Asia

No One Above the Law: President Duterte’s ICC Arrest Breaks Global Ground

By: Lela Lanier 

Associate Articles Editor

 

THE HAGUE, Netherlands—On March 11, 2025, former Philippine President Rodrigo Roa Duterte was arrested in Manila and transferred to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. The ICC issued a warrant for Duterte’s arrest for crimes against humanity, including murder, torture, and rape, committed during his presidency. His arrest is a landmark moment for human rights and justice, signaling that impunity for mass atrocities is no longer a given.

 
Pre-Trial Chamber I Judges, in the initial appearance of former President of the Philippines Rodrigo Roa Duterte. Photo Courtesy of ICC-CPI.
  

Rodrigo Duterte, who served as President of the Philippines from 2016 to 2022, was infamous for his brutal “war on drugs.” Under his leadership, thousands of suspected drug offenders—many of whom were never given due process—were executed extrajudicially. Human rights groups estimate the death toll to be between 6,300 and 30,000, with the poor disproportionately affected. Prior to his presidency, as Mayor of Davao City, Duterte allegedly orchestrated the Davao Death Squad (“DDS”), a vigilante group responsible for at least 1,400 killings. His tenure was marked by his open endorsement of violence, promising to kill criminals and drug users rather than subject them to trial. Despite withdrawing the Philippines from the ICC in 2018, the court-maintained jurisdiction over crimes committed while the country was still a member.

The ICC issued Duterte’s arrest warrant under Article 58(1) of the Rome Statute, which requires reasonable grounds to believe a suspect committed crimes within the court’s jurisdiction and that arrest is necessary. The prosecution established that crimes against humanity, including systematic extrajudicial killings, fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC. Duterte’s leadership of the Davao Death Squad and Philippine law enforcement, along with his public directives to kill drug suspects, provided compelling evidence for his arrest. Testimonies from former police officers and victims’ families further substantiated these claims. Given Duterte’s extensive influence in the Philippines and his previous refusal to cooperate with the ICC, his arrest was deemed necessary to prevent obstruction of justice and to ensure the protection of witnesses.

The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber ruled that Duterte’s arrest was warranted, citing the gravity of his alleged crimes and the absence of any expectation that he would voluntarily appear before the court. The decision reaffirmed the fundamental principle of equal protection under the law—no individual, regardless of status, should be above justice.

Duterte’s arrest carries profound implications. The Philippines has become only the second country in history to arrest and transfer a former head of state to the ICC, setting a significant global precedent. For the thousands of victims denied due process—and for their grieving families—this moment offers renewed hope that justice is possible. More broadly, Duterte’s arrest sends a clear warning to other world leaders with outstanding ICC warrants, including Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, and Sudan’s Omar Al-Bashir: international justice is slow, but it is relentless.

Duterte’s fall marks a turning point in the fight against impunity. His victims were denied their right to life and due process, but his arrest proves that the rule of law can still prevail.

 

For further information, please see: 

Brookings—Why did the Philippines turn over its former president to the ICC? —1 Apr. 2025

ICC—Rodrigo Roa Duterte makes first appearance before the ICC: confirmation of charges hearing scheduled for 23 September 2025—14 Mar. 2025 

ICC—Situation in the Philippines: Rodrigo Roa Duterte in ICC custody—12 Mar. 2025

ICC—Statement of the ICC Office of the Prosecutor on the arrest of former Philippine President Rodrigo Roa Duterte—12 Mar. 2025

ICC—Warrant of Arrest for Mr. Rodrigo Roa Duterte—7 Mar. 2025 

New Lines Magazine—Duterte’s Arrest Sparks a Reckoning in the Philippines—2, Apr. 2025   

ICC Office of the Prosecution Issues Application for Arrest Warrant for Myanmar’s Acting President, Min Aung Hlaing

By: Lauren Clement 

Senior Articles Editor


MYANMAR—On November 27, 2024, the ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan submitted an application to the ICC’s judicial division to issue an arrest warrant for Min Aung Hlaing, the acting President of Myanmar, for crimes against humanity of deportation and persecution of the Rohingya. This application came after extensive investigations by the Office of the Prosecutor from 2019—2024. ICC judges must now decide whether the application meets the standard for issuing an arrest warrant.

 
Min Aung Hlaing, acting President of Myanmar. Photo courtesy of Ye Aung Thu/Agence France-Presse, Getty Images.
  

Although the Rohingya, a Muslim ethnic minority, have lived in Myanmar for centuries, they have never been recognized as an official ethnic group and have been denied citizenship since 1982, making them the world’s largest stateless population and vulnerable to exploitation and sexual and gender-based violence and abuse. The Rohingya have experienced decades of discrimination and violence leading to frequent waves of human rights violations. However, 2017 marked the largest mass displacement of the minority group as the military burned entire villages, killed thousands of families, and partook in other human rights violations.  As a result, more than 2.6 million Rohingya were internally displaced and almost one million sought refuge in Bangladesh. In 2021, the Myanmar military seized power in a coup led by Min Aung Hlaing, sentencing then-president Aung San Suu Kyi to 17 years in prison. This shift in power set off another wave of violence and triggered a new refugee crisis. 

Before Myanmar’s current self-appointed prime minister led the 2021 coup, Min Aung Hlaing was a career army officer and commander in chief since 2011, with a reputation for attacks on ethnic groups. Since 2021, his regime has cracked down violently against political opposition, imprisoned pro-democracy protesters, and threatened punishment for civilians who refused to join the military. Under his command, over 27,000 people have been arrested and 21,000 are still detained, and more than 260 people were reportedly tortured to death. 

The ICC’s legal process for sentencing a perpetrator of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and/or crimes of aggression takes part in 6 steps. First, the Office of the Prosecutor determines whether there is sufficient evidence of crimes that fall within the ICC’s jurisdiction. Second, the Prosecution submits an application to judges to issue an arrest warrant, which is what the Prosecutor asked of the ICC judiciary on November 27 of this year. Third, the pretrial stage marks the initial appearance of the suspect before the judges, as well as a confirmation of charges where the judges decide if there is enough evidence to go to trial after hearing each sides’ arguments. Fourth, in the trial stage, the prosecution tries to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, the judges issue a verdict and, if found guilty, a sentence for up to 30 years, or, up to life in special circumstances. Fifth, both sides may appeal the verdict and sentence. Finally, if the verdict is not overturned, the accused serves his or her sentence in a member state that has agreed to enforce ICC sentences. 

The ICC’s Prosecutor’s application for an arrest warrant for Min Aung Hlaing was met with support from several different countries, as well as the Rohingyas and the country’s National Unity Government (which was established by elected lawmakers after the 2021 coup), who urged the ICC judges to swiftly issue the warrant and called on ICC member states to enforce the warrant to “uphold justice and international law.” If the ICC judiciary decides to issue the warrant, however, there are other procedural roadblocks in the way to Min Aung Hlaing’s arrest,  as Myanmar is not an ICC member state, and the acting President rarely travels to states that are members who can serve an arrest warrant. 

 

For further information, please see:

ICC – How the Court Works – last visited 1 Dec. 2024

ICC – Statement of ICC Prosecutor Karim A.A. Khan KC: Application for an arrest warrant in the situation in Bangladesh/Myanmar – 27 Nov. 2024

The New York Times – Who is Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing of Myanmar? – 27 Nov. 2024

The New York Times – Myanmar General’s Purge of Rohingya Lifts His Popular Support – 26 Nov. 2017 

Reuters – Why Myanmar’s travel-shy leader could be difficult to arrest – 28 Nov. 2024

UNHCR – Rohingya Refugee Crisis Explained – 22 Aug. 2024



ECHR Rules Russian Removal of North Korean Citizens to the DPRK Violated European Convention of Human Rights

By: Garrison Funk

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

STRASBOURG, France – On Tuesday, March 19, 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that the Russian Federation violated Articles 2, 3, and 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights in its treatment, and later expulsion, of three North Korean citizens to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).

 
Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin meet in Vladivostok, Russia in April 2019. | Photo Credit Alexy Nikolsky/Sputnik/AFP via Getty Images.
  

While Russia has not been a member of the European Convention since September 16, 2020, the relevant events took place prior to Russia’s separation, therefore granting the ECHR jurisdiction to review the case.

Two of the individuals in the case, referred to as K.J. and C.C., were captured in Russian territorial waters and convicted of illegal fishing in 2019, and sentenced to serve two years and one month in Russian prison. The third individual, S.K., was a student studying at the Far Eastern Federal university in Vladivostok, who later applied for asylum in 2020.

After finishing their prison terms, K.J. and C.C. were both detained for two more years pending expulsion to the DPRK, before finally being released again in 2022. In particular, the ECHR noted that Russian authorities took no steps to verify the reason for their detention. Additionally, foreign nationals detained in Russia pending an expulsion are unable to have their detention reviewed by Russian courts, thereby finding violations of Article 5 § 1 and Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.

Following S.K.’s asylum application in 2020, he was detained by Russian police before being handed over to DPRK consular staff by the Russian Federal Security Service. The same day, the ECHR issued an interim ruling barring the Russian government from expelling S.K. However, S.K. has not been heard from since then. Because of the high risk of torture and failure of the Russian court system to provide an adequate remedy to detainees, the ECHR found that this expulsion constituted violations of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture), as it is presumed S.K. was abducted.

This is not the first instance of North Korean citizens attempting to gain refuge in Russia. Many North Koreans study in Vladivostok, often under the watchful eye of DPRK surveillance, and some attempt to escape to pursue their freedom. However, Russian security forces often assist the DPRK in the return of its citizens despite repeated admonishment from the ECHR and international community. Only a small fraction of the hundreds of North Korean refugees had their applications accepted.  

For more information, please see:

ECHR – Missing Student Risks Torture if Returned to North Korea – Mar. 19, 2024

ECHR – Judgment Concerning the Russian Federation – Mar. 19, 2024

Human Rights Watch – North Koreans Face Repatriation From Russia – Feb. 17, 2022

Crossing Borders – Why North Koreans Don’t Escape to Russia Instead of China – Oct. 16, 2021

Reuters – Russia Wants North Korea’s Money, Not Its Refugees – Jan. 25, 2017

Bangladesh People Silenced for Political Activism

By: Kendall Hay

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Senior Articles Editor

DHAKA, Bangladesh – Violence has recently been erupting in Bangladesh over the upcoming 2023 national election. The current regime has been actively working to silence anyone who chooses to speak out against them. The last general election in 2018 saw similar protests, and accounts of rigged election procedures were reported. The current Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, has been in power for 13 years and has won the last three consecutive elections.

Police clash with protesters. Photo courtesy of Reuters

The primary opposition party, Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), has been the prime target of violence and mass arrests. Leaders in this party have faced interrogation, torture, raids, and other methods intended to silence any resistance.

Although there have been peaceful protests, these demonstrations represent the voice of the people asking for the current leader to step down.

Pre-election violence has also ramped up against the relatives of those who are speaking out against the government. Because of loopholes in certain laws, some of these individuals have been arrested without a warrant and have been tortured for their political views without due cause. Police are not working to protect the people, but have been quelling any uprising by using rods, stones, and other means of violence in an effort to “maintain peace”.

The Bangladesh government has repeatedly upheld its stance on “democracy, human rights, and justice”, but as there continues to be an uptick in violence, many fear the election procedures will be no different than the last, which many claim were prejudiced and fraudulent.

Journalists are also currently living in apprehension of being tortured and silenced, and even fear for their lives for speaking out against the current government. Investigative journalists have recently been targeted, and several who have dared to speak out against the government have later been reported missing. One such case involved a journalist who reported on a sex-trafficking ring involving government officials, and then later was stated missing.  It has also been reported that these journalists have been interrogated in inhumane conditions and left in isolation.   

In addition to the unjust treatment of journalists, homes of BNP supporters have been raided, where police are targeting those opposed to the current regime. The BNP also claims that over 180,000 cases have been filed against members of their party in the last 10 years. Cases are also filed with unknown defendants, so that police have a wider berth of accused individuals which they can arrest, interrogate, and keep in custody.

The White House has recently called on the Bangladesh government to investigate the human rights abuses against journalists and activists as reports of injuries and deaths have reached the United States. The US has also asked that the government encourage peaceful protests without intimidation, violence, or fear. The US will continue to monitor the situation closely until the upcoming election.

 

For further information, please see:

Human Rights Watch – Bangladesh: Crackdown on Political Opposition – Oct. 10, 2022

BBC – Bangladesh accused of violent crackdown on free speech – Dec. 10, 2022

CNN – Tens of thousands protest in Bangladesh to demand resignation of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina – Dec. 11, 2022

AlJazeera – Bangladesh opposition stages protests as it challenges PM Hasina – Dec. 11, 2022

Reuters – White House calls on Bangladesh to investigate reports of pre-election violence – Dec. 9, 2022

Japan’s Ban on Same-Sex Marriage Deemed ‘Unconstitutional’ By District Court

By: Christian González

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

SAPPORO, Japan – On Wednesday, March 17th, a landmark ruling was made as one of the district courts for the Hokkaido prefecture found that Japan’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriages was unconstitutional.

Lawyers and same-sex marriage supporters outside the Sapporo courthouse. The sign reads “BIG STEP FORWARD FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY.” Photo Courtesy of Reuters.

The ruling came from one of several cases that had been filed by same-sex couples on Valentine’s Day in 2019, in district courts in Tokyo, Sapporo, Osaka, and Nagoya. The District Court based in Sapporo, Hokkaido’s prefecture capital and largest city, made the first of such rulings.

Marriage is addressed in Article 24 of Japan’s constitution, and only defines marriage in terms of opposite-sex couples stating: “Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes and it shall be maintained through mutual cooperation with the equal rights of husband and wife as a basis.” While homosexuality has been legal in Japan since 1880, there has been no nationwide acceptance of same-sex unions, with only two wards in Tokyo allowing for ‘partnership certificates,’ since 2015. This creates issues for same-sex couples regarding rights of inheritance and paternity. Japan is also the only Group of Seven (G7) countries that does not recognize same-sex marriage or unions. Some have opined that Japan’s lag on same-sex marriage impacts it in the international economy, as foreign firms may be deterred from recruiting workers from Japan.

The ruling was made by presiding Judge Tomoko Takebe, who found that the government’s failure to recognize same-sex relationships violated the Constitution’s Article 14 guarantee of equality and freedom from discrimination. Judge Takebe also found that there was no violation of Article 24, since it explicitly deals with opposite-sex marriages and has no bearing on the allowance of same-sex marriage. Despite finding a constitutional violation, Judge Takebe rejected the plaintiffs’ claim for ¥1,000,000 (around $9,000 USD) in compensatory damages. She explained that she found no explicit violation of state reparations law.

The ruling comes as a sign of hope for same-sex couples in Japan. One plaintiff, who goes by the alias Rysuke Kunimi, said: “The chief judge said that the discrimination based on the natural difference of sexuality is a violation of Article 14. I could not stop crying.” The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Takeharu Kato, said he “never expected the court would rule this clearly,” and that the legal battle may be taken to a higher court.

Another couple who filed a complaint was Ai Nakajima and Tina Baumann. Nakajima and Baumann had met and were married in Germany, where Baumann is originally from. The couple then moved to Yokohama and applied for their marriage to be recognized, but their application was rejected. This created issues concerning Baumann’s visa status in the country. Regarding the new ruling, Nakajima said: “This is one huge step forward in Japan… we are moving closer to making our dream come true.”

The district court’s holding represents the first step in the government of Japan’s potential recognition of same-sex relationships. For that to happen, there would need to be a final ruling from the Supreme Court of Japan, or a law passed in the National Diet, Japan’s legislative body. Despite higher ratings approving of same-sex marriage amongst younger people, many argue that Japan’s ruling party, the conservative Liberal Democratic Party, is unlikely to feel the same way. Regarding further victories in court, Mikiko Terahara, the executive director of Marriage For All Japan, believes that “the Sapporo ruling will undoubtedly have a positive impact on the ongoing same-sex marriage litigation in other regions.”

For further information, please see:

BBC News – Gay couples sue Japan over right to get married – 14 Feb. 2019

BBC News – Japan court finds same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional – 17 Mar. 2021

CNN – Japan’s failure to recognize same-sex marriage is ‘unconstitutional,’ court rules – 17 Mar. 2021

Constitute Project – Constitution of Japan 1946 – 3 May 1947

Marriage For All Japan – Home Page (Japanese) – accessed 21 Mar. 2021Marriage For All Japan – Home Page (Japanese) –  21 Mar. 2021

Supreme Court of Japan – Courts in Japan – 2020Supreme Court of Japan – Courts in Japan – 2020

The Japan Times – Japan court rules failure to recognize same-sex marriage unconstitutional – 17 Mar. 2021

TIME – A Court Ruled Japan’s Same-Sex Marriage Ban ‘Unconstitutional.’ Here’s What’s Next for LGBTQ Rights – 17 Mar. 2021