The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) delivered a statement on March 23, 2026, on the occasion of the 61st session of the United Nations Human Rights Council for the adoption of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the Maldives. In this communication, prepared with the Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN), she denounces the massive rejection of key UPR recommendations by the Maldives government citing religion, calls for the effective protection of human rights defenders in the Maldives, and re-registration of the MDN. Read the statement below.
United Nations Human Rights Council – 61st session
Item 5: Adoption of the conclusions of the Universal Periodic Review of the Maldives
23 mars 2026
Mr Vice President,
FIDH and the Maldivian Democracy Network are delighted with the acceptance by the Maldives government of 83% of the recommendations received within the framework of the UPR.
However, this figure does not reflect the whole reality. We are concerned that the government is citing religious reasons to overwhelmingly reject important recommendations.
For example, none of the recommendations relating to discrimination based on religion, sexual orientation and gender identity, the right to freedom of religion or belief, and almost all of the recommendations to abolish the death penalty were accepted.
This attitude reveals the dangerous adherence to religious and cultural relativism and a total rejection of the universality of human rights.
Concerning the death penalty, the government’s statements that it does not envisage an official moratorium and its refusal to accept a recommendation aimed at maintaining the moratorium in fact in force, are worrying and call for increased vigilance on the part of abolitionist states which must continue to put pressure on the government of the Maldives so that it takes measures in favor of the abolition of capital punishment.
While we welcome the government’s acceptance of all the recommendations relating to the protection of human rights defenders and members of civil society, including in the face of religious extremism, it is clear that these commitments have not been followed, until now, by any concrete action.
Members of independent civil society do not feel safe in the Maldives, as shown by the exile of several major female human rights defenders fleeing their country in recent years, and the attacks on defenders, sometimes deadly.
We renew our calls for the effective protection of human rights defenders in the Maldives and the re-registration of the Maldivian Democracy Network.
We also observe that the government has refused to provide a timetable for the publication of the conclusions of the Commission on Deaths and Disappearances, almost two years after its dissolution. We reiterate our call for the immediate dissemination of the findings to the families concerned.
Merci.
