if she were still under arrest.  

Yet,  her  political  position  remains  precarious  as  her  party  only  holds  a  tiny  portion  of  seats  in  the 
Burmese parliament – 43 out of 664. Moreover, her participation in the elections is prohibited by the 
current  Constitution,  as  she  is  a  widow  and  mother  of  foreigners.  In  her  Sakharov  Prize  acceptance 
speech,  she  underlined  that  Burma,  despite  some  progress,  cannot  be  seen  as  democratising  until 
changes are made to the Constitution271. Though free, her political fate remains in the hands of the 
military  regime.  Aung  San  Suu  Kyi’s  international  fame  provided  her  with  access  to  top  political 
leadership around the world. During her recent international tours to the United States and several 
European states, she was given a head-of-state treatment and could engage in high-level diplomacy. 
Yet, as her political power at home, if not popularity, remains limited, her own future as well as the 
future of political reform  in Burma, depends on how successful  Western democracies  are in finding 
the right balance between encouragement of and political conditionality for the incumbent regime. 
Indeed, in her Nobel Prize lecture, she underlined that reform remains limited and there are still many 
political  prisoners  in  Burma.  Her  vision  for  the  future  of  international  cooperation  with  her  country 
goes  beyond  the  simple  abolition  of  sanctions:  ‘Development  and  humanitarian  aid,  bilateral 
agreements and investments should be coordinated and calibrated to ensure that these will promote 
social, political and economic growth that is balanced and sustainable’272. More concretely, during her 
state  visits  Aung  San  Suu  Kyi  appealed  to  foreign  businesses  not  to  become  partners  of  the  state-
owned  energy  conglomerate  Myanmar  Oil  and  Gas  Enterprise  until  it  adopts  credible  measures  of 
transparency and accountability. Yet, it is not clear how much this appeal will be taken on board.  

267 The Washington Post, 14 October 1991, op. cit. 

268 Ibid, 

269 European Parliament, 22 October 2013, op. cit. 

270 European Parliament, ‘Past Sakharov winners speak out’, Feature, 10 January 2009, available at: 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=IM-PRESS&reference=20090106FCS45491&language=EN. 

271 European Parliament, 22 October 2013, op. cit. 

272 ‘The Nobel Peace Prize 1991, Aung San Suu Kyi’, Nobelprize.org, 16 June 2012, available at: 

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1991/kyi-lecture.html. 


88 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

Understandably, since Aung San Suu Kyi entered politics, her stance has changed from a principled 
commitment to human rights to a more pragmatic approach. As a politician she is responsible for the 
survival  of  her  party,  for  building  coalitions  and  harnessing  support  for  more  reform  within  the 
establishment,  including  constitutional  reform,  on  which  her  political  future  depends,  and  for  a 
number of policy initiatives that may be bringing her closer to the establishment than her supporters 
would  like  to  see  her.  Unlike  Czechoslovaks  Alexander  Dubček  or  Vaclav  Havel,  who  returned  to 
politics when previous regimes were undone and used their popular support to reach the presidency 
and start a new political regime, Aung San Suu Kyi, endowed with little political leverage, continues 
to  operate  in  a  very  closed  and  oppressive  environment.  During  her  BBC  Reith  lecture  on  28  June 
2011, she underlined that the free and uncensored communications that helped the protesters in the 
Arab world were not yet available in Burma273. The European Parliament, though not in a position to 
drive Burma’s whole foreign policy, can no doubt build on the special links it has with Aung San Suu 
Kyi in order to address at least some of these concerns and contribute to further democratisation in 
Burma. 

3.27 

Czechoslovakia, 1989: Alexander Dubček 

Alexander  Dubček  was  awarded  the  Sakharov  Prize  for  his  unwavering  commitment  to 
democratisation, human rights and the rule of law in Czechoslovakia. 

He  was  the  son  of  US  emigrants  who  decided  to  return  first  to  their  native  Slovakia  and  later  to 
Kirghizia, in the former Soviet Union. He spoke fluent Slovak and Russian. In 1955, Mr Dubček went to 
Moscow  to  study  political  science.  He  returned  to  Czechoslovakia  in  1958  as  a  member  of  the 
Communist Party. Hardworking and charismatic, he became First Secretary of the Communist Party of 
Czechoslovakia  in  just  five  years.  As  head  of  the  party,  he  tried  to  appoint  young  progressive 
politicians to high-ranking positions, and launched a programme of reforms that started the so-called 
Prague spring. His hope was to create ‘socialism with a human face’.  

Czechoslovakia  was  the  first  country  of  the  Eastern  bloc  where  censorship  was  abolished  and 
newspapers  could  criticise  the  government.  Mr  Dubček  received  widespread  popular  support.  Yet 
after  only  a  short  period,  Soviet  leaders  decided  to  put  an  end  to  liberalisation  and  Soviet  troops 
occupied Czechoslovakia in 1968. Mr Dubček was exiled. He was first sent to Turkey as ambassador 
and later stayed in internal exile working in a forest near Bratislava as a clerk in a lumberyard for 18 
years. 

His name was erased from history books and his family members were treated as the relatives of an 
enemy of the state. To mention his name publicly meant to risk imprisonment274. He was constantly 
monitored by the secret police. However, this did not stop him from secretly meeting his supporters 
and  sending  letters  to  newspapers  at  home  and  abroad.  He  remained  an  idol  for  those  in 
Czechoslovakia  who  were  hoping  for  democracy.  As  Mr  Dubček  later  said,  he  had  received  several 
letters from Andrei Sakharov, ‘a person who earlier than others understood many things and wanted 
perestroika’275. 

In 1989, the tsunami of democratic revolutions rolled through Central and Eastern Europe. The Velvet 
revolution in Czechoslovakia returned Mr Dubček to political life. The day that he had been fighting 

273 ‘Lecture 1: Aung San Suu Kyi on Liberty’, BBC Reith Lectures, 28 June 2011, available at: 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00hljtd. 

274 J. Holland, ‘Dubcek takes his place at stage again’, The Times, 24 November 1989. 

275 ‘Gorbachev welcomes Czechoslovakian Parliament chairman Alexander Dubcek’, The Independent, 22 May 1990. 


89
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
Policy Department DG External Policies 

for had finally arrived. Very popular among students and young progressive people, Mr Dubček was 
elected Chairman of the Federal Assembly of Czechoslovakia. 

The international community remembered Mr Dubček and his sacrifices in the name of human rights. 
At the end of his exile, he went to Italy, where he was awarded an honorary doctorate. In 1989, the 
Sakharov Prize recognised his contribution to democracy and human rights. At the award ceremony, 
Mr  Dubček  said  that  the  prize  symbolised  for  all  Europeans  their  best  hopes  for  peaceful  reform  in 
Eastern Europe276. For him, the prize was not only a recognition of his political struggle in the past but 
also  a  powerful  symbol  of  the  future  for  post-socialist  countries  in  Eastern  Europe.  During  the 
ceremony,  then  EP  President  Enrique  Barón  Crespo  read  a  letter  from  Andrei  Sakharov  who  had 
passed  away  only  a  few  months  earlier277.  His  widow  and  prominent  human  rights  activist  Yelena 
Bonner underlined that Mr Dubček played an important role in Dr Sakharov’s life. It was Dr Sakharov’s 
support of Mr Dubček and his condemnation of the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia that marked the 
beginning of Dr Sakharov’s prosecutions by the Kremlin. During his speech, Mr Dubček paid tribute to 
Dr Sakharov and called his ideas ‘a constant source of inspiration’278. 

Mr Dubček’s speech, emotional and inspiring, was largely directed to the future of Czechs and Slovaks 
in united Europe. Mr Dubček hoped his country would join the EU one day: ‘Everything is pointing to 
this. It is only a question of time. Czechoslovakia will take all necessary steps in this direction’279. As 
head  of  the  Czechoslovakian  parliament,  Mr  Dubček  ensured  that  all  international  pacts  and 
agreements on civil rights, from the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act to the CSCE in Vienna, are 
incorporated into Czechoslovakian law. 

More  than  two  decades  later,  Mr  Barón  Crespo  remembers  Mr  Dubček  as  an  exceptionally  strong 
personality: 

I have met many dissidents. Alexander Dubček was undoubtedly one of them. He spoke calmly and 
slowly.  He  would  often  smile.  During  lunch,  he  mostly  spoke  about  the  future.  Although  he  was  a 
communist leader 20 years ago, his political activity and programme of reforms were something new 
in the 1960s. He opened up his society. During the lunch meeting, everybody, including myself, had 
just another chance to realise how respectful and open-minded Alexander Dubček was280. 

The Sakharov Prize award to Mr Dubček came at a time of big changes in his country. Although he 
was already well-known, the prize put him on a par with such iconic figures as Nelson Mandela and 
Anatoli Marchenko. In many countries, streets were named after Mr Dubček. For example, in Turkey, 
where  he  was  once  ambassador,  he  is  very  respected  and  known  as  a  ‘Slovakian  Mustafa  Kemal 
Atatürk’. In his native Slovakia, some people even changed their surnames to Dubček after the Velvet 
revolution, as a sign of esteem for their national hero281. 

After the Sakharov Prize, Mr Dubček became a sought-after guest and speaker in many countries. The 
Independent  and  Associated  Press  covered  in  great  detail  his  trips  to  the  Soviet  Union  and  his  first 
visit  to  the  United  States  in  1990.  Talking  to  Mikhail  Gorbachev,  Mr  Dubček  spoke  about  his 

276 H. Neuerbourg, ‘Prague Spring Leader Back in Limelight After Two Decades’, The Associated Press, 23 November 1989. 

277 European Parliament, Formal Sitting – Presentation of the Sakharov Prize, Annex II, The Speeches of Enrique Barón Crespo
 
and Alexander Dubcek, 17 January 1990. 

278 Ibid. 

279 R. J. Wielaard, ‘Dubcek: Czechoslovakia Enshrining Human Rights in New Law’, The Associated Press. 

280 FRIDE telephone interview with Enrique Barón on 19 September 2013. 

281 ‘My Grandpa Alexander Dubcek’, The Voice of Russia, 7 November 2012, available at: 

http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_11_07/My-Grandpa-Alexander-Dub-ek/. 


90 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

correspondence with Andrei Sakharov during exile and supported President Gorbachev’s endeavours 
to reform the Communist regime. In the US, Mr Dubček met with Secretary of State James A. Baker III 
and  members  of  Congress.  Then  he  attended  a  ceremony  at  the  American  University  and  was 
awarded  an  honorary  degree,  as  ‘a  symbol  in  the  face  of  tyranny’282.  Despite  his  past  in  the 
Communist Party283, Mr Dubček came to be recognised as the ‘Humble Revolutionary’, as suggested 
by American reporter David Davis, and a ‘Modest Farrier’, as he was described by Mr Barón Crespo at 
the ceremony. 

In 1992, Mr Dubček published his autobiography Hope Dies Last, a story of a great man who dedicated 
his  life  to  human  rights  and  social  justice.  A  year  later,  he  died  in  a  car  accident  in  unclear  
circumstances. 

3.28 

South Africa, 1988: Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela 

The first Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought in 1988 went to Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela, together 
with Anatoli Marchenko, for his life-long struggle against racism and to promote democracy in South 
Africa. 

After having spent a total of 27 years in prison during the apartheid in South Africa, Nelson Mandela 
was elected the first black President of South Africa in its first fully inclusive multi-racial elections. He 
held the post from 1994 to 1999. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993, together with South 
African  President Frederik Willem de  Klerk, who released Mr  Mandela  from  prison  and  worked with 
him to end the apartheid regime and complete constitutional changes. Both were awarded the Nobel 
Peace  Prize  for  ‘their  work  for  the  peaceful  termination  of  the  apartheid  regime,  and  for  laying  the 
foundations for a new democratic South Africa’284. 

After leaving office, Mr Mandela dedicated his life to promoting dialogue, peace, and justice. He set 
up the Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund, as well as the Nelson Mandela Foundation and The Mandela-
Rhodes Foundation. In addition to initiatives such as the Dialogue for Justice and Mandela Days that 
promote  racial  tolerance  and  dialogue,  the  Mandela  foundations  run  numerous  programmes  and 
support  activities  aimed  at  improving  living  conditions  of  children  throughout  Africa,  as  well  as 
providing  educational  opportunities  and  strengthening  a  new  generation  of  leaders  on  the 
continent. 

Aged 95, Mr Mandela remains one of the most inspirational political figures of the 20th century.  

When Mr Mandela was awarded the Sakharov Prize in 1988, he was still under arrest but no longer in 
prison. He was transferred to house arrest and engaged in talks with the South African government 
on  a  possible  political  transition  and  constitutional  changes  that  would  put  an  end  to  the  racial 
apartheid  system285.  Two  years  earlier,  as  Anatoli  Marchenko  was  demanding  the  release  of  all 
political  prisoners  in  the  Soviet  Union,  South  African  President  Pieter  W.  Botha  promised  he  would 
release  Mr  Mandela  if  Soviet  dissidents  Andrei  Sakharov  and  Anatoly  Shcharansky  were  released  as 

282 The Independent, 22 May 1990, op. cit.
 
283 Holland, 1989, op. cit.
 
284 ‘The Nobel Peace Prize 1993, Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk’, Nobelprize.org, 15 October 1993, available at: 

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1993/. 

285 N. Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom, London: Macdonald Purnell, 1995. 


91
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
 
 
 
Policy Department DG External Policies 

well286. The joint Sakharov Prize award to Mr Marchenko and Mr Mandela represented this fateful link 
between the two freedom fighters.  

The  Sakharov  Prize  came  as  the  first  high  profile  international  recognition  of  Mr  Mandela  and  no 
doubt strengthened his position in the negotiations. Shortly before his grandson came to collect the 
prize on his behalf, European Community members were discussing tightening economic sanctions 
against  South  Africa,  thus  increasing  pressure  on  the  regime287.  Yet,  as  late  as  December  1989,  Mr 
Mandela’s position as well as that of President de Klerk, who started reforming the apartheid system, 
was  precarious  at  best.  President  de  Klerk  was  receiving  political  warnings  as  well  as  death  threats, 
and  his  decisions  on  the  fate  of  Mr  Mandela  and  his  party  were  not  to  be  taken  for  granted288. 
Nonetheless, in February 1990, the ban on the African National Congress was lifted. Mr Mandela was 
released one week later. Although not attributable to the Sakharov Prize directly, these decisions no 
doubt were informed by the EP’s and EU’s positions at the time. 

The  European  Parliament  immediately  seized  this  occasion  to  call  for  the  lifting  of  the  state  of 
emergency in South Africa and for an amnesty for all political prisoners in the country. The European 
Council pledged increased support for the existing programme of positive measures intended to help 
the victims of apartheid by granting new scholarships for students to study in Europe and in multi­
racial South African universities. The Council’s conclusions also called for maintaining the pressure on 
the South African government ‘to promote the profound and irreversible changes’289. 

Mr Mandela travelled to  Strasbourg to collect the  Sakharov  Prize in person  shortly after gaining his 
freedom.  His  speech  sent  a  strong  message  in  favour  of  dialogue  and  reconciliation  in  his  home 
country:  ‘We  understood  that  we  could  not  end  the  nightmare  by  surrendering  ourselves  to  the 
passion  of  hatred  and  the  spirit  of  vengeance  and  retribution  […]  We  came  to  learn  that  the  very 
survival of our country demands that we proceed from a position of genuine love and respect for all 
our people and for all humanity’290. 

As the negotiations with the state were ongoing, Mr Mandela used his speech to remind that despite 
the initial dialogue, the apartheid system was still in place and the toll of victims was growing as he 
spoke before the European Parliament. He insisted that only complete constitutional reform and the 
implementation of a new political system would ensure a peaceful future for South Africa. Before that 
happens,  pressure  from  the  international  community  should  be  strong  and  sanctions  should  be 
maintained,  he  argued.  ‘Anything  less  than  this  would  condemn  our  country  to  worsening  and 
endemic conflict. It would be an insult to the memory of the countless patriots in South Africa and the 
rest of our region, who have sacrificed their very lives’, Mr Mandela underlined 291. This was indeed the 
stance  that  the  European  Community  took  at  the  special  session  of  the  UN  General  Assembly  in 
December 1989. 

The attribution of the Sakharov Prize to Mr Mandela contributed positively to his political struggle. It 
also  had  an  impact  on  how  the  Sakharov  Prize  came  to  be  seen  and  understood.  By  choosing  Mr  
Mandela  as  its  first  recipient  together  with  Soviet  activist  Anatoli  Marchenko,  the  European 

286 ‘Botha May Release Mandela, if Sakharov, Shcharansky Go Free: Also Promises Major Reforms of Apartheid’, Los Angeles 

Times, 31 January 1986, available at: http://articles.latimes.com/1986-01-31/news/mn-2611_1_president-pieter-w-botha. 

287 ‘ECC May Widen SA Sanctions’, The Guardian, 16 February 1989.  

288 The Washington Post, 21 December 1989. 

289 European Council, Conclusions of the Presidency, Strasbourg, 8-9 December 1989, Reproduced from the Bulletin of the 

European Communities, No. 12/1989. 

290 European Parliament, Debates, 13 June 1990. 

291 Ibid. 


92 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

Parliament defined the meaning and purpose of the prize better than any mission statement could 
do. It is no coincidence that many Sakharov Prize laureates mentioned on numerous occasions how 
proud and honoured they were for being distinguished as Nelson Mandela. They felt endowed with 
the ultimate international recognition of their struggle and their cause. 

3.29 

Soviet Union, 1988: Anatoli Marchenko 

Anatoli  Marchenko  is  considered  one  of  the  most  outstanding  human  rights  activists  in  the  post-
Stalin Soviet Union. He was together with Nelson Mandela the first recipient of the Sakharov Prize for 
Freedom of Thought of the European Parliament, awarded to him posthumously in 1988. 

Mr Marchenko was born in Barabinsk, Western Siberia, in 1938 into a proletariat family. He started as a 
worker  in  a  drilling  gang  after  completing  only  secondary  education.  Having  received  his  first 
conviction by mistake, he spent a number of years in Soviet labour camps meeting the best of Soviet 
intellectuals and becoming increasingly active among dissidents. Mr Marchenko’s death in December 
1986  after  a  three-month  hunger  strike  in  prison  attracted  much  international  attention  and  led  to 
the  mass  release  of  political  prisoners  in  the  Soviet  Union,  pushing  then  Secretary-General  of  the 
Communist Party Gorbachev to introduce further reforms. 

His first imprisonment in 1958 was on trumped-up charges of mass fighting and public disorder. After 
his  escape  and  attempted  illegal  border  crossing  into  Iran,  he  was  convicted  for  six  more  years  for 
state  treason.  It  was  on  his  second  term  that  he  found  himself  in  an  environment  of  political 
prisoners,  intellectuals  and  activists  –  the  true  elite  of  the  Soviet  Union.  During  that  period  he 
published  via  samizdat  one  of  his  best-known  works  My  Testimony  (1967),  which  was  a  unique 
detailed description of post-Stalin labour camps with their rampant human rights abuses. When the 
memoirs were translated into several languages and published abroad, they helped raise awareness 
of the situation in Soviet labour camps and of the scale of persecutions against political prisoners. 

After  an  open  circulation  of  his  letter  in  support  of  reforms  in  Czechoslovakia  and  against  Soviet 
interference in its internal affairs292, Mr Marchenko was sentenced for having failed to file a residence 
permit  application  to  a  year  in  a  labour  camp,  which  was  extended  for  two  more  years  for  slander. 
While in exile in Siberia, he married Larisa Bogoraz, a prominent human rights defender.  

Mr Marchenko was critical of the position that Western powers assumed versus the Soviet Union at 
the  time,  of  NATO’s  failure  to  protect  Czechoslovakia  in  1968,  and  of  the  outcome  of  the  Helsinki 
Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe in 1975. According to Mr Marchenko, by seeking 
to weaken the military confrontation with the Soviet Union, the Western political establishment was 
subsequently  loosening  the  ideological  confrontation.  ‘An  alternative  to  war  is  not  a  détente  à-la 
Moscow, but a consistent opposition to the communist dictatorship in all parts of the globe [...] Such 
policy  would  relieve  the  Western  nations  of  their  participation  in  crimes  against  peace  and  against 
the people’293. 

Although one of the founding members of the Moscow Helsinki Group, he did not take an active part 
in its activities primarily because he was in exile, but also due to his dissatisfaction with the Helsinki 
Final Act. Yet it was Mr Marchenko who initiated and formulated the appeal from February 1977 to 

292 The full text of the letter dated 22 July 1968 is available at: http://www.memo.ru/history/diss/books/map4ehko/. 
293 ‘Memoirs of Analoti Marchenko’, Online source Human Rights in Russia, 26 September 2013, available at: 
http://hro.org/node/15647. 

93
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
Policy Department DG External Policies 

the  Heads  of  State  participating  in  the  Helsinki  Agreement,  containing  a  proposal  to  establish  an 
international commission to examine violations of the agreement in the humanitarian field294. 

In 1975, he was sentenced to four years in prison, followed in 1981 by his sixth and last imprisonment 
for  10  years  in  labour  camps  and  five  years  in  internal  exile.  This  time  the  verdict  was  explicitly 
political:  ‘anti-Soviet  agitation  and  propaganda’.  During  this  last  prison  term,  he  went  on  a  hunger 
strike demanding the release of all prisoners of conscience. As his fellow dissident A. Daniel said: ‘He 
won, but never learnt about it [...] His death contributed to the inevitable elimination of the political 
camps – of whose existence he was the first to tell the world’295. After three months on hunger strike, 
he  died  at  the  age  of  48  and  was  buried  on  11  December  1986.  Six  days  after  the  death  of  Mr 
Marchenko, the historic telephone call from Mikhail Gorbachev to Andrei Sakharov took place. At the 
centre  of  their  conversation  was  Mr  Marchenko’s  case,  as  well  as  the  need  to  release  all  political 
prisoners. It also put an end to Dr Sakharov’s exile; on 15 December 1986 he was announced free and 
could come back to Moscow. 

During  the  same  month,  President  Gorbachev  ordered  a  Decree  by  the  Supreme  Council  on  the 
pardon  and  release  of  political  prisoners  to  be  prepared.  On  31  December,  a  secret  decree  of  the 
Central  Committee  of  the  Communist  Party  on  amnesty  was  issued.  Further,  Article  190  of  the 
Criminal Code (on the spread of false fabrications defaming the Soviet social and state system) was 
repealed. Mass release of political prisoners, which Mr Marchenko had fought for, began within less 
than two months of his death. Throughout 1987, about 300 prisoners were pardoned296. 

Mr  Marchenko  did  not  gain  wide  fame  in  his  country.  After  his  death  the  Soviet  media  launched  a 
defamation  campaign  against  him,  accusing  him  of  fabricating  tales  of  human  rights  violations  ‘to 
organise  hostile  campaigns  against  our  country’297.  To  date,  as  human  rights  experts  in  Russia 
indicate,  he  is  someone  who  should  ‘enter  the  pantheon  of  national  heroes’298,  yet  remains  largely 
unknown. Also abroad, Mr Marchenko is far less known than Andrei Sakharov, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 
or Vladimir Bukovsky. The Sakharov Prize award two years after his death contributed greatly to the 
international recognition of Mr Marchenko’s work. 

In  a  message  to  European  Parliament  President  Lord  Plumb,  Andrei  Sakharov  underlined:  ‘In  My 
Testimony  Marchenko  was  the  first  to  tell  the  truth  about  the  post-Stalin  labour  camps  and  the 
prisons. His book became one of the founding stones of the human rights movements in our country 
[…] The achievement of Marchenko’s life and his work is an enormous contribution to the cause of 
democracy, of humanity and of justice’299. 

His widow, Ms Bogoraz, commented: ‘I hope that the fate of those who receive the Sakharov Prize in 
future  will  be  less  tragic  than  that  of  Nelson  Mandela  and  much  less  tragic  than  that  of  my  late 
husband’300. Despite the tragic loss  of her husband, she kept on fighting for  human rights in Soviet 
Union/Russia in his name. Unfortunately, she felt the work of human rights activists was not gaining 
enough  ground  in  the  post-Soviet  era:  ‘It  is  true  we  have  no  influence  on  government  policy,  but  I 

294 Ibid. 

295 See http://www.hrights.ru/text/b22/Chapter7%205.htm. 

296 Memoirs of Analoti Marchenko, 2013, op. cit. 

297 Trud, April 1987. 

298 See http://polit.ru/article/2012/01/23/marchenko/. 

299 Private message from A. Sakharov to Lord Plumb, Lord Plumb’s speech in the European Parliament, 15 February1989. 

300 L. Bogoraz, widow of Anatoli Marchenko, dissident, interview, 1989. 


94 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                               
 
The European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, 1988-2013 - A Quarter Century's Engagement in Human Rights 

hope we will have some influence on society at large […] We still have such a long way to achieve real 
democracy. I have to keep trying to educate people about human rights’301. 

301 L. Bogoraz, widow of Anatoli Marchenko, dissident, interview for the Associated Press, 1994. 

95