"It Felt Like Justice. It Was The First Fair Decision I'd Received"
30 अप्रैल 2026
In a critical case for human rights defenders, the Board ruled in 2025 that Meta must do more to prevent veiled threats against them, particularly when those threats may incite violence.
The human rights defender at the center of that case was Jennie Dador Tozzini – who at the time was the Executive Secretary of Peru’s National Human Rights Coordinator, a coalition of civil society organizations. Currently, she is the Executive Director of the Peruvian section of the human rights group Amnesty International.
The post the Board assessed was AI-generated and showed her with blood dripping down her face. Meta had left it on Facebook. After considering the context in which the post was made, the Board ruled that it had to be taken down.
Almost a year after the case was published, Jennie Dador spoke to the Board about its impact.
+++
Oversight Board: This case involved a veiled threat against you - could you tell us about its consequences?
Jennie Dador Tozzini: That threat was one of a series over a year or two. It was one of the strongest because I understood it was a direct threat to my physical safety. It had an impact on personal, social and professional levels. Personally, it triggered a fear in me that turned into anxiety. It led me to need mental health support. It also caused a lot of fear within my family and pressure from them to abandon my job. I became more isolated because I understood that anyone who was with me could also be in danger, especially because of the context in Peru, a country … [where] it’s very easy to hire someone to kill you.
That was a series of threats that escalated. That photo later appeared in a newspaper, then it was [talked about] on the radio. It was like an ecosystem where it was broadcast and rebroadcast. And that was accompanied by accusations that I was a terrorist, which had a reputational impact on my career as a lawyer.
How often are human rights defenders in Latin America facing these kinds of threats and impacts on their reputations?
In recent years, it's part of a pattern in the region, especially for environmental defenders, human rights defenders, activists, who face cases of excessive use of force.
There's a lot of ignorance about what mechanisms [like the Oversight Board] there are to follow, how to protect yourself. People use social media, but they are not told about this.
Why was this threat made specifically against you?
Because of the position I held. It's a very strong position in human rights. And we were the organization that handled the cases from the time of the [country’s] internal armed conflict [principally 1980-2000], cases about executions and were demanding that the state, especially the incumbent government, answer openly about crimes.
And, because I am a woman. Because, I've been at events and advocated for issues, where everyone else was a man. And in the following days, the attacks weren't against any of the men. All the attacks were directed at me, a woman and a human rights defender. And I’m part of the women's movement. I'm a feminist.
What were the implications of the Board’s decision and recommendations?
It gave me a lot of peace of mind. It felt like justice. It was the first fair decision I'd received. And not just because of the decision but because there were a set of recommendations saying how these cases should be handled, the importance of analyzing the context. It was very important for me personally, but also because of what it has meant for other people who are in a similar situation and who have started to find out and say, "I didn't know, I didn't know” [about the Overnight Board mechanisms for redress].
The image in the case was modified using AI – do you see the increasing use of that technology leading to more such threats?
Yes, because some people try to brush off the issue by saying that it was created with artificial intelligence. But, the image is absolutely recognizable. And this is becoming widespread, while there are legal loopholes [for those creating such content] and a lack of awareness about how to obtain protection against it. I, as a human rights lawyer, didn't know how to respond on the platform. [Initially], I took action through my country’s criminal justice system.
But I didn't know there was a mechanism within the platform [appealing to the Oversight Board] and that this could lead to a solution. And I think there's a lot of ignorance about what mechanisms there are to follow, how to protect yourself. People use social media, but they are not told about this.
[In the traditional justice system], my case was taken on harassment grounds. Two years have already passed, and the case is still under investigation. There isn't a faster mechanism. And it involves a re-victimization process because you have to go through the forensic medical examination, and your file and your information are made public. Many of the people who go through this, decide not to pursue it because in some way it was like giving these people [committing abuse] more power, seeing how they can harm you. And this country contains authoritarian practices.
I am convinced it is a good example of what other platforms should start doing.
How important was it for you to provide understanding of the local context, in that public comment for the Board and Meta?
That was, I think, one of the most important things because it not only helped my case, but it showed what is happening in this country. Therefore, the case considered the context of the closing of the civil space, the attacks against human rights defenders.
That's sorely lacking on social media platforms. Initially, people said the image was expressing political opinion. When I saw it myself, I felt my stomach turn. The visual impact was very big for me because I saw myself reflected in a mirror. I said, there I am. And I had already suffered physical attacks, including one of a sexual nature that I hadn't reported. So, this also made a feedback loop. Social media networks say, "This isn’t real life. It’s just what happens on social media.” But nowadays, we're all convinced that this is life itself. Social media is the space for public debate. And I remember very well what I felt. I remember it in my body.
How much does the case and decision help establish standards on social media platforms regarding such threats?
I am convinced that it is a good example of what other platforms should start doing, because it is the space for public debate. Freedom of expression has limits – proportionality, legality, how much need there is for what’s being said, whether the person is a public figure or not. There are a series of considerations. It can't be the law of the jungle, where whoever has the most followers or the money to pay for a troll farm ends up bringing about a current of opinion.
We have tried and are still trying in Peru to teach and work with organizations on this, but there are very few that are working on this issue, even though it is the issue of the day.
That the Board is a diverse group of stakeholders guarantees us a more pluralistic perspective. It can be impartial.
Why is it important to have an independent body like the Board to look at these issues?
So, the fact that it's a diverse group of stakeholders, it guarantees us a more pluralistic perspective. And it can be impartial, not neutral, but at least impartial.
How do you think moderation systems should continue in the future?
I think it's very important for people to know what the laws and rules are that govern that space. How am I going to behave there? And if I don't behave, what happens. And for others, what are their options.
This decision from the Board has also been presented as part my criminal case. So, it's an element that will also help traditional justice consider the facts.
** The conversation was lightly edited for brevity and clarity.
Special thanks to Rhodri Davies, staff member of the Oversight Board, for conducting the interview for this impact story.
