DOE’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a press release that said it has terminated agreements with Cape Henlopen School District, Delaware Valley School District, Fife School District, La Mesa-Spring Valley School District, Sacramento City Unified, and Taft College. Agreements were established under the former Biden and Obama administrations that interpreted Title IX to extend to transgender and gay students.

The OCR’s new interpretation removes federal requirements for the schools to continue faculty training on pronoun usage and allow students to use restrooms of their preferred gender identity. Explaining its decision, the OCR stated:

Resolution agreements are used by OCR to require schools to take specific actions to resolve noncompliance with federal civil rights law. Previous Administrations distorted the law contrary to its plain meaning to police discrimination on the basis of “gender identity,” not sex, and imposed resolution agreements with no legal foundation, but rather, based on an ideologically-driven interpretation of Title IX. They illegally saddled school districts with Title IX violations for actions such as “improper use of preferred pronouns” or “asking questions about a student’s preferred gender.”

The change comes after a Kentucky federal court in January ruled that the Biden administration’s interpretation of Title IX was illegal.

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richie said one of the purposes of this change is to protect female athletes, stating:

While previous Administrations launched Title IX investigations based on ‘misgendering,’ the Trump Administration is investigating allegations of girls and women being injured by men on their sports team or feeling violated by men in their intimate spaces…

The post Trump administration rescinds protections for transgender and gay students at several school districts, Taft College appeared first on JURIST - News.

UN Resident Coordinator in Cuba, Francisco Pichon, said the humanitarian situation has reached a critical point following the US oil blockade imposed in January. He added that the population remains in need of urgent humanitarian aid despite an oil shipment from Russia in late March.

The UN explained that Cuba has faced a fuel shortage since December, which has prevented it from meeting its national energy needs. Disruption of the country’s electricity system further exacerbated the crisis, resulting in interruptions of essential services like health care and water access. Electricity shortages have forced medical authorities to postpone over 96,000 surgeries and delayed immunization for thousands of children. Officials also noted that vulnerable groups, including elderly citizens, people with disabilities, and women, were the most affected by the humanitarian crisis.

Decreases in available energy, combined with the destruction from Hurricane Melissa, has significantly hindered humanitarian assistance from the UN and its partners. In response, the UN created a targeted Action Plan to address the urgent needs of Cubans, focusing on delivering humanitarian aid in priority sectors such as health care, water, sanitation, and food security.

However, the effectiveness of the plan depends on access to fuel and energy in order to ensure timely and effective distribution of aid and continued operation of vital services. To address this, the Action Plan includes steps to transition toward sustainable energy sources and reduce oil dependence, such as the installation of solar power and the reinforcement of water pumping infrastructure.

Lastly, Pichon said the UN continues to cooperate with national authorities and the private sector in Cuba to identify logistical solutions that guarantee the viability of aid operations, but additional funding is still required to fill the $68 million gap in the UN budget.

Cuba has experienced an economic crisis and an energy shortage that has worsened over time due to US economic sanctions and oil embargo, which include the imposition of trade tariffs on oil imports from third countries to the island. The blockade has triggered an energy emergency, given that currently Cuba relies on imported oil from Mexico and Venezuela.

The UN has condemned US action, describing it as a “unilateral economic coercion” and a violation of international law.

In addition, Cuba has experienced natural disasters, including hurricanes and earthquakes, resulting in significant infrastructure damage, destruction of homes, and the displacement of thousands, all of which further complicate the economic crisis.

In March, a humanitarian aid coalition, named the Nuestra America Convoy, arrived in Cuba to deliver food, medical supplies, and solar panel equipment in an effort to mitigate the impact of the blockade.

The post UN says Cuba needs humanitarian aid despite recent fuel shipment appeared first on JURIST - News.

The chief may provide such a designation if they determine an entity operating in the state is engaged in terrorist activity, and the governor and cabinet approve the determination. The law provides multiple consequences for such organizations and grants the Florida secretary of state power to dissolve corporations with a domestic terrorist label.

The law also creates several new felonies for assisting such organizations and blocks private schools from receiving state funding if they allow students to promote them.

DeSantis hailed the bill as a defense against “terrorist organizations that seek to infiltrate and subvert our education system” and paves a new pathway for the governor to designate domestic terrorist organizations. DeSantis had previously attempted to issue an executive order designating the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Brotherhood as domestic terrorist organizations. However, a federal court enjoined enforcement of the order on First Amendment grounds.

CAIR, a civil rights organization for Muslim Americans, condemned the bill as a “deeply-flawed framework” that “can attack any organization that dares to dissent,” raising concerns that the law will chill free speech. The organization held a press conference on Tuesday responding to the bills passage into law.

HB 1471 was accompanied by HB 1473, which exempts from public disclosure certain documentation related to a domestic terrorist organization determination. Information in the chief of domestic security’s report to the governor and cabinet may be excluded from public records if it “would reveal information critical to state or national security.”

The law mirrors similar recent action on the federal level. In 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order labeling Antifa a domestic terrorist organization, despite a lacking express statutory authority to do so.

The post Florida allows state designation of domestic terrorist organizations appeared first on JURIST - News.

According to the court, the Tajik citizen wished to inculpate staff of Pretrial Detention Center No. 1 in Irkutsk of exceeding official authority. Officials said the man “caused himself bodily harm in the form of a bruise on the bottom eyelid of his left eye” and ” a scratch on the inner surface of the left shoulder.” The court conducted an investigation into allegations and found no evidence of physical abuse from staff members, and the man reportedly pled guilty to fabricating injuries.

In December 2025, the same court sentenced former Pretrial Detention Center No. 1 head Igor Mokeev and former deputy Anton Samara to five and four-and-a-half years imprisonment, respectively, for exceeding official authority. The court found 24 victims of abuse. Six were compensated with payments of 350,000 rubles (approximately US $4,500) each, the rest are pending.

Prison abuse and torture is a widespread problem in Russia. In 2023, a Petrozavodsk court sentenced former detention center head Ivan Savelyev and former deputy Ivan Kovalev to seven years imprisonment each for torture. In 2022, a Yaroslavl court sentenced detention center personnel Sergey Gusarin, Sergey Kuzmin, and Vyacheslav Shashkin to three to three-and-a-half years each. The correctional officers were also found guilty of torturing prisoners, one of whom died.

Reports and videos of abuse and torture are collected and stored by the International Human Rights Project Gulagu.net.

Since the March 2024 terrorist attack on Crocus City Hall in Moscow, human rights groups have also identified an increase in hate and abuse directed towards central Asians in Russia. Central Asian detainees have reported an increase in physical, psychological, sexual, and religious abuse in detention centers.

On Monday, Yakubdzhoni Davlatkhon Yusufzoda, one of the 19 people sentenced in relation to the Crocus City Hall attack, reportedly committed suicide in prison. Yusufzoda pled not guilty but was sentenced for transferring money to cover living costs of terrorists who committed the attack. Another sentenced accomplice, Dzhabrail Aushev, also attempted to take his own life but was revived by doctors. Aushev was accused of “converting blank-firing weapons into live firearms used in the attack.”

The post Russia jails Tajikistan man for false abuse report in pretrial detention center appeared first on JURIST - News.

In its order, the court granted Bannon’s certiorari petition and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit “for further consideration in light of the pending motion to dismiss the indictment.” The order did not dismiss the case outright but returned the matter to the lower court to address the DOJ’s pending motion to dismiss, filed in the district court.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the court in a February brief to vacate the appellate court judgment, writing that “the government has determined in its prosecutorial discretion that dismissal of this criminal case is in the interests of justice.” Sauer also argued that federal procedural rules permit the government to seek dismissal “even after a jury finds the defendant guilty and the district court enters judgment.”

A jury convicted Bannon in July 2022 on two counts, brought by then-president Joe Biden’s DOJ, of willfully defying congressional subpoenas issued by the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the US Capitol. Bannon refused to produce documents or appear for testimony, asserting executive privilege on behalf of President Donald Trump. The DC Circuit court affirmed the conviction and the Supreme Court declined to stay his sentence pending further appeal. Bannon reported to prison in July 2024 and served four months.

The case raises questions about executive branch authority to dismiss prosecutions stemming from congressional oversight. The Monday order sends the case back to the DC Circuit to address the pending dismissal motion. If the district court, where US Attorney Jeanine Pirro has filed the motion, ultimately grants it, the charges against Bannon will be dismissed.

The post US Supreme Court vacates Bannon contempt ruling, remands for DOJ dismissal appeared first on JURIST - News.

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld a district court ruling that enjoined NJDGE and allowed Kalshi to continue operating its online, event contract trading platform while the suit proceeds at trial. The court analyzed the case under the legal test for preliminary injunctions, which involves establishing the suit’s “likelihood of success on the merits” and whether the party seeking injunction “is more likely than not to suffer irreparable harm” without the injunction. After establishing these factors, federal courts then balance “equities” of the case against “the public interest.”

The case centered on Kalshi’s likelihood of success on the merits, which rested in large part on whether the federal Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) preempted New Jersey state laws that regulate gambling. In 1974, Congress amended the CEA to create the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which regulates federally “designated contract markets.” The CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction over designated contract markets, though the CEA preserves state authority in areas not covered by the act.

In 2010, Congress amended the CEA again to include “swaps” within the CFTC’s jurisdiction, which are “any agreement, contract, or transaction…that provides for any payment…that is dependent on the occurrence, nonoccurrence, or…contingency associated with a potential financial, economic, or commercial consequence.”

Kalshi allows the public to purchase “event contracts,” which are labeled as a type of “derivative”–a financial tool that derives its value from an underlying asset. Derivatives attempt to utilize the “wisdom of the crowd,” relying on broad public input to assess risk in certain markets. These event contracts span a wide range of subjects and activities, as the court explained:

For example, an event contract could ask whether an earthquake will take place in a certain city on a certain date. A purchaser may then trade on either “yes” or “no.” If the earthquake does occur in the city on the date, the “yes” position would be paid out.

In 2025, Kalshi expanded its event contract offerings to include sporting events. New Jersey argued that the CEA does not extend to the “subfield” of sports betting, and the state retained power to enforce gambling prohibitions on college sporting events without federal interference. However, the court disagreed and ruled that federal law likely preempted state law, writing:

Because Kalshi’s sports-related event contracts are swaps under the [CEA], the District Court properly defined the scope of…preemption as the regulation of trading on a [designated contracts market] (a form of futures trading) rather than as gambling (a broader and traditionally state-regulated field).

New Jersey also argued that event contracts for sporting events are not sufficiently “joined or connected” to an underlying asset to qualify as a “swap.” However, the court held that an event contract must only be “associated with” an underlying asset or commercial consequence. Considering the number of sponsors, advertisers, TV networks, and other financial assets affected by sporting events, the court reasoned that contracts on such events qualify as “swaps.”

Dissenting Judge Jane Roth focused on the vast similarities between Kalshi and other sports betting platforms, which remain under state regulation. She wrote:

When I went on the Kalshi page for the Carolina Panthers v. Tampa Bay Buccaneers football game… I could have bet on the winner…or whether Tampa Bay wide receiver Mike Evans would score a touchdown… These offerings are virtually indistinguishable from the betting products available on online sportsbooks… Kalshi asserts that it is outside the bounds of state regulation because it does not offer gambling products… The Majority agrees, holding that Kalshi’s…branding of its wagers as sports-event contracts are acts of alchemy as a performative sleight meant to obscure the reality that Kalshi’s products are sports gambling.

The post US federal court rules platform Kalshi can continue offering sport event contracts during litigation appeared first on JURIST - News.

DRC’s statement said the nation will begin to accept deportees in April, and the US will cover costs to facilitate the deal. The government called the arrangement “temporary” and did not disclose how many deportees it will receive. The nation pledged to an ongoing “commitment to human dignity and international solidarity” regarding arrivals, who will be held at sites near capital city Kinshasa.

The announcement coincided with reports that the US sent a dozen individuals to Uganda last week as part of a separate third-country deportation agreement with the neighboring African nation.

The US has entered into similar third-county deportation agreements with several nations, including Costa Rica, El Salvador, Mexico, Panama, Eswatini, Ghana, Rwanda, and South Sudan. Legal activists and rights groups have criticized the practice, arguing that sending migrants to a non-home country threatens death or torture without due process. Such transfers are often chaotic, with deportees reportedly held in military detention camps and transported in straight jackets with few hours notice.

Ongoing lawsuits continue to examine the efficacy of the practice. In February, a federal district court ruled that the policy violated congressional mandates and Fifth Amendment, due process principles. The Trump administration appealed and, in March, a federal appellate court placed a stay on the lower court order while litigation continued.

Third-country deportations have also received attention through high profile media coverage, including coverage of Kilmar Ábrego García. In October 2025, the US considered sending García to Liberia, despite federal court findings that he was mistakenly swept up in deportation proceedings. In March, García accused US prosecutors of vindictively charging him with human smuggling.

The US has acted as a primary peace broker for ongoing conflict between Rwanda and the DRC, in which the Rwanda government has allegedly backed rebel militia forces in the DRC. After sanctioning Rwanda for its support of armed-groups, in March the US announced both African nations agreed to coordinated de-escalation steps.

US involvement in the region follows its growing efforts to gain access to DRC’s rich mineral resources and “rare-earth” elements. In December 2025, the US State Department published a strategic partnership agreement with the DRC, stating a desire to strengthen national ties and “secure…supply chains for critical minerals, safeguarding [US] national security…and maintaining competitiveness in strategic sectors including defense, energy, advanced technologies, and automotive industries.”

The post DRC agrees to take third-county deportees from US appeared first on JURIST - News.

On March 9, Kenya’s National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA) rolled out a fully automated Instant Fines Traffic Management System, marking a bold shift in traffic enforcement. The system, introduced following a directive by President William Ruto on March 2, relied on surveillance cameras, artificial intelligence, and number plate recognition to detect offenses and instantly notify motorists via SMS. Fines ranging from KSh 500 to KSh 10,000 were to be paid within seven days through designated channels, failing which motorists risked penalties such as accrued interest and denial of access to NTSA services.

The NTSA justified the system as a solution to entrenched problems in Kenya’s traffic sector, which include corruption, inefficiency, and delays in prosecution. By eliminating direct interaction between motorists and traffic police, the Authority argued it would enhance transparency, promote accountability, and de-congest courts by replacing minor prosecutions with administrative penalties.

However, the rollout immediately triggered legal and public controversy. Critics questioned whether an algorithm could lawfully replace judicial processes. On March 10, 2026, a petition was filed challenging the system’s constitutionality, arguing that it undermined the right to a fair trial and fair administrative action by imposing penalties without a hearing.

The challenge crystallized on March 12, 2026, when the High Court intervened. Justice Bahati Mwamuye issued conservatory orders suspending the system following a petition by civil society group Sheria Mtaani and lawyer Shadrack Wambui. The court barred NTSA, the Attorney General’s office, and associated parties from issuing, demanding, or enforcing any automated fines pending the hearing of the case.

The petitioners advanced several constitutional objections. First, they argued that the system violated Articles 47 and 50 of the Kenyan Constitution by denying motorists prior notice, a hearing, and the presumption of innocence. Second, they contended that NTSA had effectively assumed judicial powers by determining liability and imposing penalties without involving courts or the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Third, concerns arose over data protection and transparency, as decisions were made solely by algorithms without human oversight.

Had the court not intervened, the implications would have been far-reaching. On one hand, the system could have significantly improved compliance and reduced corruption by limiting discretionary policing. It might also have streamlined enforcement and reduced case backlogs in traffic courts. On the other hand, it risked normalizing administrative punishment without due process, effectively shifting Kenya toward a quasi-automated justice model where guilt is presumed, and penalties are immediate. Such a framework could have eroded constitutional safeguards, particularly for vulnerable motorists unable to promptly challenge erroneous fines.

The High Court’s suspension, therefore, reinforces the primacy of the rule of law over administrative efficiency. By halting the system, the court signalled that technological innovation must remain subordinate to constitutional guarantees. The ruling preserves the role of courts in adjudicating guilt and ensures that any transition to automated enforcement must incorporate procedural fairness, human review, and clear statutory backing.

At the same time, the decision exposes a tension within Kenya’s governance: the need to modernize public systems versus the obligation to uphold civil liberties. The outcome of the pending hearing, scheduled for 9th April 2026, will likely define the legal limits of algorithmic governance in Kenya. In essence, this dispute is not merely about traffic fines, but rather a test case on whether the State can deploy technology to punish without process. The court has, for now, answered in the negative.

The post Kenya dispatch: High Court suspends automated traffic fines system, testing due process rights appeared first on JURIST - News.

Commenting on the difficult circumstances faced by Sekerbayeva, Mihra Rittmann, Central Asia adviser at Human Rights Watch, stated: “The Kazakh authorities should drop the charges against Sekerbayeva and put an end to the manufactured case against her…No one in Kazakhstan should fear criminal retaliation for being lesbian or for peacefully advocating for the rights of LGBT people.”

The criminal charges of battery against her were first filed on the 26th of March, with the first hearing scheduled for the 7th of April. These charges were related to an earlier incident at a cafe in the capital city of Astana, where she and a fellow activist were initially detained. A group of people had shown up at the cafe spewing anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric, filming others without consent, and acting in an aggressive manner. Sekerbayeva alleged that the group of individuals was not held accountable for their actions. Instead, she claims that the authorities had conducted a one-sided investigation based entirely on a complaint from Ziuar Zhumanova, whom she accused of inciting tensions at the cafe.

Despite later filing a complaint with the authorities, requesting them to pursue sanctions against Zhumanova for causing the disruption at the cafe and allegedly blocking and pushing her, leading to injuries, nothing has arisen from this complaint. As the co-founder of the Kazakhstan Feminist Initiative ‘Feminita’, she has gained prominence in the country, not merely as an activist, but as a necessary force confronting systemic silence in the justice system.

Her pioneering advocacy focuses on two deeply entangled issues, namely domestic violence and sexual abuse crimes, both of which often remain underreported, due to existing biases in the judicial system that render victims invisible. This incident is merely the latest in a string of public persecutions by the authorities against her, such as in June 2018, after a peaceful photo shoot intended to break the stigmas surrounding menstruation, she was threatened with physical force and detained under vague charges of ‘minor hooliganism.’

In July 2023, a man deliberately drove his vehicle at Sekerbayeva in a threatening way and likened her to a paedophile, comments that he later defended to the police, justifying it as an adequate response to her sexual orientation.

The post Rights group urges Kazakhstan to dismiss charges and release activist Zhanar Sekerbayeva appeared first on JURIST - News.

Belarus decriminalized homosexuality in 1994, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, but same-sex marriage has not been recognized in the country. In 2024, the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Belarus classified the LGBTQA+ movement as “non-traditional sexual relationship or behavior,” the same classification that is given to necrophilia, pedophilia and voyeurism. In September of the same year, 15 LGBTQA+ individuals were arrested by Belarusian authorities, with some being subject to physical and psychological abuse. Others were forced to flee the country.

Belarus is mimicking Russia’s anti-LGBTQ+ policies: Russia passed a new bill prohibiting LGBTQ+ propaganda in 2022. The European Court of Human Rights found that the 2013 version of the same law was discriminatory. In 2023, Russia banned gender-affirming surgeries and labeled the LGBTQ+ movement as “extremist.” In 2024, Russia relabeled the LGBTQ+ movement as a terrorist organization. The crackdown on the LGBTQA+ community in Russia continued in the form of bar raids, fines for Telegram posts, fines on bookstores for LGBTQA+ books, fines to Apple, criminal proceedings, and more. In 2024, Russia banned propaganda of a childfree lifestyle and outlawed propaganda of abortions a year later.

International organizations and rights groups have also been voicing concerns over LGBTQA+ rights in Kazakhstan, Turkey, Hungary, Georgia and Bulgaria.

The post Belarus parliament criminalizes LGBTQ+ ‘propaganda,’ mirroring Russia appeared first on JURIST - News.

On Thursday, the ULS and the East Africa Law Society released a joint statement announcing that 12 people were about to be forcibly removed from the US and “dumped” in Uganda. The 12 were scheduled to arrive aboard a privately-owned aircraft without the engagement of relevant state institutions such as the Directorate of Citizenship and Immigration Control, according to the ULS. Finally, no policy document or legislation was presented to oversee the transfer of people from the US to Uganda, according to the two law societies.

The deportees who arrived in Uganda are African, but not Ugandan, according to the statement by the Foreign Ministry. The Foreign Ministry accepted the migrants pursuant to the Agreement for Cooperation in the Examination of Protection Requests signed in July 2025 by the US and Uganda. This “Safe Third Country” agreement permits nationals from other countries in Africa to be sent to Uganda in alignment with the principles of non-refoulement, which means that no person may be sent back to a country where they would face torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Article 4 of the agreement stipulates that operating procedures will be drafted to implement the agreement. It is not clear if those procedures have been drafted.

“Third Country Deportations” like this are permitted under US law following litigation, which brought the matter to the US Supreme Court in June 2025. The high court stayed a preliminary injunction while the case is pending.

The Uganda deportation agreement is similar to the one between the US and El Salvador. In May 2025, hundreds of Salvadorans and Venezuelans were deported pursuant to that agreement. In September, five migrants aboard a similar flight were allegedly held in straitjackets for 16 hours following their capture by ICE and subsequent flight to Ghana.

It is unclear if the eight people whom the Ugandan Foreign Ministry announced arrived on Wednesday are among  the dozen the UBA alleges were to arrive. The two law societies pledge to fight the “dehumanizing” deportation agreement in court.

The post Migrants deported from the US arrive in Uganda appeared first on JURIST - News.

On March 30, journalists and citizens gathered at the City Sports Center in Harare, the capital of Zimbabwe, to open four days of debate about the proposed constitutional amendments. On the second day of debates supporters of the governing Zapu PF party “stormed the venue,” chanting party slogans, preventing the opposition from speaking, and preventing journalists from leaving unless they delete their footage. An anonymous woman journalist reported having alcohol thrown on her and being trampled on by a stampede of people.

CPJ Africa director Angela Quintal stated:

Blocking journalists, harassing them, and forcing them to delete their footage is a blatant attempt to censor their news coverage and control what the public can hear, read and see. Zimbabwean authorities must ensure those responsible are held accountable and that journalists are free to report on matters of public interest.

First introduced in February, the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Bill introduces a number of reforms to the Zimbabwean constitution, including one to extend the term limit for the president from fives years to seven years. The bill also changes the process for electing the president. Previously, the Zimbabwean people directly elected the president. Under the change, members of Parliament are to vote after every general election or when necessary to fill a vacancy in the office of the president.

The bill will allow the current president, Emmerson Mnangagwa, to stay in power until 2030. Critics fear that the new legislation will bar anyone but party leaders from the presidency. Supporters of the bill, speaking to Al Jazeera, hope that having Parliament vote for the president will reduce instances of political violence

In advance of the hearings, Amnesty International urged Zimbabwean authorities to guarantee freedom of expression, citing concerns about previous instances of violence against opposition figures. In April 2025, President Mnangagwa signed a law which restricting freedom of association and freedom of expression. Additionally, President Mnangagwa is currently under sanctions by the the US government.

The post Journalists harassed at public hearing to debate Zimbabwe constitutional amendments appeared first on JURIST - News.

Min Aung Hlaing, the former head of Myanmar’s armed forces, led the 2021 coup that overthrew the elected government. He has since assumed the presidency following an election widely dismissed by observers as fraudulent, conducted in a repressive environment rife with human rights abuses.

Crimes against humanity are defined by the Rome Statute, Article 7 as acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population. Such crimes are prosecuted by the International Criminal Court, which establishes that official capacity as a head of state or government shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility. This principle means that Min Aung Hlaing’s assumption of the presidency cannot legally shield him from accountability.

The human cost of the military takeover of Myanmar has been severe. Many young activists have faced brutal repression, such as Kyaw Win, who was arrested for taking part in a “flash mob” protest against the coup in 2022 and tortured for a week before being jailed.

“They beat me on my back with an iron rod. They burned me with cigarettes, and slashed my thigh with a knife. Then they stripped my underwear and sexually assaulted me. They interrogated me, but it was never clear what they wanted me to say,” Kyaw Win recounted.

In November 2024, ICC prosecutors sought an arrest warrant for Min Aung Hlaing and other unnamed Myanmar officials for crimes against humanity, specifically deportation and persecution of the Rohingya people in Rakhine State in 2017.

However, the application remains pending, and no arrest warrants for any Myanmar junta official under the ICC’s investigation have been made public. This delay further underscores concerns about whether international mechanisms can effectively hold Myanmar’s military leadership accountable.

The post Presidency must not shield Min Aung Hlaing from accountability, Amnesty International says appeared first on JURIST - News.

Nowadays, Perú faces uneasy parallels to the internal instability seen in the 1980s. While the ideological conflict of the past has been replaced by the cold logic of organized crime, the social atmosphere of dread caused by extortion and urban violence is strikingly similar.

On March 23, a forensic report provided by Perú21, a leading Peruvian daily newspaper, confirmed that Junior Wilfredo Huamaní Tapia was responsible for the March 17 triple homicide in San Juan de Miraflores. According to the reports published by Radio Programas del Perú (RPP), a leading Peruvian news outlet, the driver of a public transport line vehicle—called “Los Rojitos”—was shot to death, along with two passengers, apparently in retaliation for the business allegedly not paying the “fee” extortionists demanded in the San Juan de Miraflores district.

The crime was perpetuated by a man, dressed in a black hoodie and a gray jogger, who approached the vehicle walking toward the driver’s side. After the attack, the suspect fled, running down the street to get on a motorcycle where an accomplice was waiting for him. Later on, officers from the Peruvian National Police (PNP) and agents from the Criminal Investigation Department (Depincri) traveled to the crime scene to guard the vehicle and begin the preliminary procedures and the collection of evidence.

On March 20, the General Commander of the PNP, Óscar Arriola, reported that the main suspect in the triple homicide was apprehended inside a property in the same district. Arriola claimed that Huamaní had a “high probability” of being responsible for the crime as he apparently matched all the physical characteristics shown by the surveillance cameras. Arriola also stated that Huamaní was under surveillance for about ten hours and had undergone forensic tests, adding that Huamaní was linked to two other hitman groups, and that two shotguns were found at the time of his apprehension.

The response of the country’s media was immediate, and herein comes the debate. Several questions are at play here. First, while not defending or denying the participation of the accused in the crime, media voices accuse the PNP of prioritizing a quick victory over conducting a legitimate prosecution. They acted as judges, and are creating a culpability narrative.

Second, there is the analysis issue. While the media pressure surrounding this triple homicide made Huamaní’s release unlikely, the same detention pattern could create a legal loophole in any other case that doesn’t face the same level of public scrutiny. By parading the suspect before cameras and linking him to the crime based on “family profiles” and “physical similarities,” and then declaring that he was likely responsible, the PNP violated the presumption of innocence as a fundamental principle, disobeying the Constitutional Court (Case No. 02825-2017-PHC/TC) and its own internal directives. This malpractice is not the fault of inefficient judges or prosecutors, but a direct failing of the police institution. By prioritizing the display of punishment to appease a desperate population, the PNP handed the defense the necessary arguments for procedural nullity so that, tomorrow, a confessed criminal can walk free due to a procedural flaw that could have been avoided with constitutional rigor.

Here, it is common to see police arrests end in release within 48 hours when the Prosecutor’s Office or the Judiciary does not find a sufficient legal basis. However, in this case, the risk of impunity would not come from an external judicial error, but from a procedural self-inflicted injury.

While it’s understandable that the concern and means to arrest people are intended to preserve the state of law, true security cannot be built on the ruins of due process. If the State becomes a “lawbreaker” to catch a criminal, the criminal has already won by dismantling the very system that was supposed to judge them impartially. We cannot bypass the law just to get “results” in a country where the rule of law feels like a luxury we cannot afford to lose.

The post Perú dispatch: police arrest in triple homicide sparks debate over due process and rule of law appeared first on JURIST - News.

UN General Assembly adopted a historic resolution on March 25, declaring the “Trafficking of Enslaved Africans and Racialized Chattel Enslavement of Africans as the Gravest Crime Against Humanity” (A/80/L.48). The resolution was adopted at the 75th plenary meeting of the 80th session-a full house meeting in a year cycle; meeting to commemorate the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade.

The International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade is a day set aside to annually educate and reflect on slavery. This day was adopted through a UN General Assembly resolution in 2006 and became an annual event from 2008.

The resolution was championed by Ghana and the African Union (AU) to officially recognize the transatlantic slave trade as the gravest crime against humanity and call for reparations. It was adopted by an overwhelming majority of 123 votes in favour, 3 opposing votes from United States (US), Argentina and Israel, and 52 Member States voting in abstention. The abstention included the entire European Union (EU) bloc, Canada, Australia, and Japan.

In Ghanaian President John Dramani Mahama’s 2025 address at the 80th session of the UN General Assembly, he emphasized on the need to demand reparations for the enslavement of over 12.5 million Africans that created wealth for the powerful Western Nations.

International legal instruments such the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) defines the prohibition of slavery and the slave trade under Article 4, while the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) Rome Statute classifies enslavement under article 7 as a crime against humanity. Similarly, Customary international law recognizes jus cogens or peremptory norms—norms to which derogation is not permitted, universal, fundamental and inherent in every human’s nature it do not need a formal codification to be recognized as a crime.

The push for reparatory justice began in September 2023 when Ghana’s former president Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo addressed the 78th session of the United Nations General Assembly at the UN Headquarters in New York. He demanded the payment of reparations for the countries affected by the transatlantic slave trade.

The transatlantic slave trade was a segment of the global slave trade that operated between the 16th and 19th centuries, moving millions of African people across the Atlantic to the Americas. It formed the second stage of the triangular trade, in which European goods such as arms, textiles, and wine were exchanged for enslaved Africans, who were then shipped to the Americas to work on plantations producing sugar, coffee, tobacco, and cotton—commodities that were in turn exported to Europe. The trade began with Portuguese merchants in the late 15th century, who transported Africans to work on Atlantic Island plantations, and later expanded under Spanish, Dutch, French, and British control. By the 18th century, nearly three-fifths of all enslaved Africans were transported, reflecting the rising demand for labor in Caribbean sugar plantations and North American tobacco fields.

The impact on Africa was catastrophic: warlords and tribes were incentivized to capture and sell people, creating widespread violence and instability. The removal of millions of young men and women led to depopulation, economic stagnation, and social disintegration, leaving behind the elderly and dependent populations. Captives endured forced marches of up to 300 miles to coastal ports, with 10–15% dying before reaching ships. The Middle Passage itself was infamous for overcrowded and unsanitary conditions that led to severe illnesses and deaths. Africans were chained in suffocating holds, while between 15–25% died during the voyage. The Zong Massacre of 1781 was another atrocity that highlighted the inhumanity of the slave trade, when the ship’s captain ordered crewmen to throw more than 130 enslaved Africans overboard to fraudulently claim insurance. The slave trade also weakened and fragmented Africa politically, leading to the colonization of African countries.

Although remembrance of the victims of slavery—particularly transatlantic slavery—is commemorated annually, this year’s commemoration under the theme “Justice in Action” marked history. The resolution adopted this year seeks to recognize the profound and lasting impacts of the abhorrent regimes of slavery and colonization, emphasizing that reparation claims represent a concrete step towards remedying historical wrongs against Africans and people of African descent. The question that has stemmed debates is whether a call for reparations is a true step towards justice.

Arguments for reparations by African States as victims are cemented on the fact that the effects of slavery and its consequent, colonization is still felt in present day as seen in the existence of poverty. Whereas the western States being perpetrators continue to thrive on “stolen wealth”.

Critiques may invoke the argument on whether reparations for crime done in the 1800s can be legal in the 21st century based on the principle of intertemporality put forward in the Island of Palmas case. The principle establishes that the legality of an act must be assessed considering laws that existed at the time the act occurred. In contrast, the continuous validity of the act is assessed under evolving legal norms. In essence, because slavery was not illegal under international law at the time it occurred, it would be wrong to demand reparations as not in the interest of justice. However, the counterargument is that the international law principle of jus cogens transcends time: slavery is inherently unlawful, regardless of whether it was normalized in past centuries.

Also, it is arguable that since the circumstances existing at the time of slavery and slave trade have changed over time, reparations may not reflect justice in its truest sense. Colonial powers have since taken on new and different forms, and it would be unjust to hold present day citizens and taxpayers responsible for harm they did not directly participate in. Likewise, descendants of enslaved people who suffered the ills are spread across nations.

Again, concerns of participation of some African rulers in the slave trade raises questions on whether reparations to African State would be just. Albeit, condemning the unfortunate humiliations of the victims of slavery, the minority leader of the Ghana House of Parliament, Honourable Alexander Afenyo Markins stated that reparations are not necessary as the Blackman himself maltreated his fellow given chance to the Whiteman to do same.

Amidst these arguments, it is worth noting that Resolution A/80/L.48 as adopted does not provide means for reparations but opens the door for future voluntary engagements on reparatory justice. While UN General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding, they carry moral and political weight even without enforceable obligations. It becomes more heartbreaking especially with respect to the fact that the resolution does not have the backing of majority of the world’s major superpowers, many of whom participated directly in upholding slavery; the US, EU and others who double as the perpetrators of slavery in order that the achievement can be best realised.

Symbolically, the resolution is historic. It reframes the transatlantic slave trade as the gravest crime against humanity, situates reparations within the discourse of international justice and affirms the dignity of victims and their descendants. Under this year’s theme, “Justice in Action,” the resolution represents a step toward remedying historical wrongs. The Secretary General is expected to submit to the General Assembly at its 82nd session a report on the actions taken by States in implementation of the present resolution.

The post Ghana dispatch: UN General Assembly declaration of transatlantic slave trade as crime against humanity demanding reparations appeared first on JURIST - News.