On 6 June 2026, a communication addressed to the Russian government concerning the case of Daria Egereva and Natalia Leongardt was made public. The document was submitted by ten UN Special Procedures mandate holders. Such communications are published 60 days after being sent, regardless of whether the government concerned has responded.
At first glance, this may appear to be just another human rights appeal—one of many submitted in recent years in response to developments in Russia. Yet this particular document warrants much closer attention.
First, it concerns one of the most prominent representatives of Russia’s Indigenous Peoples on the international stage, as well as her colleague. Second, the scale of the international response sets this case apart from most recent UN communications involving Russia. Finally, the communication offers an important illustration of how the international human rights system responds to alleged violations today, even when a state may choose to ignore the concerns raised.
From UN Climate Negotiations to Terrorism Charges
The communication concerns the criminal prosecution of two human rights defenders: Daria Egereva, a representative of the Selkup people and Co-Chair of the International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Climate Change (IIPFCC), and Natalia Leongardt, who has spent several decades advancing the rights of Indigenous Peoples in Russia through advocacy, education, and efforts to foster dialogue between Indigenous communities and government authorities.
On 17 December 2025, Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) carried out a series of coordinated raids, interrogations, and detentions targeting Indigenous activists across several regions of the country. Most of those detained were subsequently released. Egereva and Leongardt, however, were arrested and placed in pre-trial detention. Both have been charged with participation in the activities of a terrorist organization under Article 205.5(2) of the Russian Criminal Code, an offence punishable by 10 to 20 years of imprisonment.
The prosecution is based on the alleged involvement of Egereva and Leongardt in the expert network “Aborigen Forum.” In July 2024, the network was designated by the Russian authorities as an “extremist organization,” and in December of the same year it was further classified as a “terrorist organization” following the entry into force of two corresponding rulings of the Russian Supreme Court. Both decisions were adopted behind closed doors, and neither ruling has ever been made public.
Daria Egereva was detained only days after returning from COP30 in Brazil, where she had represented the interests of Indigenous Peoples within official UN processes. The communication explicitly notes that the investigation partly links the charges against her to her participation in international negotiations and her engagement with UN mechanisms. It is this aspect of the case that makes it particularly significant.
Unprecedented Attention to the Case
The communication was endorsed by ten UN mandates: the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Russian Federation, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, as well as the Special Rapporteurs on freedom of opinion and expression, the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, violence against women and girls, climate change, and the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.
Within the UN Special Procedures system, such a level of engagement is relatively uncommon. Most communications are issued jointly by only a few mandate holders. In this case, however, a broad coalition of independent UN experts chose to endorse the communication. Moreover, since 2023, this is the UN communication concerning Russia that has involved the largest number of mandate holders.
When such a wide range of experts joins a single communication, it usually indicates that the concerns extend beyond the fate of the individuals involved. From the perspective of the UN Special Procedures, the case appears to sit at the intersection of several broader issues: the rights of Indigenous Peoples, the shrinking space for civil society, the safety of engagement with international human rights mechanisms, and the limits of counter-terrorism legislation.
What Violations Did the UN Experts Identify?
It is important to note that a UN communication is not a judicial decision and does not establish state responsibility. The authors of the letter explicitly stress that they do not prejudge the accuracy of the allegations presented. Nevertheless, the document suggests that the case may involve potential violations on at least three distinct levels.
The Individual Dimension: The Rights of the Defendants
At the first level, the mandate holders express concern about possible violations of the fundamental rights of Daria Egereva and Natalia Leongardt. These include the prohibition of arbitrary detention, the rights to liberty and security of person, the right to a fair trial, freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly and association, the right to privacy, and guarantees of humane treatment for persons deprived of their liberty. In addressing these concerns, the experts rely primarily on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture.
The Collective Dimension: The Rights of Indigenous Peoples
At the second level, the communication extends beyond the situation of the two defendants and addresses the rights of Indigenous Peoples as collective rights holders. The experts note that the criminal prosecution of Indigenous representatives and the dissolution of their independent organizations may affect the ability of Indigenous communities to choose their own representatives, participate in decision-making on matters affecting them, maintain their own institutions, and engage in international processes in their own right. In this regard, the communication draws on the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The Systemic Dimension: Civil Society’s Engagement with International Mechanisms
The most unusual—and arguably the most significant—part of the communication concerns this third level. The mandate holders explicitly raise concerns about possible reprisals for cooperation with the United Nations and warn of the message such actions could send to human rights defenders engaging with international mechanisms.
It is this systemic dimension that gives the communication its broader significance. The issue is no longer simply the fate of two individuals. Rather, it concerns the ability of international human rights mechanisms to perform their functions effectively. If engagement with such mechanisms carries the risk of criminal prosecution, what is at stake is not only the safety of individual activists but also the effectiveness of the international institutions themselves, which depend on access to information and meaningful cooperation with civil society.
What Did the UN Experts Ask Russia?
Equally revealing is the list of questions that the mandate holders addressed to the Russian government. Taken together, these questions target some of the most vulnerable aspects of the prosecution’s case. The experts are not focused solely on the charges against Daria Egereva and Natalia Leongardt; rather, they scrutinize the entire legal framework underlying the case—from the designation of organizations as extremist or terrorist to the safeguards available to individuals engaging with international human rights mechanisms.
First, the experts request clarification as to the specific acts attributed to Daria Egereva and Natalia Leongardt and how those acts satisfy each of the constituent elements required for the offence of participation in the activities of a terrorist organization. In essence, the mandate holders question whether sufficient legal and factual grounds exist to justify charges carrying such severe penalties.
Second, the communication raises questions about the procedures, criteria, and evidentiary basis on which Aborigen Forum, the International Committee of Indigenous Peoples of Russia, and other Indigenous organizations were designated as extremist and/or terrorist organizations. The experts seek to determine whether these decisions were made through judicial or administrative proceedings; whether the organizations and their representatives were informed of the proceedings; whether they had access to the evidence against them; whether they were able to obtain legal representation, participate in hearings, and challenge the decisions before an independent tribunal. The mandate holders also ask whether there are mechanisms for reviewing such designations, time limits on their validity, or effective avenues of appeal. In other words, the experts’ attention is directed not only at the charges against specific individuals but also at the legality of the very foundation upon which those charges rest.
Third, the mandate holders seek to establish whether the guarantees of a fair trial are being respected in the case of Daria Egereva and Natalia Leongardt. They ask whether the defendants have unrestricted access to legal counsel, whether they have sufficient time and facilities to prepare their defence, and whether the evidence is being assessed by an independent and impartial court. The experts also request clarification regarding the legal basis for holding court proceedings behind closed doors.
Fourth, the communication asks Russia to explain how the application of counter-terrorism legislation to the peaceful human rights activities of Daria Egereva and Natalia Leongardt is compatible with the country’s international human rights obligations. Particular attention is given to the rights to liberty and security of person, a fair trial, and the freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly, and association.
Fifth, the mandate holders raise broader concerns about the safety of all individuals who engage with international human rights mechanisms. They ask Russia to explain what measures are in place to protect Indigenous human rights defenders and others who cooperate with UN mechanisms, including climate-related processes, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the UN Special Procedures, and the UN treaty bodies. The experts further request information on the safeguards available to prevent intimidation, surveillance, criminalization, and reprisals linked to such engagement.
Finally, the communication asks Russia to explain how its current system for designating organizations as extremist or terrorist complies with the country’s international human rights obligations. The experts express particular concern about the vagueness of the criteria used for such designations, the lack of publicly available evidence supporting them, and the inadequacy of procedural safeguards for affected individuals and organizations.
The Russian government was given 60 days to respond. Since late 2022, however, Russia has largely ceased responding to communications from the UN Special Procedures. The communication concerning Daria Egereva and Natalia Leongardt proved no exception: no response was submitted.
A Record Against Oblivion
Skeptics often ask what practical value such communications have. If a government ignores the questions raised, and UN mandate holders have no authority to overturn arrests or compel a change in state policy, what difference can these documents really make?
Since Russia’s expulsion from the Council of Europe and the end of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, UN mechanisms have remained among the few international forums where allegations of human rights violations in Russia continue to receive systematic scrutiny. In this context, the role of the UN Special Procedures and treaty bodies has inevitably become more significant.
Yet the value of these communications does not depend on whether a government chooses to respond. Each communication becomes an official United Nations document, recording facts that have raised concern among independent experts, identifying the relevant norms of international law, and setting out questions that the state may one day be required to answer.
For this reason, the significance of such documents cannot be measured by their capacity to produce immediate change. Their function is different. They preserve an authoritative record of events as they unfold, helping to shape the international memory of what occurred and providing a foundation for future legal, political, and historical assessments of state conduct.