By Kamryn Page

Associate Editor Journal of Global Rights and Organizations

On March 30th, the Israeli Knesset approved legislation that significantly expanded the use of the death penalty, marking a major shift in Israeli criminal law and raising concerns about compliance with international human rights standards. The development comes in the wake of the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) July 2024 Advisory Opinion, which found Israel in violation of international legal obligations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

The newly approved law introduces capital punishment as the default sentence for individuals convicted of intentional killings classified as terrorism in the West Bank. While Israeli law has historically permitted the death penalty in limited circumstances such as genocide, it has not been applied since 1962, and the new framework allows military courts to impose death sentences by a simple majority absent a prosecutorial request requirement, and mandates execution within 90 days with no possibility of commutation or pardon. 

Critics of the new framework argue that it disproportionately targets Palestinian because Israeli settlers in the West Bank are excluded from its application, despite the framework not explicitly targeting a specific nationality or ethnicity. Within Israel, civilian courts may also impose the death penalty for intentional killings deemed to threaten the existence of the state. Human rights organizations argue that the law introduces discriminatory practices and weakens due process protections such as limited access to legal counsel and reduced oversight mechanisms. 

The ICJ’s 2024 Advisory Opinion provides a critical legal context for evaluating the law’s implications, where the Court emphasized that states must ensure equal protection under the law and uphold fundamental rights, including the right to life. 

Human rights advocates argue that the new death penalty law contravenes both these principles, as well as obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 6 of the ICCPR restricts the use of capital punishment to the “most serious crimes” and requires stringent fair trial guarantees.  

Moreover, the European Union has reiterated its long-standing position that the death penalty is incompatible with human dignity and has called for measures in response to Israel’s actions.  

The broader significance of the legislation lies in its potential to deepen concerns about systemic discrimination and accountability. In expanding capital punishment within a contested legal and territorial framework, the law may further strain compliance with international humanitarian and human rights law.  

Furthermore, as international scrutiny intensifies following the ICJ’s findings, the implementation and legal challenges to this legislation will likely remain a focal point in ongoing debates over justice and impunity in the region. 

For More Information:  

Council of the European Union – Israel: Statement by the High Representative on behalf of the European Union on the approval of the Death Penalty Bill by the Israeli Parliament – March 31, 2026

Death Penalty Information Center – Israel Passes Mandatory Death Penalty for Palestinians Convicted of Terrorism, Flouting International Law and Drawing Widespread Condemnation – April 2, 2026

Human Rights Watch – Adoption of death penalty law by the Israeli Knesset requires urgent EU measures – April 2, 2026

Reuters – Israel passes death penalty law for Palestinians convicted of lethal attacks – March 30, 2026

United Nations – International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – 1967

By: Eric Boutros
Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

A proposed “Finalissima” match between Argentina and Spain, envisioned as a high-profile soccer contest between continental champions, ultimately failed to materialize amid governance constraints, security concerns, and unresolved institutional accountability. While framed as a logistical and scheduling issue, the collapse of the fixture reflects deeper structural questions about how authority is exercised and reviewed in international sport.

The Finalissima, originally scheduled for March 27, 2026, in Qatar, and jointly organized by the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) and the South American Football Confederation (CONMEBOL), and coordinated with the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), represents more than a sporting event. These organizations operate as transnational regulators, establishing binding rules governing player release, competition structure, and international scheduling. Although formally private associations, they exercise authority resembling that of public regulatory bodies: their decisions shape labor conditions, commercial markets, and access to international competition on a global scale.

This quasi-public role has increasingly drawn scrutiny in international legal discourse, particularly when decisions affect the rights and interests of athletes and affiliated stakeholders. In this regard, the reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights in Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland is instructive. There, the Court recognized that the regulatory framework of international sport, though formally private, can have significant implications for individual rights, particularly when affected parties are effectively bound to centralized dispute-resolution mechanisms. The decision reflects a broader acknowledgment that sports governing bodies, by virtue of their structural dominance, operate within a space that implicates principles traditionally associated with public law.

Initial support for the fixture centered on its commercial appeal and symbolic significance. A match between Argentina and Spain promised substantial global engagement and reinforced ongoing cooperation between European and South American football institutions. However, even before external risks emerged, the proposal encountered structural resistance. FIFA’s international match calendar strictly limits available windows, while clubs retain contractual control over player participation. These overlapping constraints reflect a system in which authority is distributed among multiple actors, each with veto power, yet no single entity capable of unilaterally resolving conflicts.

Geopolitical instability ultimately proved decisive. The match was under consideration for Qatar, placing it within a region affected by escalating conflict in the Middle East. As security conditions deteriorated, governing bodies were forced to assess whether proceeding would expose players, staff, and spectators to foreseeable risks. The decision to cancel the fixture can therefore be understood as a form of institutional risk mitigation, consistent with broader expectations that entities exercising regulatory authority take reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable harm.

At the same time, the failure to relocate the match underscores the limitations of the current governance structure. UEFA, CONMEBOL, and FIFA each possess partial authority over scheduling, venue selection, and competition approval, yet none exercises comprehensive control. This fragmentation creates gaps in accountability, where collective decision-making can obscure responsibility. When outcomes result from the interaction of multiple institutions, it becomes difficult to identify a single actor responsible for either the failure to proceed or the inability to find alternatives.

The diffusion of authority is further compounded by the absence of meaningful avenues for review. The cancellation of the Finalissima was not subject to judicial scrutiny, nor was there a clear forum for affected stakeholders, such as players, clubs, or commercial partners, to challenge the decision. As highlighted in Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland, the governance structures of international sport often rely on internal or specialized dispute mechanisms that may limit access to independent judicial oversight. In circumstances such as this, where no formal dispute resolution process is triggered, the accountability gap becomes even more pronounced.

The collapse of the proposed Finalissima, therefore, illustrates a broader structural concern: governing bodies exercise regulatory power with transnational impact, yet remain only partially constrained by legal mechanisms designed to ensure transparency, reviewability, and responsibility. While the decision not to proceed may have been justified by legitimate safety concerns, the process by which that decision was reached, and the absence of oversight, raise important questions about governance in a system that increasingly resembles public administration in all but name.

Going forward, this episode highlights the need to reconsider how authority is structured and reviewed in global soccer. As international soccer competitions grow in scale and significance, the institutions that govern them may face increasing pressure to adopt more transparent procedures, clearer lines of responsibility, and mechanisms for independent review. Without such reforms, similar disputes may continue to expose the tension between private governance and public accountability on the global stage.

For more information:

Sam Marsden, Spain vs. Argentina Finalissima cancelled due to Middle East conflict, ESPN (Mar. 15, 2026)

Spain v Argentina Finalissima match in Qatar cancelled amid conflict, Al Jazeera (Mar. 15, 2026)

Messi, Yamal and the Finalissima that never was, The Athletic (New York Times) (Mar. 17, 2026)

Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland, App. Nos. 40575/10 & 67474/10, Eur. Ct. H.R. (Oct. 2, 2018)

By: Abigail Wilcher

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

Strasbourg, France – Osman Kaval (Mr. Kaval), a prominent businessman and human rights advocate, remains unlawfully detained despite two rulings from the European Court of Human Rights declaring his detention arbitrary and politically motivated.

Mr. Kaval is well-known for his involvement in numerous civil society initiatives. Mr. Kaval was arrested in Istanbul in 2017 and placed in pre-trial detention one month after his arrest. Mr. Kaval faced criminal charges related to his alleged participation in the mass protests in the 2013 Gezi protests and the attempted coup on July 15, 2016. Mr. Kaval is serving an aggravated life sentence in Marmara Prison for attempting to overthrow the government. Currently, Mr. Kaval is serving an aggravated life sentence in Marmara Prison, along with other high-profile prisoners, for attempting to overthrow the government.

After unsuccessful attempts to challenge the proceedings in domestic courts, Mr. Kaval appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. In 2019, the Court determined that his detention was arbitrary and politically driven, finding that he was detained for exercising fundamental human rights. Further, the Court found that Turkish authorities aimed to silence him. However, despite this judgment and a subsequent European Court of Human Rights decision in 2022 regarding Turkey’s failure to implement the 2019 ruling, Mr. Kaval was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Mr. Kavala has since filed a second application to the European Court of Human Rights, alleging violations of rights under numerous Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. Specifically, Mr Kavala argues that his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair hearing), 7 (no punishment without law), 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association, taken together with Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) have been violated as a result of the continuing arbitrary and politically motivated deprivation of his liberty which breached the terms of the ECtHR’s 2019 judgment.

The European Court of Human Rights will hold a Grand Chamber Hearing to review Mr. Kaval’s continued detention following the Court’s 2019 decision ordering his immediate release. The proceedings will address whether Turkey’s refusal to comply with that judgment, as well as Turkey’s later imposition of a life sentence in 2022, constitutes ongoing violations of Mr. Kaval’s rights. Mr. Kaval’s continued imprisonment illustrates the broader systemic failures in Turkey’s legal system by using excessive and prolonged detention. Furthermore, Osman Kaval’s imprisonment has become a defining test of whether the European Court of Human Rights’ judgements carry meaningful authority when member states fail to comply with its orders.

For more information:

Türkiye – Statement by the Spokesperson on ECtHR ruling against Türkiye in the Kavala Case (Nov. 7, 2022)  

Kavala v Türkiye (Third Party Intervention)  

ECHR – Case of Kavala v. Türkiye (No. 2): a Six-Week Deadline is Set for Submitting Requests for Third-Party Intervention (Dec. 12, 2025)  

Türkiye: Osman Kavala Marks 7 Years Behind Bars Wrongly Detained Rights Defender Awaits New European Court Ruling (Nov. 1, 2024)   

Jailed Since 2017, Kavala says Turkish Government Made an Example of Him to Intimidate Activists (Feb. 25, 2026)  

By: Spencer Kwabena Boateng Mensah 

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer 

ACCRA GHANA & ABUJA NIGERIA – In the long constitutional history of Ghana, few episodes have generated as much legal and political debate as the removal of former Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo. 

The controversy, which began with petitions alleging misconduct in early 2025, quickly expanded into a complex legal saga spanning domestic courts and the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice in Abuja. Nearly two years after the events that triggered the dispute, the case remains a reference point in discussions about judicial independence, constitutional procedure and the limits of executive authority. 

Justice Torkornoo assumed office as Ghana’s 15th Chief Justice on 12 June 2023, following her nomination by then-president Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo and approval by Parliament. 

Her elevation marked another milestone for women in the judiciary—she became the third woman to lead the country’s Supreme Court since the beginning of the Fourth Republic. 

For nearly two years, her tenure appeared relatively stable. That changed in March 2025. 

On 25 March 2025, three petitions seeking her removal were submitted to President John Dramani Mahama. The petitions accused the Chief Justice of administrative misconduct and irregularities in the management of judicial resources. 

Under Article 146 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution, the removal of a superior court judge—including the Chief Justice—follows a defined procedure. The president must consult the Council of State of Ghana and determine whether the petitions disclose a prima facie case before appointing an investigative committee. 

After reviewing the petitions and consulting the Council of State, the president announced on 22 April 2025 that such a prima facie case existed. Justice Torkornoo was suspended pending an investigation by a five-member committee. 

The most senior justice of the Supreme Court of Ghana, Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, stepped in as acting Chief Justice. 

The First Legal Challenges 

The suspension immediately triggered litigation. 

One of the earliest challenges came from legislator Vincent Ekow Assafuah, who asked the Supreme Court to halt the removal process. His argument centered on whether the president had followed the correct constitutional procedure before determining that a prima facie case existed. 

On 6 May 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed the application, allowing the process to continue. 

A second challenge soon followed, again questioning the legality of the suspension and the committee proceedings. On 21 May 2025, the Supreme Court rejected that challenge as well. 

These rulings cleared the way for the investigative committee to proceed with hearings. 

Inside the Investigation 

The committee began its hearings on 15 May 2025, meeting regularly to examine the allegations contained in the petitions. 

Because Article 146 proceedings are held in camera, much of the investigation unfolded outside the public eye. Nonetheless, the process generated intense public debate and scrutiny. 

Justice Torkornoo herself publicly criticized the proceedings during a national address on 25 June 2025, describing what she believed to be fundamental procedural flaws. 

“The perversion of law, rules and due process… are driving the proceedings,” she said at the time, arguing that the investigation had strayed from constitutional standards. 

Turning to the Regional Court 

While the committee hearings continued in Ghana, the dispute also reached the regional level. 

On 4 July 2025, Justice Torkornoo filed a case against the Ghanaian state at the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice. The application alleged violations of her rights under regional human-rights law and argued that the suspension prevented her from carrying out the constitutional duties of her office. She sought reinstatement or other relief and $10 million in damages.  

Her legal team asked the court to declare that Ghana had breached its obligations and to grant remedies that could include restoration of her judicial status or compensation. 

The filing added an international dimension to a dispute already dominating Ghana’s constitutional landscape. 

The Historic Removal 

The committee eventually completed its investigation and submitted its report to the president. 

On 1 September 2025, President Mahama announced that he had accepted the committee’s recommendation and removed Justice Torkornoo from office for “stated misbehavior.” 

The decision marked an unprecedented moment: no sitting chief justice had previously been removed through the Article 146 procedure in Ghana’s Fourth Republic. 

For supporters of the process, the decision demonstrated that constitutional accountability mechanisms could be applied even to the judiciary’s highest office. Critics, however, warned that the episode risked undermining public confidence in judicial independence. 

Litigation Continues 

The removal did not end the legal battle. 

On 17 September 2025, Justice Torkornoo filed a new challenge at the High Court in Accra, seeking judicial review of the decision to remove her. The case questioned whether the investigative committee and the president had strictly complied with constitutional requirements. 

Meanwhile, the ECOWAS court case continued to move through preliminary stages in Abuja. 

Legal observers pointed out that while the ECOWAS court can determine whether a state violated international human-rights obligations, it cannot directly overturn decisions made under a country’s constitution. Instead, the court can issue declaratory judgments and order compensation if violations are found. 

Beyond One Case 

Even as the legal proceedings continued, Ghana’s political institutions moved forward with filling the vacancy in the judiciary’s top office. Parliament began considering the nomination of Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie as substantive Chief Justice. 

The episode nevertheless left a lasting imprint on Ghana’s constitutional discourse. 

For scholars and legal practitioners, the Torkornoo affair has become a case study in how constitutional removal mechanisms operate—and how fragile the balance between judicial independence and accountability can be. 

A year after the first petitions were filed, the dispute continues to echo in courtrooms, legal journals and public debates across West Africa. 

Key ECOWAS Court Decisions 

1. Interim Measures Request – Dismissed 

On 19th November 2025, the ECOWAS Court dismissed her application for provisional measures, which sought to halt the investigation and removal process while the case was pending. 

The court held that she failed to demonstrate urgency or imminent irreparable harm, partly because she filed the request months after the suspension.  

However, the court acknowledged that the case raised a prima facie human-rights issue, meaning the main lawsuit could proceed.  

1. Amendment of the Case – Granted 

 On 30th January 2026, the ECOWAS Court granted Torkornoo permission to amend her claim so that it explicitly challenges not only her suspension but also her final removal from office.  

The court rejected Ghana’s objection and directed the government to file an amended defence within 30 days responding to the expanded allegations.  

Present Legal Position  March 2026 

At the moment, the case is still pending before the ECOWAS Court as only procedural rulings have been issued. No final judgment on the merits has been delivered and Ghana has been ordered to respond to the amended claims. 

For further information, please see:  

Ghana’s President Removes Country’s Chief Justice after Investigation -September 1, 2025 

ECOWAS Court Dismisses Former CJ Torkornoos Bid to Halt Investigative Committees Work – November 19, 2025

Ghana Dispatch: Regional African Court Orders Ghana to Respond to Alleged Human Rights Violations – December 28, 2025 

By: Julia Wheeler 

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations and Impunity Watch News 

Medmoune v. France arises out of doctors’ decision to withdraw life-sustaining medical treatment from patient “A.M.”. This decision was made despite A.M.’s drawn up advance directives, which stated his wishes for the continuation of life-sustaining treatment, even in the case of permanent loss of consciousness and ability to communicate. This raises the legal question of whether this decision was a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Background – Bruay-sur-l’Escault, France:  

In May of 2022, A.M., a 44-year-old male, was run over by a commercial vehicle that he was repairing. He suffered severe trauma, including cardiorespiratory arrest and prolonged oxygen deprivation. A.M. was admitted to the Valenciennes Hospital ICU, where it was determined that he no longer had brain-stem reflexes or brain activity and had sustained anoxic injuries.  

On May 31, 2022, pursuant to Article R. 4127-37-2 of the French Public Health Code, the hospital began its collective procedure, the process doctors follow when deciding whether to limit or withdraw treatment. On June 1, 2022, the doctors decided that treatment would be withdrawn on June 9, 2022. The applicants challenged this decision, and before the withdrawal date on June 8, 2022, the Lille Administration Court suspended it. Revisiting the decision on July 15, 2022, the head of the ICU again decided to withdraw treatment on July 22, 2022. The applicants again challenged this through an urgent application for protection of a fundamental freedom, which the Administrative Court dismissed on July 22, 2022.  

The applicants appealed to France’s highest administrative court, the Conseil d’État, seeking review of the constitutionality of the legal provision authorizing the hospital’s decision. The Constitutional Council upheld the constitutionality of the provision on November 10, 2022, and the Conseil d’État dismissed the applicants’ action. 

As a final recourse, the applicants requested an interim measure from the ECHR under Rule 39. They hoped to be granted a stay of execution of the July 15, 2022, decision, and continuation of treatment while their case was pending. The judge denied the applicants’ request. 

Treatment was withdrawn on December 26, 2022, and A.M. passed away that day.  

Applicants’ Claim/Argument 

The applicants claimed that A.M.’s right to life under Article 2 was violated, as was his right to respect for private life under Article 8, and his freedom of thought, conscience, and religion under Article 9 of the Convention. 

They criticized France’s Public Health Code for permitting doctors to override patients’ advance directives deemed “manifestly inappropriate,” arguing that this grants excessive discretion to doctors which in turn creates a risk of arbitrary interference with Convention rights.  

Decision 

The Court upheld the French legislation framework as compatible with Article 2. Under the Convention, States have the discretion to determine which factors to consider and how to weigh competing rights and interests. 

The Court acknowledged that the doctors were initially unaware of A.M.’s advance directives. After reviewing them, the medical team concluded that following the directives was not compatible with A.M.’s medical condition, and that continuing treatment would be considered “unreasonable obstinacy,” meaning it would provide the patient with no real benefit. The team also considered the family’s objections but decided that these could not override their medical judgment. The Court found that A.M.’s wishes were properly considered throughout the process. 

The Court found that the State had provided the applicants with prompt and reasonable judicial remedies, which considered various factors, such as medical evidence and A.M.’s advance directives. Therefore, the State has complied with its positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention.  

The Court referenced prior rulings to reiterate that while Article 8 protects personal autonomy, it does not bind States to advance directives, as they may utilize their discretion. On this basis, the Court found the French framework compatible with Article 2. Further, the Court held that applicants’ Article 9 complaints were sufficiently addressed by its Article 2 analysis.  

Significance 

This case is the first before the ECHR where it involves not a patient’s advance directives to withdraw life-sustaining medical treatment, but their directives to continue the treatment.  

For further information, please see: 

ECHR  

Judgment Medmoune v. France – Press Release Issued by the Registrar of the Court  

Public Health Code: Article R. 4127-37-2  

ECHR Case Law 

By: Jocelyn Anctil 

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer 

NUEVA SAN SALVADOR, El Salvador – On October 6, 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights received a submission to hear Case 12.787, Natividad de Jesús Ramírez and Family v. El Salvador. This case arises from the extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances of several Ramírez family members in 1982, after they were labeled subversive enemies during El Salvador’s civil war, when the military government targeted Catholic Church activists as communist threats. 

During El Salvador’s internal armed conflict (1980-1991), the Ramírez family was active in the Catholic Church which subjected them to raids, threats, arrests, and assaults by public state officers. In 1982, state forces killed Rufino and Teresa Ramírez, while five other family members, Natividad de Jesús Ramírez, Salvador Ramírez, José Elías Ramírez, Jorge Alberto Ramírez, and Guadalupe Roble, were forcibly disappeared and their whereabouts remain unknown today. 

Since then, the Ramírez family has made numerous efforts to find answers and bring justice to their family, including seeking assistance from the Attorney General of El Salvador and the Inter-American Commission. The Commission launched an investigation and concluded that El Salvador is responsible for violating multiple rights of the victims, including their right to life in Merits Report 150/23. The Merits Report was sent to El Salvador and after efforts to reach a settlement failed, the Commission submitted the case to the Court.  

The victims’ family wants the truth about what happened to their loved ones and accountability for their loss. They claim, and the Commission found, that El Salvador failed to investigate, preserve crime scenes, perform autopsies, or conduct effective searches. The Commission’s recommendations urge the Court to order El Salvador to investigate disappearances, identify remains, provide healthcare to relatives, pursue criminal investigations with gender perspective, and adopt non-recurrence measures like DNA databases and accession to the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 

Although the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has yet to decide whether to accept the case, doing so would give the Court an opportunity to clarify the standards of investigation and specialized procedures required of each state when cases involve disappeared persons. 

This case represents the challenge of holding El Salvador’s government for what occurred during the civil war, during which an estimated 75,000 civilians were killed or forcibly disappeared, with 85% of violence committed by state forces according to the UN Truth Commission. El Salvador’s amnesty law, which blocked prosecution of civil war atrocities, was struck down by the Inter-American Court in 2012 and invalidated by El Savador’s Supreme Court in 2016. However, investigations into civil war crimes have remained stagnant with many cases still in impunity decades later. 

For Further Information Please See: 

Caso de ejecuciones extrajudiciales y desapariciones de la familia Ramírez es presentado ante la Corte IDH – VOCES Diario digital | El Salvador 

El Salvador: Tackling Impunity Past and Present – Inter-American Dialogue 

El Salvador – CJA 

IACHR takes to Inter-American Court case concerning extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances in El Salvador 

January 16, 2025 

By: Ethan Kassem, Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor   

Individuals with disabilities have a legal right to participate in decisions that impact their lives according to international human rights law. Against that backdrop, states are generally required by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) to actively and closely consult with individuals with disabilities along with the organizations that represent them when developing laws and policies that impact such individuals. Accordingly, Australia’s recent policy changes offer an increasing attempt at matching both national and international programs with evolving legal requirements for participation and inclusion.  

The Australian government announced a historic $50 million investment on December 3, 2025, aimed at bolstering disability rights throughout the Indo-Pacific area through its flagship program “Stronger Movements, Stronger Futures.” Despite the disproportionate number of individuals with disabilities residing in the Indo-Pacific, the announcement was made to coincide with the International Day of People with Disabilities, signifying both a symbolic and practical commitment at advancing equality and inclusion in an area where disability remains widely under-addressed in law, policy, and development practice.  

The initiative, which primarily aims to strengthen organizations led by individuals with disabilities by enabling their participation in national, regional, and international decision-making, represents the largest Australian international investment specifically dedicated to disability rights and equality. This initiative seeks to foster collaboration and peer-to-peer learning in order to build a stronger and more unified disability rights movement. Additionally, this policy aligns with the growing body of international human rights legislation concerning the participation and inclusion of individuals with disabilities.  

As part of this investment, Australia will partner with three leading organizations of people with disabilities: the International Disability Alliance, Pacific Disability Forum, and ASEAN Disability. Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Penny Wong, has gone on to state that this movement primarily seeks as a means of empowering individuals with disabilities to lead change, remove barriers, and create opportunities for full and equal participation in society. Australia has since placed a large emphasis on its commitment to removing barriers and creating opportunities for full participation in society nothing that inclusive societies demonstrate greater potential for both economic growth and social cohesion. 

Unlike prior disability-related funding, which sought to place a larger emphasis on support services, this initiative primarily seeks to invest in the infrastructure of the disability rights movements themselves. By funding disability-led organizations rather than what might be deemed a more “traditional” assistance program, this initiative serves as an effective means of strengthening the ability for individuals with disabilities to have a larger influence on government legislation while holding governments accountable. Australia’s initiative highlights the fact that disability rights are viewed as an essential feature of human rights governance and democratic participation, as opposed to an incidental social issue.  

For further information, please see:  

ADDC welcomes landmark investment to advance disability rights in the Indo-Pacific 

Australia invests $50 million to strengthen disability rights across the Indo-Pacific 

Australia Pledges $50M to Boost Indo-Pacific Disability Rights 

CBM Australia welcomes investment to bolster disability rights in the Indo-Pacific  

How institutional investment is reshaping specialist disability accommodation in Australia 

By: Mya DeJoseph  

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor  

THE HAGUE, Netherlands – Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rhaman, also known as “Ali Kushayb,” was sentenced by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on December 9, 2025, to 20 years imprisonment. Back in October 2025, Abd-Al-Rahman was convicted of 27 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity in connection to his involvement in events taking place in Darfur, Sudan between August 2003 and March 2004.  

Background  

In the early 2000s, conflict began between the Government of Sudan, backed by the Janjaweed militia, and Darfur rebel groups. During this time, Abd-Al-Rahman was a senior leader of the Janjaweed who conducted coordinated attacks in villages of Darfur whom the Janjaweed believed to be in support of the rebellion against the Government of Sudan.  

 After being charged with 31 counts in connection to war crimes and crimes against humanity between 2003 and 2004, Abd-Al-Rahman surrendered himself to the International Criminal Court in 2020. Following a trial taking place over a period of 2.5 years, Abd-Al-Rahman was found guilty of 27 charges relating to murder, sexually violent crimes, forcible transfer, pillaging, torture, and outrages upon personal dignity. He was found to have both given orders to the Janjaweed which led to these crimes, as well as being a direct perpetrator himself.   

 Sentencing  

In its sentencing procedures, the ICC has broad discretion and seeks to achieve aims of retribution and deterrence through its punishments. The sentence given must be proportional to the crime committed, appropriately reflect culpability of the defendant, and take into consideration all relevant circumstances, including the gravity of the crimes, aggravating factors, and mitigating factors.  

The Prosecution sought a joint sentence of life imprisonment, highlighting Abd-Al-Rahman’s deep involvement in the crimes, the profound impact of his crimes on the community, the cruelty of these crimes, and the defenseless victims. The Defense argued a life sentence to be inappropriate, urging Abd-Al-Rahman’s immediate release, or in the alternative a seven-year imprisonment sentence. In offering mitigation, the Defense submitted to the court that a life sentence for Abd-Al-Rahman would not be appropriate considering his age, personal circumstances, his degree of culpability, his lack of prior criminal history, and the fact that he voluntarily surrendered himself to the ICC.  

In sentencing Abd-Al-Rahman to 20 years imprisonment, the Chamber noted that the sentence would have been longer had the mitigation offered by the Defense not been accepted. The Chamber found this sentence to be appropriate considering the purposes of punishment, the victims’ harm and suffering, Abd-Al-Rahman’s good behavior while in detention, and his voluntary surrender. The Chamber also noted factual overlap between some of the crimes, which played a role in the sentencing determination.  

The time that Abd-Al-Rahman has already spent in detention, which began after his voluntary surrender and subsequent custody on June 9, 2020, will be accounted for as “time served” and will be deducted from his sentence.  

Significance 

This is the only trial that has taken place after the United Nations Security Council referred the Darfur situation in 2005 to the ICC, and conflict in the region is ongoing. Other individuals in Sudan are wanted by the ICC for their roles in genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, including former President of Sudan Omar Al Bashir.  However, Abd-Al-Rahman’s conviction is regarded as a step forward and a sense of justice for those victimized by the Janjaweed.  

For further information, please see:  

Coalition for the International Criminal Court – Truth, Justice, and Dignity: Two decades on, justice reaches Darfur with the Abd-al Rahman conviction – Oct. 10, 2025 

Courthouse News Service – Darfur militia chief Ali Kushayb sentenced to 20-year prison term by ICC – Dec. 9, 2025 

Human Rights Watch – ICC Sentences Former Sudanese Militia Leader to 20 Years – Dec. 15, 2025 

Summary of Trial Chamber I’s Sentencing Judgement in the Case of The Prosecutor v. Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman (‘Ali Kushayb’) – 9 Dec. 2025 

The International Criminal Court – Abd-Al-Rahman Case 

The International Criminal Court – Situation in Darfur, Sudan  

The Prosecutor v. Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman (‘Ali Kushayb’), International Criminal Court, Trial Judgement – 6 Oct. 2025 

Christina Bradic

Managing Editor of Impunity Watch News 

New York, New York — On 11 November 2025, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) convened in New York for a plenary debate under Agenda Item 74 : The Report of the International Criminal Court (ICC). This annual review of the ICC’s activities unfolded at a critical inflection point for the global justice system, as the Court faces unprecedented political pressures, challenges in state cooperation, and existential threats to its independence.  

Judge Tomoko Akane, President of the ICC, delivered the institution’s 2025 Annual Report, underscoring both its judicial work and the growing obstacles to its mission. In her address, Akane warned that “attacks, threats and coercive measures against the Court and its officials pose a serious threat to the administration of justice by the Court and to the global fight against impunity.”   

The backdrop to these remarks is striking. Over the past year, member states and civil society have documented multiple instances of non-cooperation with arrest warrants, cyberattacks, and economic and visa sanctions targeting ICC judges and prosecutors, notably through a U.S. Executive Order imposing sanctions on the Court in February 2025.  These measures were triggered in part by ICC decisions related to investigations in Palestine and other high-profile situations and have become a flashpoint in debates over the Court’s legitimacy and reach. 

Akane’s message was clear: the fight against impunity requires unwavering multilateral support. She reiterated that “crimes that shock the conscience of humanity continue to plague this world,” and that only robust cooperation with states and institutions can enable justice to reach victims and survivors wherever national systems fail.  

Following the President’s report, a chorus of States Parties reaffirmed their commitment to the ICC. In a statement delivered on behalf of the European Union, representatives characterized the Court as a “cornerstone of the international fight against impunity,” urged all states to honor cooperation obligations, and condemned attacks on the Court’s personnel and mandate.  Other delegations echoed these sentiments, stressing the need for both political and practical backing as the ICC navigates an increasingly polarized political landscape. 

The resonance of this debate extended beyond the halls of the United Nations. In the run-up to the 24th Assembly of States Parties (ASP24), scheduled in The Hague from 1–6 December 2025, civil society actors and advocacy groups used the UNGA moment to amplify calls for decisive action. Human rights organizations have urged states not merely to issue statements of support, but to translate political goodwill into cooperation on arrest warrants, financial support, and defense of judicial independence.   

At its heart, the UNGA debate illuminated a broader tension in the international justice architecture: as grave crimes proliferate in conflicts from Ukraine to Sudan and beyond, the institutions designed to hold perpetrators accountable are themselves under pressure from geopolitical interests and selective compliance. The ICC’s annual report and the subsequent state debate were thus not only a routine procedural milestone but a crucial political moment, one that showcased both enduring commitment from many states and persistent fault lines in the global fight against impunity. 

If the ICC is to endure as a credible mechanism for accountability, the support expressed at UNGA must translate into concrete cooperation and protection of judicial independence, a challenge that states will revisit in The Hague and beyond. 

For Further Reading: 

Anadolu Agency – International Criminal Court President Urges Global Cooperation to Enforce Arrest Warrants– 12 November 2025 

Coalition for the International Criminal Court – ICC President Akane Presents the Court’s Annual Report to the UN General Assembly – 18 November 2025 

Common Dreams – Mexico, Rights Groups Push Back Against Sanctions Targeting International Criminal Court – 13 November 2025 

European External Action Service (EEAS) – EU Statement at the UN General Assembly on the Report of the International Criminal Court – 11 November 2025 

FIDH (International Federation for Human Rights) – Will States Parties Protect the International Criminal Court or Let It Be Undermined? – 30 October 2025 

Human Rights Watch – Briefing Note for the Twenty-Fourth Session of the ICC’s Assembly of States Parties – 19 November 2025 

United Nations e-Statements – Statement by Judge Tomoko Akane, President of the International Criminal Court, to the UN General Assembly — Presentation of the ICC’s 2025 Annual Report – 11 November 2025 

By: Tiffany D. Johnson 

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Ten years after launching their landmark climate lawsuit against the U.S. government, a group of youth activists have brought their fight for environmental justice to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), arguing that America’s long-standing fossil fuel policies violate international law and endanger basic human rights — including the rights to life, health, and equality. 

Fifteen of the original Juliana v. United States plaintiffs filed their petition on September 23, 2025, represented by the nonprofit Our Children’s Trust, arguing that U.S. fossil-fuel policies violate international law and endanger the rights to life, health, and equality. 

Background 
The petition comes a year after the Juliana case — which accused the U.S. government of violating the constitutional rights of youth by promoting fossil fuel dependence — was dismissed by U.S. courts. With domestic remedies exhausted, the petitioners turned to the regional human rights system. 

The IACHR, headquartered in Washington, D.C., reviews complaints under the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, which protects the rights to life, liberty, security, health, and equality before the law. The youth argue that by expanding fossil fuel production and denying them access to meaningful remedies, the United States has breached these obligations and committed an internationally wrongful act. 

Their appeal follows two historic Advisory Opinions on climate change, one issued on May 29 by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and another on July 23 by the International Court of Justice, both recognizing climate change as a human rights emergency. The IACtHR ruling — the first to declare climate change a human rights emergency — found that States have binding legal duties to adopt ambitious, science-based, and equity-centered climate action. According to the Court, failure to prevent climate harm violates fundamental rights, including those to life, personal integrity, and a healthy environment. 

Justice and Health in the Climate Crisis 
For the petitioners, the crisis is personal. Rising seas, extreme storms, and heat events have destroyed homes and schools, displaced families, and worsened public health conditions. “We were born into a rights violation,” said petitioner Levi Draheim, now 18. “Our home, our safety, and our health have all been compromised.” 

The filing argues that climate change, driven by government policy choices, has deprived young people of the ability to enjoy a safe and stable climate system — a precondition for exercising every other human right. Citing the IACtHR’s opinion, the petition underscores that States and corporations share a legal duty to prevent irreversible climate damage, regulate high-emitting industries, and protect vulnerable communities most affected by environmental harm. 

Significance 
If accepted, the petition would mark the first time an international human-rights tribunal undertakes a full review of U.S. climate policy. 

Together, the IACtHR’s Advisory Opinion and the IACHR petition form a powerful one-two statement: climate inaction is not merely environmental neglect — it is a human rights violation. For the youth petitioners, the message is clear: protecting the planet is inseparable from protecting life and health. 

As the Commission considers their plea, their case may help define a new frontier in international law — one where justice for the climate becomes synonymous with justice for humanity. 

For further information, please see:

The Guardian — US is violating human rights laws by backing fossil fuels, say young activists in new petition —Sep, 25 2025   

Inside Climate News — Climate Activists Thwarted in U.S. Courts Are Headed to an International Tribunal for Review — Sep. 29 2025  

Center for International Environmental Law — What a Historic Inter-American Court Ruling Means for Global Climate Justice — Nov. 6 2025  

International Court of Justice — ICJ Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 23 July 2025: Obligations of the States in respect of Climate Change — Jul. 23 2025 

Inter-American Court of Human Rights — IACtHR Advisory Opinion of 29 May 2025: Climate Emergency and Human Rights – May 29 2025 

United States District Court — Juliana v. United States, 339 F. Supp. 3d 1062 (D. Or. 2018) — June 1 2023 

United States Ninth District Court of Appeals — Juliana v. United States, 947 F.3d 1159 — Jan 17 2020