Eritrea

The State of Eritrea, a country in East Africa, is a one-man dictatorship under President Isaias Afewerki without a functioning legislature or independent judiciary.[ref]United Nations General Assembly, “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Eritrea, Mohamed Abdelsalam Babiker”, A/HRC/53/20, 9 May 2023, https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/country-reports/ahrc5320-situation-human-rights-eritrea-report-special-rapporteur[/ref] There has not been an election in Eritrea since independence in 1993. Afewerki has long used the ongoing war with Ethiopia to justify rampant authoritarianism, human rights abuses, and civil society restrictions. Impunity for rights violations is the norm.[ref]“Eritrea” chapter in World Report 2024, Human Rights Watch, accessed 22 March 2024, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2024/country-chapters/eritrea [/ref]

There are no reliable figures on religious demography in Eritrea; however, it is estimated that the population is predominantly split between Christian and Muslim adherents.[ref]“Eritrea” chapter in 2022 Report on International Religious Freedom, Office of International Religious Freedom, U.S. Department of State, accessed 22 March 2024, https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/eritrea/; Eritrea Education Sector Plan 2018-2022, Ministry of Education, 1 February 2018, 22, https://www.globalpartnership.org/node/document/download?file=document/file/2018-01-eritrea-education-sector-plan.pdf [/ref]

According to Human Rights Watch:[ref]“Eritrea” chapter in World Report 2024, Human Rights Watch, accessed 22 March 2024, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2024/country-chapters/eritrea [/ref]

“Despite being a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council, Eritrea refused to cooperate with key UN and African Union (AU) rights mechanisms, including by denying access to the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Eritrea and ignoring African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) decisions.”

Constitution and government Education and children’s rights Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
Expression of core Humanist principles on democracy, freedom and human rights is brutally repressed
It is illegal or unrecognised to identify as an atheist or as non-religious
The non-religious are barred from some government offices (including posts reserved for particular religions or sects)
The dominant influence of religion in public life undermines the right to equality and/or non-discrimination
Systemic religious privilege results in significant social discrimination
It is made difficult to register or operate an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization
‘Blasphemy’ is outlawed or criticism of religion (including de facto ‘blasphemy’ laws) is restricted and punishable with a prison sentence
There is systematic religious privilege
Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general
Legal or constitutional provisions exclude non-religious views from freedom of religion or belief
Some concerns about children's right to specifically freedom of religion or belief
Constitution and government
The non-religious are barred from some government offices (including posts reserved for particular religions or sects)
There is systematic religious privilege
Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general
Legal or constitutional provisions exclude non-religious views from freedom of religion or belief
Education and children’s rights
Some concerns about children's right to specifically freedom of religion or belief
Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals
The dominant influence of religion in public life undermines the right to equality and/or non-discrimination
Systemic religious privilege results in significant social discrimination
It is made difficult to register or operate an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization
Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
Expression of core Humanist principles on democracy, freedom and human rights is brutally repressed
It is illegal or unrecognised to identify as an atheist or as non-religious
‘Blasphemy’ is outlawed or criticism of religion (including de facto ‘blasphemy’ laws) is restricted and punishable with a prison sentence
The state is secular, with separation of religious and political authorities, not discriminating against any religion or belief
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report

Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition

Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in all or most state-funded schools with no secular or humanist alternative
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report

Countries: Angola, South Sudan, Tuvalu

Religious courts or tribunals rule directly on some family or ‘moral’ matters; it is legally an opt-in system, but the possibility of social coercion is very clear
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
No fundamental restrictions on freedom of expression or advocacy of humanist values
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report

Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition

No condition holds in this strand

Countries: Lesotho, Uzbekistan

No condition holds in this strand

Countries: Andorra

No condition holds in this strand
No condition holds in this strand

Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition

Localised or infrequent but recurring and widespread social marginalisation or prejudice against the non-religious

This condition is unusual in that it is applied in cases where there is some social discrimination, but it is not pervasive or nationwide. This condition is applied when there is sufficient background evidence to warrant the assertion that discrimination is not anomalous but widespread, and this condition may be applied for example even where if there is no legislative discrimination or where the non-religious may have legal recourse against such discrimination. However, societal discrimination (i.e. discrimination by peers, as opposed to state or legal discrimination) is not easily measured, and for this reason the Report does not currently have similar more severe boundary conditions to capture higher levels of social discrimination per se. In principle these may be introduced in future. However, we consider that countries with actual higher levels of social discrimination against the non-religious will generally already meet other higher level (more severe) boundary conditions under this thematic strand.

Countries: Albania, Botswana, Greece, Serbia, United States of America

The dominant influence of religion in public life undermines the right to equality and/or non-discrimination

Applied when the influence of religion on public life undermines others’ rights, such as SRHR, women’s rights, LGBTI+ rights.

May be applied when the influence is overt (i.e. when religious laws are applied to undermine others’ rights) or covert (i.e. where religious pressure groups exert influence to affect policy)

Countries: Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Chile, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Eswatini, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Hungary, Iran, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Liberia, Lithuania, Mali, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Oman, Paraguay, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, Zambia

Use of Conscientious Objection clauses resulting in the denial of lawful services to women and LGBTI+ people
Complete tyranny precludes all freedoms of expression and thought, religion or belief

Applied when overriding acts of oppression by the State are extreme, to the extent that the question of freedom of thought and expression is almost redundant, because all human rights and freedoms are quashed by authorities.

Countries: Afghanistan, North Korea

The non-religious are barred from some government offices (including posts reserved for particular religions or sects)
There is a nominal state church with few privileges or progress is being made toward disestablishment

Countries: Bulgaria, Norway, Peru, Rwanda

Religious or ideological indoctrination is utterly pervasive in schools
Expression of non-religious views is severely persecuted, or is rendered almost impossible by severe social stigma, or is highly likely to be met with hatred or violence
The non-religious are persecuted socially or there are prohibitive social taboos against atheism, humanism or secularism
There is significant social marginalisation of the non-religious or stigma associated with expressing atheism, humanism or secularism
Expression of core Humanist principles on democracy, freedom and human rights is brutally repressed
Religious authorities have supreme authority over the state

Countries: Iran

State legislation is partly derived from religious law or by religious authorities
Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general

This condition is applied where there are miscellaneous indicators that organs of the state offer various forms of support for a religion, or to religion in general over non-religious worldviews, suggesting a preference for those beliefs, or that the organs of that religion are privileged.

Countries: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, San Marino, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zimbabwe

Religious or ideological instruction in a significant number of schools is of a coercive fundamentalist or extremist variety

This condition highlights countries where schools subject children to fundamentalist religious instruction with no real opportunity to question fundamentalist tenets, or where lessons routinely encourage hatred (for example religious or ethnic hatred). The wording “significant number of schools” is not given a rigid quantification (sometimes the worst-offending schools are unregistered, illegal, or otherwise uncounted); however the condition is not applied in cases where only a small number of schools meet the description and may be anomalous, as opposed to being indicative of a widespread problem.

Countries: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia

State-funded schools provide religious education which may be nominally comprehensive but is substantively biased or borderline confessional
There is a pattern of impunity or collusion in violence by non-state actors against the non-religious
Some religious courts rule in civil or family matters on a coercive or discriminatory basis
‘Apostasy’ or conversion from a specific religion is outlawed and punishable by death
‘Apostasy’ is outlawed and punishable with a prison sentence

Countries: Bahrain, Comoros, Jordan, Kuwait

State legislation is largely or entirely derived from religious law or by religious authorities
Anomalous discrimination by local or provincial authorities, or overseas territories
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in at least some public schools (without secular or humanist alternatives)
Government figures or state agencies openly marginalize, harass, or incite hatred or violence against the non-religious
Government authorities push a socially conservative, religiously or ideologically inspired agenda, without regard to the rights of those with progressive views
‘Blasphemy’ or criticism of religion is outlawed and punishable by death
Quasi-divine veneration of a ruling elite is enforced, or a single-party regime holds uncontested power, subject to severe punishment
Legal or constitutional provisions exclude non-religious views from freedom of religion or belief
It is illegal to register an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization, or such groups are persecuted by authorities
Prohibitive interreligious social control (including interreligious marriage bans)
It is illegal to advocate secularism or church-state separation, or such advocacy is suppressed
The non-religious are barred from holding government office
There is a religious tax or tithing which is compulsory, or which is state-administered and discriminates by precluding non-religious groups
It is illegal or unrecognised to identify as an atheist or as non-religious
Some concerns about children's right to specifically freedom of religion or belief

This condition may apply if specifically religious education, religious materials, or specific religious denominations are so tightly controlled that children are in fact over-protected from exposure to religion and are likely unable to explore or construct their own worldview in accordance with their evolving capacities. This condition helps us to classify states (perhaps with secular constitutions) which have criminalized specifically religious beliefs or practices. This condition is not applied if the restricted beliefs or practices are found to be outlawed due to their being of an extremist variety. While this condition does not directly reflect discrimination against non-religious persons or non-religious ideas, it does represent an overall threat to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief; such restrictions could spill over to affect non-religious beliefs later; and they pose a risk of backlash against over-zealous secular authorities or even against non-religious individuals by association.

Countries: China, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Cuba, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Guyana, Italy, Kazakhstan, Laos, Madagascar, Mali, Mexico, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe

It is made difficult to register or operate an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization
Legend
 
Grave Violations
Severe Discrimination
Systemic Discrimination
More information about rating table

Constitution and government

Though the Eritrean Constitution[ref]“Eritrea 1997”, Constitute Project, accessed 22 March 2024, https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Eritrea_1997 [/ref] purports to guarantee the right to freedom of religion or belief, to date the Constitution has not been applied in practice. Many Eritreans face severe restrictions when exercising their right to freedom of religion or belief.[ref]“Eritrea” chapter in World Report 2024, Human Rights Watch, accessed 22 March 2024, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2024/country-chapters/eritrea [/ref]

The Eritrean Office of Religious Affairs only officially recognizes four religions: the Eritrean Orthodox Church, Sunni Islam, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Evangelical Church (Lutheran Church) of Eritrea. All other religions or beliefs are deemed illegal. Even members of “official” religions frequently find themselves unable to practice their faith because of government interference in their affairs.[ref] United Nations General Assembly, “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Eritrea, Mohamed Abdelsalam Babiker”, A/HRC/53/20, 9 May 2023, https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/country-reports/ahrc5320-situation-human-rights-eritrea-report-special-rapporteur [/ref] To come out as an atheist is legally unrecognizable and would likely provoke arrest and significant social persecution.

Proclamation 73/1995[ref]Eritrea: Proclamation No. 73/1995 of 1995, Proclamation to legally standardize and articulate religious institutions and activities, 15 July 1995, UN Refugee Agency, accessed 22 March 2024, https://www.refworld.org/legal/legislation/natlegbod/1995/en/61889 [/ref] regulates the operation of religious organizations. The proclamation establishes the separation between religious and political authorities (Article 2). The law requires religious groups to register with the Government or cease activities, and places strict limitations on the parameters of their operations, as well as sources of funding.

Education and children’s rights

Education is officially compulsory only between the ages of seven and 13, and in practice even this promise is often unfulfilled, due to insufficient infrastructure, skills shortages, poverty, and social taboos.[ref]Eritrea Education Sector Plan 2018-2022, Ministry of Education, 1 February 2018, https://www.globalpartnership.org/node/document/download?file=document/file/2018-01-eritrea-education-sector-plan.pdf [/ref]

The Ministry of Education is responsible for teacher training, setting the curriculum, and the provision of textbooks. The Ministry also recruits teachers, sets standards, provides policy framework, and monitors and evaluates the whole sector.[ref]Eritrea Education Sector Plan 2018-2022, Ministry of Education, 1 February 2018, 32, https://www.globalpartnership.org/node/document/download?file=document/file/2018-01-eritrea-education-sector-plan.pdf[/ref]

According to UNESCO, most schools are state-owned. Other providers include “community schools” – in which a school is part-funded by the local community – “Awkaf schools” – administered by Awkaf (Islamic religion association) – and “mission schools” – administered by churches (Coptic, Catholic, and Protestant churches). UNESCO reports that the majority of non-government schools, such as those administered by religious groups, have been converted to community schools, or been closed down or restricted by the government.[ref]“Eritrea – Non-state actors in education”, UNESCO, last updated 13 June 2023, https://education-profiles.org/northern-africa-and-western-asia/eritrea/~non-state-actors-in-education; Abdur Rahman Alfa Shaban, “Eritrea govt’s latest seizures – schools run by religious bodies”, Africa News, https://www.africanews.com/2019/09/03/eritrea-govt-s-latest-seizures-schools-run-by-religious-bodies//[/ref] According to the U.S. Department of State:[ref]“Eritrea” chapter in 2022 Report on International Religious Freedom, Office of International Religious Freedom, U.S. Department of State, accessed 22 March 2024, https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/eritrea/[/ref]

“In September, the beginning of the 2022 school year, the last two remaining Catholic schools were closed or converted to public schools. In October, the government allowed one private school to reopen, limited to international non-Eritrean students only.”

All schools whether state or non-state must follow the national curriculum.[ref]Habtom Tesfamichael, “Eritrea: Overview of its National Curriculum”, Ministry of Information Eritrea, 14 October 2020, https://shabait.com/2020/10/14/eritrea-overview-of-its-national-curriculum/ [/ref] Reports indicate that non-secular schools can implement their own teachings and curricula upon certification.[ref]“Eritrea – Non-state actors in education”, UNESCO, last updated 13 June 2023, https://education-profiles.org/northern-africa-and-western-asia/eritrea/~non-state-actors-in-education [/ref]

Family, community and society

Owing to the stringency with which information is controlled, it is difficult to obtain substantive information on the lived experience of Eritreans.

Treatment of religion or belief communities

The Eritrean government only validates four “recognized” religious groups, the Orthodox Church, Roman Catholicism, the Evangelical (Lutheran Church) and Sunni Islam. Despite other religious groups having applied for official recognition since 2002, the Eritrean government has failed to implement the relevant rights established in the Constitution.[ref]“Eritrea” chapter in 2022 Report on International Religious Freedom, Office of International Religious Freedom, U.S. Department of State, accessed 22 March 2024, https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/eritrea/[/ref]

Members of “unrecognized” religions are arrested and detained for extended periods in vastly overcrowded conditions, and there have been reports that people have been tortured as means of forcing them to recant their religious affiliation. Reports of the harassment and arrest of members of religious minority groups are widespread and frequent.[ref] United Nations General Assembly, “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Eritrea, Mohamed Abdelsalam Babiker”, A/HRC/53/20, 9 May 2023, https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/country-reports/ahrc5320-situation-human-rights-eritrea-report-special-rapporteur ; “Eritrea” chapter in World Report 2024, Human Rights Watch, accessed 22 March 2024, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2024/country-chapters/eritrea ; “Eritrea” chapter in 2022 Report on International Religious Freedom, Office of International Religious Freedom, U.S. Department of State, accessed 22 March 2024, https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/eritrea/[/ref]

However, reports of harassment of members of recognized religious groups are also increasingly common.

Harmful traditional practices

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), while in consistent decline for the last 25 years, is still practiced in Eritrea. According to UNICEF’s research:[ref] UNICEF Eritrea, Case study on ending female genital mutilation in the State of Eritrea, April 2021, 3, https://www.unicef.org/esa/media/8916/file/Eritrea-Case-Study-FGM-2021.pdf [/ref]

“In 1995, the Eritrea Demographic and Health Survey reported a prevalence rate of 95% among 15-49 year-olds. Since then, it decreased to 89% in 20022, and 83% in 2010.“

According to the study, various cultural, religious, and social factors inform the prevalence of the practice in Eritrea, with the main drivers being to preserve virginity, prevent pre-marital sex, and ensure social acceptance. UNICEF reports that religious approval has reduced significantly over the last decade due to intensive sensitization efforts aimed at religious leaders, which has led some to disassociate FGM and religion.[ref]UNICEF Eritrea, Case study on ending female genital mutilation in the State of Eritrea, April 2021, 4, https://www.unicef.org/esa/media/8916/file/Eritrea-Case-Study-FGM-2021.pdf [/ref]

Government authorities, together with international agencies, have adopted a community dialogue approach to seek to challenge social and cultural norms that perpetuate this practice.

LGBTI+ rights

Eritrea criminalizes consensual same-sex relations with up to seven years’ imprisonment.[ref] “Eritrea”, ILGA World LGBTI+ Database, accessed 25 March 2024, https://database.ilga.org/eritrea-lgbti [/ref] It is unclear how readily the law is enforced.

Freedom of expression, advocacy of humanist values

The Government maintains tight control over dissent. Arbitrary detention and/or enforced disappearance of dissenters are core to the modus operandi of the authorities. To date, thousands of people remain arbitrarily detained; they include opposition figures, journalists, human rights defenders and others. The widespread and systematic nature of these practices is considered by the UN Special Rapporteur on Eritrea to amount to crimes against humanity.[ref]United Nations General Assembly, “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Eritrea, Mohamed Abdelsalam Babiker”, A/HRC/53/20, 9 May 2023, https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/country-reports/ahrc5320-situation-human-rights-eritrea-report-special-rapporteur [/ref]

The Press Proclamation No 90/1996[ref] Press Proclamation, No 90/1996, UN Refugee Agency, 10 June 1996, https://www.refworld.org/legal/legislation/natlegbod/1996/en/59023 [/ref] (Part II, Section 4) grants the government powers to censor all mass media. This law requires that the media promotes “national objectives.” The state retains a legal monopoly on all broadcast media, and in practice all journalists follow the government’s editorial line. No independent media – be it print or broadcast – has operated in the country since 2001.[ref]“Eritrea – 20 years of dictatorship, two decades with no independent media”, Reporters Without Borders, 18 September 2021, https://rsf.org/en/eritrea-20-years-dictatorship-two-decades-no-independent-media [/ref]

The passage of Proclamation of 145/2005[ref]“Eritrea: Proclamation No. 145/2005 of 2005, Non-governmental Organization Administration Proclamation”, UN Refugee Agency, 11 May 2005, https://www.refworld.org/legal/legislation/natlegbod/2005/en/95934# [/ref] placed onerous requirements on civil society organizations, having the effect of shutting down the operations of all national and international NGOs in the country. Further to this, the government also takes steps to curtail the work of human rights defenders working in the diaspora.[ref]“Eritrea: Government officials and supporters target critics abroad as repression stretches beyond borders”, Amnesty International, 27 June 2019, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2019/06/eritrea-government-officials-and-supporters-target-critics-abroad-as-repression-stretches-beyond-borders/ [/ref]

Ban on “disparaging” or “profaning” religion

Eritrea’s 2015 Penal Code[ref]Eritrea: Penal Code, UN Refugee Agency, 15 May 2015, https://www.refworld.org/legal/legislation/natlegbod/2015/en/106143 [/ref] criminalizes at least two types of ‘blasphemous’ conduct.

Article 196 criminalizes the “Disturbance of Religious or Ethnic Feelings,” defined as:

“intentionally and publicly disparag[ing] a ceremony or rite of any lawful religious group, or profan[ing] a place, image or object used for such religious ceremonies or ceremonies relating to any ethnic group.”

The offense of “Defamation of or Interference with Religious and Ethnic Groups” is contained in Article 195. This offense is defined as:

“intentionally and publicly assert[ing] fabricated or distorted facts, knowing them to be such, in order to cast disparagement upon any religion or ethnic group, or unlawfully disrupt[ing] or attempt[ing] to obstruct a religious service or assembly.”

The penalties for both offenses are possible imprisonment for up to a year. Not enough public information and monitoring exists to determine how often these laws are used in practice.