Can you describe your role as France’s Ambassador for Human Rights?
My role is structured around several key areas. First, I represent France in all international forums where human rights are discussed: at the United Nations in New York and Geneva, before the Human Rights Council, as well as at summits that fall outside the UN framework. This diplomatic presence is essential, as it allows France to articulate its vision of human rights — a vision deeply rooted in the principle that these fundamental rights belong to every human being.
I often point out that the English expression human rights has influenced contemporary usage, including the growing adoption of the term “droits humains” in French. However, the translation is imperfect, as it can suggest a collective concept.
In reality, many rights are first and foremost individual rights.
That is why I sometimes use “droits humains” in everyday language, while considering that “rights of the human person” might be the most accurate expression. As for “droits de l’Homme,” the term has acquired a gendered connotation that was not predominant at the time of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. This evolution must be acknowledged, even though the universality of rights remains unchanged.
Beyond representation, I also carry out bilateral missions. I have recently travelled to Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Japan, for example. Each visit provides an opportunity to convey France’s position while engaging in dialogue with local authorities and civil society to advance fundamental rights.
Another key aspect of my work is leading the French delegation during accountability reviews before UN treaty bodies. We must report very concretely on how France fulfils its international commitments. No country is exemplary — France included — but transparency is a core component of democratic guarantees.
I therefore ensure that these reviews are thoroughly prepared, in close coordination with all relevant ministries. When appearing before the Human Rights Committee or the Committee against Torture, we sometimes brought together up to forty representatives from different central government departments. This collective approach is essential.
Finally, I am responsible for France’s delegation to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). This work is crucial to preserving memory, combating denial and strengthening education. I will be travelling to Jerusalem in December to present France’s candidacy for the Alliance’s presidency in 2027.
Alongside this, I conduct bilateral dialogues on combating antisemitism with several countries, including the United States, Germany and Israel. Recent months have been challenging, but maintaining these forms of cooperation remains vital.
What are the key priorities you are currently working on?
One of my main priorities is the organisation of the next World Congress Against the Death Penalty, which France will host from 30 June to 3 July 2026. I recently attended a regional preparatory congress in Japan. This global event aims not only to bring together states committed to abolition, but also to encourage other countries to take concrete steps towards it.
Some states, for instance, have not formally abolished the death penalty but have not carried out executions for many years. Our role is to encourage them to transform this de facto moratorium into a legal abolition. For countries that still carry out executions, the immediate objective is at least to secure a moratorium. We are working closely with a group of abolitionist-minded states to pursue coordinated diplomatic efforts and achieve progress by 2026.
Another major project is the creation of a Maison des droits de l’Homme (Human Rights House), as requested by the President of the Republic. We are working with numerous partners — public institutions, bar associations, lawyers and NGOs — to design a space that is both operationally useful and financially sustainable, and that genuinely meets the needs of stakeholders while strengthening support for human rights defenders. Several scenarios will be presented to the President in the coming months.
I also oversee the Marianne Initiative, which welcomes around fifteen human rights defenders from across the world to Paris each year for a four-month programme. They receive training, tailored support, material assistance, and meet European stakeholders in Brussels and Strasbourg. This initiative is particularly close to my heart, as it provides very concrete support to individuals who often risk their lives to defend fundamental rights.
Lastly, I contribute to the implementation of France’s feminist diplomacy. Although there is a dedicated unit within the Ministry, I am frequently involved in these issues, both because of my professional background and because women’s rights are, quite obviously, a core component of human rights.
During my missions abroad, I regularly address issues such as violence against women, sexual and reproductive rights, and the protection of women human rights defenders.
You have just returned from Ukraine. What are the most urgent issues on the ground?
Ukraine is one of my top priorities. In recent months, I have focused on two main issues: conflict-related sexual violence and the devastating situation of children.
Regarding sexual violence, I have joined an international coalition supporting survivors. It is important to recall that men have also been victims of sexual violence in Ukraine, particularly in the context of torture. The approach we support prioritises comprehensive assistance — psychological, medical and social — even in the absence of judicial proceedings. Not all crimes will be prosecuted; some will be addressed by Ukrainian courts, others by the International Criminal Court. But support for survivors must begin immediately.
As for children, the situation is appalling. An estimated 10,000 to 20,000 children have been deported or abducted, yet fewer than 2,000 have been reunited with their families. The Bring Kids Back Foundation, launched by Ukraine’s First Lady, works to locate, repatriate and support these children. France has supported the opening of a reception centre, with three more to follow. I am now seeking to mobilise philanthropic funding to further strengthen these efforts.
In occupied territories, a policy of forced “passportisation” is being implemented: families must accept Russian passports in order to access healthcare or schooling. Children are exposed to constant propaganda and are sometimes taken away under the guise of extracurricular activities, after which all trace of them is lost. This is an issue of the utmost gravity.
You are also deeply engaged with the situation of women in Afghanistan. How would you describe what Afghan women are experiencing?
The situation in Afghanistan represents one of the most severe violations of women’s rights in the world.
Since the Taliban returned to power, 121 decrees and laws have been enacted to restrict women’s rights — ranging from bans on education and many professions to prohibitions on appearing in public spaces, singing, or working for NGOs. This amounts to a systematic erasure.
International courts have characterised this as the crime of gender-based persecution, which has helped to protect Afghan women in asylum procedures. However, this qualification remains insufficient to capture the scale of the system in place. That is why I advocate for the introduction of a new category in international law: gender apartheid.
The term is strong, but it accurately describes an organised system of segregation based on gender, depriving part of the population of its fundamental rights. Just as the term “genocide” emerged after the Second World War to name a crime that had not yet been legally defined, this is about naming a crime that is not yet recognised as such.
What do you expect from the recognition of gender apartheid?
First, it would make it possible to legally characterise a criminal system that goes beyond persecution alone. It could also lead to convictions, notably before the International Criminal Court.
These procedures take time, but the message would be unequivocal: the international community considers gender apartheid to be a crime against humanity.
This represents a powerful lever for action. As with the term “femicide,” which entered public debate before gradually being recognised by institutions, societal adoption of a new concept takes time. But once a word exists, it fundamentally changes how realities are perceived and addressed.
Interview conducted by Cristina Asensi-Rodriguez, Communications Officer Apprentice at the RAJA–Danièle Marcovici Foundation.
