In a case as serious as this, society expects an impartial, independent, diligent and transparent investigation, regardless of who may be involved. However, in Ecuador there are significant challenges with judicial independence. Many organisations have highlighted problems relating to institutional stability, pressure and the limited autonomy of judges and prosecutors. For this reason, high-profile cases that may involve economic or political interests or criminal networks put institutions to the test.

The best way to build confidence would be through a high-quality investigation. It’s essential to pursue all lines of inquiry, protect evidence and witnesses, prevent undue interference and ensure the public is provided with timely information, within the bounds of due process.

This case presents an opportunity to demonstrate that no one is above the law. If the investigation proceeds independently and succeeds in establishing the truth, it will send a message that institutions can respond even to the most complex of cases. If, however, impunity or lack of transparency prevails, the damage will extend far beyond this case. It will deepen public mistrust and increase the sense of vulnerability among human rights defenders and journalists.

Yes. While women human rights defenders face the same risks as anyone who denounces abuses of power, corruption and human rights violations, their gender often exacerbates these risks. Violence against women human rights defenders doesn’t merely seek to silence their public voice. It also punishes them for occupying spaces traditionally controlled by men, such as community leadership, oversight and whistleblowing. Consequently, in addition to direct threats, many face attacks on their private lives, harassment, sexist comments, smear campaigns, stigmatising rhetoric, symbolic violence, surveillance and challenges to their legitimacy as leaders.

When a woman defender also works alone and far from centres of institutional, media and political power, as was the case with Silva, her vulnerability increases. She doesn’t always have protection networks, institutional support, rapid access to justice or sufficient public visibility to raise the alarm in time. This is exacerbated in areas where corruption, economic interests, organised crime and socio-environmental conflicts converge.

To protect women human rights defenders, it isn’t enough to react to attacks. Conditions must be created so they can work without fear. This includes publicly recognising their work, investigating threats, providing protection with a gender-specific and territory-specific approach and strengthening community, institutional and international support networks. Defending rights should not be a high-risk activity.

The underlying problem is that Ecuador still lacks a comprehensive and effective protection system. When someone reports threats, the state’s response is often reactive and fragmented. Institutions act after an attack has taken place, rather than preventing it through risk assessments, protective measures and follow-up.

Initial official reactions to threats against human rights defenders and journalists matter, because they send messages to society. When an authority dismisses a complaint before investigating it, puts forward hypotheses without conclusive evidence, or suggests a victim is responsible for what has happened to them, it breeds mistrust in institutions and discourages others from reporting threats or seeking protection.

The relationship between the state and those who hold it to account should not be one of confrontation. In a democracy, those who document abuses, bring hidden problems to light and contribute to accountability should not be perceived as threats but as key players in strengthening the rule of law and improving institutions. When they face threats or violence, the state should investigate, punish those responsible and provide protection and guarantees of non-repetition.

Fighting against corruption and organised crime is a legitimate public demand. Ecuador is facing an unprecedented security crisis, and the state has an obligation to respond firmly. But that response cannot be built at the expense of fundamental rights and freedoms.

Human rights and security are not incompatible objectives. They are interdependent. When institutional checks and balances are weakened, when the space for public scrutiny is reduced and when those who report irregularities face greater risks, the chances of abuses of power, corruption and impunity flourishing also increase. Combating organised crime requires independent, strong and transparent institutions that are subject to public scrutiny.

Both. There is a silencing effect that’s not always visible. Many human rights defenders, journalists and organisations have changed the way we work. We avoid certain topics, limit our travel, reduce our presence on the ground and implement security protocols that were not previously necessary. Self-censorship doesn’t necessarily reflect a lack of commitment, but rather a realistic assessment of the risks involved in continuing our work.

At the same time, Ecuadorian civil society has shown great resilience. Organisations continue to defend the environment, document human rights violations, support victims, promote transparency, litigate cases of public interest and strengthen solidarity networks. There’s also greater coordination between national and international organisations, as there is an awareness that current challenges cannot be tackled in isolation.

Civil society needs guarantees to exercise the rights recognised by the Constitution and international instruments. It needs an environment where freedoms of association, expression and peaceful assembly are fully respected; threats against journalists and human rights defenders are investigated thoroughly; effective protection mechanisms with a gender-based and territorial approach are in place; and organisations can access public information, participate in matters of collective interest and scrutinise government action without reprisals or stigmatisation.

The international community also has a role to play. Cooperation with local organisations, independent monitoring and support strengthen their capacity to respond and send the message that attacks against human rights defenders don’t go unnoticed.

Protecting civil society is not just about protecting organisations. It’s about protecting the rights of all citizens to be informed, participate and demand accountability. When human rights defenders can work freely and safely, society as a whole benefits. When they are silenced, democracy loses out.