As recommended by the European Commission in its 2023 Rule of Law Report – a country chapter on Finland, the previous and current Government have taken some steps towards the development of the justice system. Appointed in February 2023, a new working group (titled ‘Rule of Law Guarantees and Development of the Judicial System’, in Finnish ‘Oikeuslaitostyöryhmä’) is - by 2027- set to deliver its proposals pertaining to the future of the administration of justice in Finland. Based on the 2022 Government report on the Administration of Justice, the working group can also be expected to tackle surmounting problems concerning the length of the judicial proceedings, high cost of trials and underfunding of the justice system. 

In October 2023, the working group, which is divided in 6 subgroups, published its work plan which includes approximately 140 action points, ranging from procedural improvements to crime victims’ general standing, to changes in the court system structure, the Constitution or entire legislation concerning migration and to improvement of the public trust in the authorities. One of the action points is to assess the system of lay judges, to which the European Commission paid particular attention in its 2023 report.  

Proposals for constitutional changes regarding strong independence of the judiciary will be drafted by a separate working group. The proposals were due by the end of February 2025 but later this assignment was extended to the end of 2026. Contrary to the initial plans the working group will draft the propositions in the form of a memorandum instead of a draft legislative proposal. This means that final assessment on the need to proceed with strengthening independence of the judiciary will be done by the next Government, not the current one.   

Alongside with the long-term goals to improve independence, efficiency and quality of the justice system, the Government aims to increase the resources of the administration of justice gradually. In its statement, the Parliamentary Committee on Legal Affairs welcomed this additional funding, which will strengthen personnel resources, thereby reducing backlogs and shortening processing times. However, the Committee was also concerned that according to the Government's fiscal plan, there will be operational cost savings allocated to the Ministry of Justice's main budget category starting from 2025, totalling approximately 18 million euros by the end of the budget period. The Committee considered it important that, in order to meet possible savings obligations, adjustments in operations or reductions in resources should not be directed towards personnel resources of various actors in the administration of justice. 

As the work to develop the administration of justice in Finland is currently ongoing, the Finnish National Human Rights Institution (hereinafter: FNHRI) continues to monitor Government’s actions and progress in this field. Information will be entered to the Finnish Human Rights Centre’s (FHRC) online database, which contributes to the FHRC’s statements, reports and initiatives regarding rule of law. The Finnish Human Rights Centre’s Human Rights Delegation has also issued a statement on its key priorities for the Government’s programme 2023–2027, highlighting structural problems such as the length of court proceedings and reminding that resources of the justice system need to be ensured. 

In relation to the courts, the Parliamentary Ombudsman gave his statement to a memorandum drafted by the Ministry of Justice. The memorandum explores the option to reduce the composition of administrative court judges from three to two judges. The Ombudsman considered it important that the three-judge composition should remain as the general rule in the legislation. Referring to statements by the Parliament’s Constitutional Law Committee, he noted that three-judge compositions contribute to a more multifaceted review and strengthen legal protection. 

The Parliamentary Ombudsman also gave the Ministry of Justice a statement relating to the report on the selection procedure for lay judges. The Ombudsman emphasised that the appointment of lay judges has been for several years one of the issues on the Ombudsman’s list of 10 most significant fundamental rights problems in Finland. In the Ombudsman’s view, taking into account the separation of powers as well as the independence of the judiciary, it seems quite clear that politicians should not be involved in the selection of lay judges at all despite the political nature of the subject. The Ombudsman concluded that the rationale for maintaining the lay judge system should be critically reassessed.  

Relating to one of the FNHRI’s recommendations, the Finnish Human Rights Centre is closely monitoring whether the new Government upholds and strengthens the rule of law and human rights in its domestic, foreign and security policy. As elaborated further in this report, hate speech and targeting of human rights actors, journalists and academics is an increasing concern in Finland. 

Government’s planned or already realised measures aiming to maintain or increase security also pose questions to the realisation of human rights and rule of law. These measures include the closing of Finland’s eastern land border, explained later in the report. Moreover, the Government stated, in the programme published on 20 June 2023, that it will examine the practices, measures and effectiveness of the Danish approach to combating gang and organised crime. The Minister of the Interior has stated that the ‘Danish approach’ includes granting extended ‘stop and search’ powers to the police in designated areas to combat juvenile delinquency and gang crime. In the public discourse, the phenomenon of juvenile delinquency and gang crime is associated with immigrant youth. FHRC notes that Government plans carry a high risk of ethnic profiling. 

In light of these developments, comprehensively developing and strengthening existing human rights structures, which consist of the two supreme guardians of the law (Chancellor of Justice and Parliamentary Ombudsman), the NHRI, several specialised ombudsmen and the Non-Discrimination and Equality Tribunal, is ever more topical in Finland. The new Government presented in its programme a few initiatives related to some of these actors, mostly focusing on the identification of possible overlaps (see also the report’s section on NHRI and follow-up to SCA’s recommendations) and the aim of creating savings. 

One of these initiatives reads as follows: ‘The Government will examine the duties of specialised ombudsmen to identify possible overlaps and any potential for savings in this respect.’ Based on the initiative, the Government decided to move forward with a legislative proposal discontinued by the previous Government due to lack of funding. According to the new act (adopted in December 2023), a new agency will be created, and start its work in 2025. Certain administrative services previously provided by the Ministry of Justice to the specialised ombudsmen and some other authorities are transferred to the agency. The legislative tasks, powers, and independent status of the ombudsmen will remain unaffected. 

One of the objectives of the new act is to free capacity for substantive work of the authorities. While this is welcome, the FNHRI does not see that the structural independence of these actors from the Ministry of Justice will be increased by creating a separate administrative agency (see statements by the FHRC and Parliamentary Ombudsman). The Ministry will still be in charge of procedures relevant to the independence of the ombudsmen, including results-based management. In addition, the FHRC has argued that the establishment of a new agency should not under any circumstances lead to a decrease in resources allocated to the specialised ombudsmen’s tasks. 

The Finnish National Human Rights Institution (FNHRI) is comprised of the Human Rights Centre, its Human Rights Delegation, and the Parliamentary Ombudsman. All the three parts that together form the FNHRI have their own specific legal duties, whereby the role of the Human Rights Centre is to take part and represent FNHRI in international and European human rights co-operation among its statutory tasks. It needs to be emphasized that despite the three-part structure of FNHRI, there is only one NHRI in Finland.  

The FNHRI was last reaccredited with A-status in October 2019. First, the SCA recommended that adequate funding be made available to the FNHRI to perform its function as a National Preventive Mechanism under the OPCAT (only the Parliamentary Ombudsman) and National Monitoring Mechanism under the CRPD (the FNHRI joint task), and for the Human Rights Centre to work on business and human rights. The SCA encouraged the FNHRI to continue advocating for the necessary funding to ensure that it can effectively carry out its mandate. Further, the SCA was of the view that due to the different procedures through which the annual reports of the FNHRI are submitted to the Parliament, the Parliament is not provided with a complete account of the work of the FNHRI. The SCA encouraged the FNHRI to continue to advocate for the Human Rights Centre to have the competence to table reports to the Parliament for discussion to align this procedure with that followed by the Parliamentary Ombudsman. 

Furthermore, while recognising that the Government Bill establishing the three components of the NHRI is a source of law in Finland, the SCA encouraged FNHRI to advocate for legislative amendments that would clearly stipulate these structures as one NHRI by the Parliamentary Ombudsman Act. 

In March 2023, the Finnish Human Rights Centre and the Parliamentary Ombudsman met with representatives of the Ministry of Justice to discuss on changes to the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s Act. The proposed changes included, as recommended by SCA: 

• Explicitly stipulate the structure of the FNHRI 
• Right to submit Finnish Human Rights Centre’s report to the Parliament 

During the spring 2023, the Ministry of Justice provided its proposals for the new Government’s programme. One of the proposals was titled ‘Strengthening the National Human Rights Institution’. The Ministry suggested that the need to strengthen and clarify the status and tasks of the FNHRI would be assessed. 

Following the Parliamentary elections, the Finnish Human Rights Centre submitted information to the negotiations on the new Government’s programme. As part of its statement (available by request), the FHRC highlighted that the possibility to submit a report by the Centre on the state of fundamental and human rights in Finland could result in more systematic discussion on human rights at the Parliament. Several NGOs have also suggested this possibility for the FHRC in their joint proposals for the Government programme. 

In the adopted Government’s programme it is stated that ‘[t]he division of tasks between the national human rights institutions (the Human Rights Centre, the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Human Rights Delegation) will be clarified in order to eliminate overlaps.’ The FNHRI would again like to underline that there is only one NHRI in Finland, composed of the Finnish Human Rights Centre, its Human Rights Delegation and the Parliamentary Ombudsman. As mentioned above, each part of the FNHRI have separate tasks according to the law. At the time of writing this report, FNHRI didn’t have information on the implementation of this Government objective or the planned timeline for it. 

There have been no changes in the regulatory framework of the Finnish NHRI since January 2023. 

FNHRI has been able to conduct its tasks independently and effectively. Nevertheless, the institution is closely monitoring the general atmosphere regarding other human rights actors who have legislative tasks to promote, monitor and/or protect different human rights. Hate speech towards the actors, especially those who actively engage in societal debates as part of their duties, is more and more common (see the chapter on checks and balances below for more information). As part of its work on foresight and resilience, the Finnish Human Rights Centre is considering threats related to the hardening attitudes on human rights.  

Concerning resources of the FNHRI, the Finnish Human Rights Centre’s and the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s budgets increase for the year 2024. For the years 2025–2027 budget cuts are expected but are in line with the Government’s general aim to produce savings in the State’s economy. The NHRI is not specifically targeted by these cuts and its functioning is not impacted by them. 

When it comes to the FNHRI’s access to legislative processes, some improvements are required. Especially the possibility to engage in the national consultation of draft EU legislation impacting on human rights or human rights actors requires proactiveness from NHRI. On some occasions, the information on the consultation has been discovered only afterwards through Government’s communication to the Parliament (so called ‘U-letters’).  

• The three components (Human Rights Centre, its Human Rights Delegation and the Parliamentary Ombudsman) should be explicitly stipulated as the Finnish NHRI in the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s Act. 
• Finnish Human Rights Centre should have the mandate to table its reports to the Parliament for discussion. 
• FNHRI should have better access to the national consultations of draft EU legislation impacting on human rights or human rights actors. 

The role of the parliamentary Constitutional Law Committee in reviewing human rights compliance of governmental legislative propositions 

The role of the parliamentary Constitutional Law Committee in ensuring in advance that laws comply with international human rights agreements has raised some concerns, especially when it has assessed the Government's legislative proposals aimed at implementing its social welfare cuts policy. (See for example Government’s proposal HE 73/2023 vp and proposal HE 75/2023 vp.) These legislative proposals entail significant reductions in benefits and index freezes, with their impacts largely affecting the most vulnerable segments of the population.  

In its statements regarding the proposals, the Constitutional Law Committee emphasised, referring to its previous statements, that states having ratified the European Social Charter are committed to protecting the social and economic rights defined in the treaty. Furthermore, Finland has committed to the Additional Protocol to the Charter on the system of collective complaints. The Constitutional Law Committee reiterated its very serious approach to the observations made in the monitoring practice of the European Social Charter. In the Committee's opinion, the Government should promptly initiate a thorough examination of the matter. (See Statement of the Constitutional Law Committee PeVL 15/2023 and Statement of the Constitutional Law Committee PeVL 16/2023.) There isn’t, however, any other mention in these statements of human rights and no analysis of the implications of the proposed legislation to the implementation of those rights. According to academics, the Committee has in its deliberations also failed to consider the principle of non-retrogression. 

It is equally important to note that Finland has received several observations and recommendations from human rights bodies on shortcomings regarding social rights, especially inadequacy of the level of social security. (See UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and European Committee on Social Rights.) Considering these observations, and the role of the Constitutional Law Committee, a thorough analysis of the human rights implications of the proposed legislation by the Committee would have been appropriate. 

Possible need to amend the Section 106 of Finland’s Constitution 

The discussion on the need to amend Section 106 of the Finnish Constitution is still ongoing in Finland. According to the Section, courts have the duty to refrain from applying a provision of a law if it is in obvious conflict with the constitution. However, the requirement of a manifest conflict may have set the threshold of the application of Section 106 too high. The working group on ‘Rule of Law Guarantees and Development of the Judicial System’ set up by the Ministry of Justice for the years 2023–2027 has suggested the removal of the requirement of obviousness to be considered as part of its work plan. However, in February 2024 the Ministry of Justice decided to withdraw the action point, as it was not included in the current Government’s programme. The Finnish Human Rights Centre has elaborated the need to amend Section 106 in its  report published in 2021.

To afford decision-makers and stakeholders a holistic picture on the impacts of proposed legislation, the Government and the Ministry of Justice have in 2023 issued updated guidelines concerning impact assessments in law drafting, including human rights impacts. According to the guidelines, for successful assessment, concrete impacts should be analysed with the help of empirical assessment methods, where focus is drawn to the practical realisation of human rights in people’s every-day lives. This includes impacts on poverty, unemployment, or the health of the populace. Consequently, while assessing the compliance of bills with constitutional norms and international human rights obligations remains essential during the drafting process, legalistic scrutiny alone is insufficient for a properly conducted human rights impact assessment. 

Although featuring prominently in the Government’s guidelines, meaningful impact considerations relating to human rights appear quite sporadically in the actual drafting. Measures have been taken to educate drafters on human rights implications, although time constraints and deficient resources allotted to drafting remain recurring concerns. 

Neglecting human rights during law-drafting in favour of political expediency is thus a concern that warrants attention in Finland. Stringent, politically set timetables have hampered stakeholders, including human rights and civil society actors’ capability to provide input, despite their consultative and vital role in the drafting process. At worst, impacts are so defectively assessed that the stakeholders are left to draw their own conclusions on impacts. Coupled with political urgency, this is often not only practically unfeasible but also constitutes rather undue delegating of state responsibilities, in terms of rule of law. Alarmingly, stakeholders have been given as little as five days to provide consultative inputs on major Government proposals, instead the usual recommended minimum of 6–8 weeks. 

The abovementioned was witnessed with the Government’s proposals concerning major revisions in social security (considered also in the chapter above). As noted by the Finnish Council of Regulatory Impact Analysis in October 2023, human rights impacts were meagrely assessed during the process despite numerous proposed austerity measures on unemployment benefits, housing benefits and social assistance. Further troubling was the way how the Government primarily conducted its impact assessment individually for proposed changes, ending up ignoring many disadvantages the bills will cumulatively signify in terms of human rights realisation, once enacted. Pertaining to these proposals, the Finnish Human Rights Centre has forwarded its criticism to the parliamentary Social Affairs and Health Committee, commenting the lacking and occasionally misleading nature of the assessments on socio-economic impacts to the poorest section of the population, i.e. those most adversely affected by the proposals. 

As described in other sections of the report, different human rights actors face more and more inappropriate criticism when conducting their legislative tasks. Taking into consideration these developments, the Finnish Human Rights Centre has undertaken several initiatives. 

The Human Rights Delegation of the FHRC provides a forum of exchange for different human rights experts representing independent authorities, civil society, academia and businesses. Permanent members to the Delegation include both supreme guardians of the law and all specialised ombudsmen. In September 2023, the Finnish Human Rights Centre organised a retreat for the Delegation members with discussions on several topical issues, such as polarisation in the society and its consequences. The idea was to share experiences and consider possible actions by human rights actors.  

In addition, the Human Rights Delegation has been involved in the foresight work of the Finnish Human Rights Centre. In April 2023, the Delegation members participated in small workshops where different scenarios for 2040 prepared by the Centre were discussed. The participants elaborated further the impacts of different scenarios on the realisation of human rights and reflected on how to prevent or support certain developments. The workshops provided the members with an opportunity to apply foresight-based thinking and share comments on the scenarios. The FHRC hopes that its work on foresight, and at more concrete level on resilience, can also benefit other human rights actors in better preparing to possible threats.  

Protection mechanism for human rights defenders still lacking 

The development of a mechanism for protection of human rights defenders has not proceeded during 2023. The previous Government started preparing a humanitarian visa for human rights defenders, activists and journalists, but whether the initiative will proceed under the new Government is unclear. In October 2023, the Finnish Human Rights Centre highlighted in a statement submitted by its own initiative to the Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, that a permanent mechanism for the protection of human rights defenders is needed and resources for its development should be granted. The need for EU member states to improve access to visas for human rights defenders has also recently been highlighted by the UN Special Rapporteur (SR) on the situation of human rights defenders. During a visit to Finland in September 2023, the SR discussed this topic with the FHRC’s Human Rights Delegation.  

It also to be noted that in March 2023, the National Union of Students in Finnish Universities of Applied Sciences (SAMOK) and the National Union of University Students in Finland (SYL) established a Students at Risk association, with a grant from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The aim of the association is to offer students with the opportunity to continue studies at a Finnish higher education institution if in their home countries they are denied the right to education or other human rights due to their activities as human rights defenders. This is a very welcome initiative, but the Finnish Human Rights Centre will continue to advocate for a broader and more permanent national protection mechanism for human rights defenders.   

Precedent by Supreme Administrative Court exposes journalists to unreasonable financial risks 

In December 2023, Finland’s Supreme Administrative Court gave a ruling which raised concerns about journalists being exposed to significant financial risk because of their work. According to the Court’s ruling, financial aid paid by employers to support journalists facing legal charges is taxable income. The ruling related to the case reported about last year, where two journalists were found guilty of disclosing state secrets in an article published in the newspaper Helsingin Sanomat in 2017. 

Finland's Association of Editors, The Council for Mass Media in Finland, The Finnish Media Federation, and The Union of Journalists in Finland have stated that the decision could reduce investigative journalism, lead to self-censorship by reporters and have a similar effect as SLAPPs, with journalists being subjected to an unreasonable financial burden because of their work. In the case in question, the legal fees amounted to more than two million euros, which as taxable income means that the journalists would have to pay hundreds of thousands in taxes. The ruling does not only concern journalists and the media sector, and similar issues could arise also in other fields of work. 

Whereas the employer in the present case decided to compensate the additional tax costs to the journalists, the ruling nevertheless poses a dangerous precedent and has provoked calls for amendments in the tax legislation. 

• Commit to properly conducted and systematic human rights impact assessments in law drafting by allocating sufficient personnel and time resources for it and by ensuring meaningful stakeholder consultation; 
• Urgently establish a comprehensive mechanism to protect human rights defenders and their families, including a fast and flexible visa procedure to relocate to safety in Finland and the necessary support. 

Following the 2022 amendment to the Border Guard Act, the Government can decide on the centralisation of asylum applications to one or more border crossing points in a situation where there is information or reasonable suspicion on instrumentalisation of migration. This amendment was applied for the first time in November 2023 due to information and observations by Finnish authorities that Russian actors had started facilitating the arrival of migrants to Finland’s eastern land border. 

The Chancellor of Justice oversees the legality of actions by the Government. In accordance with his mandate and with access to classified intelligence information, the Chancellor (or his deputy) provided their legal opinions to the Government in this case. When the Deputy Chancellor of Justice stated on 21 November that there were not sufficient legal grounds to close all eastern land border crossing points at that stage, he was publicly criticised by some members of the parliament (see here and here). One of the MPs belonging to the party represented in the Government speculated on the possibility to dismiss the Deputy Chancellor of Justice. 

After the Minister of Finance had expressed dissatisfaction to the Deputy Chancellor’s decision in her blog, the Prime Minister had to underline that members of government shouldn’t assess the actions of guardian of the law. According to the Minister of Finance, the Deputy Chancellor of Justice had considered the border situation from the perspective of access to asylum even though, in her opinion, national security should be prioritised. 

Due to the discussion surrounding the situation of suspected instrumentalisation of migration, the FNHRI is concerned that certain politicians have questioned the system of checks and balances. The President of the Supreme Administrative Court has brought forward similar concerns. He considered demands to dismiss the Deputy Chancellor of Justice as dangerous because the Deputy’s position did not please some political decision-makers. 

Similarly, the juxtaposition of national security and Finland’s international human rights obligations seem to have taken up more and more space in the political discourse. In December 2023, the Prime Minister stated that the possibility to return asylum seekers in certain situations back to Russia without considering their applications should be further explored as part of different means to respond to developments at the border. Already before that, following Finland’s decision to temporary close all eastern land border crossing points on 30 November, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights had sent a letter to the Minister of the Interior. The Commissioner highlighted that full closure could potentially violate the principle of non-refoulement and prohibition of collective expulsions and requested additional information on how Finnish authorities deal with persons who irregularly enter Finnish territory and try to seek asylum. 

As explained above, in this case the Chancellor of Justice has been the key rule of law and human rights actor due to his task in providing independent legal opinions for Government’s decision-making. As part of its mandate, the Finnish Human Rights Centre has been monitoring the situation at the eastern border, including Government’s actions and discussion related to them. The FHRC has discussed with and shared information to regional stakeholders such as FRA and its Justice, Digital and Migration Unit and Frontex’s Fundamental Rights Office.  

After the closure of crossing points on 30 November the Parliamentary Ombudsman received around 50 complaints about the closure. The complaints were not investigated based on the fact that the Chancellor of Justice had given his opinion on the legality of the closure. There were indications that the complaints were coordinated between the complainants.  

• Protect non-refoulement and other non-derogable rights such as the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in all circumstances, including changing security contexts. 
• To ensure genuine consolidation of national security interests and human rights, thoroughly pre-assess human rights impacts and risks of relevant draft legislation and Government’s and other authorities’ decisions aiming to enhance security. 
• Strengthen and support the independence of human rights actors who oversee and monitor the actions of the Government and ensure their resources.  

At the end of 2023, Finland had 6 judgments from the ECtHR pending implementation (2 leading judgments). During 2023, the Government managed to close 12 cases, of which 7 were leading cases, mainly by providing missing information on the implementation status.  

One of the leading judgments and the remaining 4 repetitive judgments pending implementation concern ne bis in idem problematic, violation of the right not to be punished twice, as the applicants were subject to both criminal and administrative taxation proceedings concerning partly or entirely the same facts. 

One of the leading cases, X. v. Finland (application no. 34806/04) was examined under enhanced procedure before the Committee of Ministers. The case concerns lack of legal remedy against forced medication in psychiatric hospital. The Court found a violation on 3 July 2012, among others, of Art. 8 (Right to private life). Regarding the violation of Article 8, implementation had not fully taken place, more than 10 years on. The Committee of Ministers examined the status of implementation and reasons for its delay in December 2021 and March 2023. The case was examined again in March 2024 and based on the updated action report provided by government, the Committee of Ministers considered that Finland had taken the necessary measures to give effect to the judgment. 

Two further complaints on the same issue (E.S. v. Finland, application no. 23903/20 and H.H. v. Finland, no. 19035/21) have been lodged before the Court in June 2020 and April 2021 and communicated to the Government in March 2021 and December 2021, respectively. 

In cases like X. v. Finland, where the required legislative changes are in process for a long time and not proceeding, there is usually lack of political will to prioritise these reforms combined with lack of resources and lack of uniform understanding on the importance of the full implementation. In this particular case, the law including changes to availability of legal remedies concerning forced medication in psychiatric hospitals was adopted by the Parliament in December 2023 and came into force 1 April 2024. 

Again, in January 2023 the Finnish Human Rights Centre submitted Rule 9 communication on the case of X v. Finland. In early 2023 FNHRI held discussions with the Department for Execution of Judgments of the ECtHR during their country visit, specifically on the case of X v. Finland.  

In May 2023, the FHRC participated in a discussion and prepared an extensive brief on the case of X. v. Finland for discussion organised by the International Department of the Parliament. Other participants included members of parliament and representatives of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Social Affairs and Health.  

In 2023 the Deputy Chancellor of Justice has requested the Ministry for Foreign Affairs to inform him on the reasons for the continued delay in the implementation of the ECtHR judgments as well as actions taken to improve the implementation of the judgments. The decision is pending. 

• Take urgent measures to finalise the remaining implementation, and reporting thereof, of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights; 
• Ensure sufficient resources for the office of the Government Agent to enable speedy reporting on the implementation of any future judgments to avoid delays; 
• Enhance the knowledge and respect for the judgments of the ECtHR especially among the authorities responsible for drafting legislation. 

During the past year, racism, hate speech and online targeting of journalists have been matters of concern which have been actively debated in Finland. The debate started from media reports about racist writings by some of the newly appointed ministers, dating a few years back. Journalists who reported about the topic were subjected to smear campaigns and online hate speech. One journalist was directly targeted by members of parliament belonging to the Finns Party and the National Coalition Party (both currently in Government), in their social media posts. One of the MPs was appointed Minister of Economic Affairs a couple of days later. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights published a statement condemning such smear campaigns and attacks directed at individuals, expressing concern for its potential chilling effect on the press. The police has launched a criminal investigation regarding the matter. 

As a response to the public debate on racism, the Government published a statement on promoting equality, gender equality and non-discrimination in August 2023. The importance of taking active measures to tackle racism and discrimination was further proven by the FRA report Being black in the EU (2023), which showed that people of African descent often experience racism in Finland. The Finnish Human Rights Centre provided a statement to the working group developing the Government’s statement. The FHRC highlighted the State’s duty to effectively implement judgments and recommendations received from monitoring mechanisms under the UN, the Council of Europe, and relevant national bodies, as well as duly implementing EU legislation concerning equality and discrimination. Shortcomings in these areas have continuously been raised. The Finnish Human Rights Centre will be monitoring the implementation of the Government’s statement and has included it as one of the priority areas in its advocacy work for 2024 (FHRC action plan). 

At the end of the previous Government’s term, the Ministry of Justice explored needs to amend criminal law to improve tackling of targeting. (Targeting refers to systemic harassment of a person in the form of mass actions on e.g., online platforms because of his or her work or social duties.) The assessment published in 2022 found that there are grounds for criminalisation. The current Government decided not to proceed with separately criminalising this phenomenon or further exploring the possibility, stating that targeting can already come within the legal definition of other crimes (such as public exhortation to an offence, dissemination of information violating personal privacy, defamation, illegal threat, stalking or coercion). 

The question of criminalising targeting divides opinions of legal experts. The definition of the crime/its delimitation would be challenging and require significant balancing to avoid overlaps with existing criminalised offences and unnecessary restrictions on freedom of speech, and to ensure that the crime would be judicable in practice. These challenges were raised by the Parliamentary Ombudsman in a statement concerning the assessment, submitted at the request of the Ministry of Justice. However, many actors agree that targeting is a growing problem which threatens rule of law and freedom of speech, and that the existing legislation is not applied effectively to tackle the issue. 

According to the Finnish Human Rights Centre, further polarisation of the public debate and increased hate speech do not only risk creating a chilling effect on journalists and the press, but more broadly on civil society. NGO representatives and academics have also reported a rise in hate speech and smear campaigns targeting them and expressed concern for their impact on freedom of speech (see for example article by newspaper Helsingin Sanomat, communication from a meeting of the Human Rights Delegation, and statement by the Research Council of Finland). 

The FHRC would also like to point out that academics and media in Finland have highlighted linguistic strategies widely applied in right-wing populist discourse to undermine human rights and the rule of law. Neologisms or familiar words imbued with irony and sarcasm are used in a systematic way to question the validity of human rights and international treaties.  Messaging includes double meanings and is deliberately directed towards different publics with multiple reading options to raise negative emotions and create divisions between “us” and “them”. While such linguistic strategies trace their origins to social media platforms replete with hate speech, their use has spread to public and political discussion and mainstream media to influence popular opinion at large.

• Ensure a concrete follow-up to the statement on promoting equality, gender equality and non-discrimination 
• Effectively prevent and tackle targeting of journalists, NGO representatives and academics, but also independent human rights actors.