Uncategorized

Youth Activists Petition Inter-American Commission, Linking Climate Injustice to Rights to Life and Health

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. 

Photo credit © Our Children’s Trust. Youth petitioners in Juliana v. United States announce their submission to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on September 23, 2025.

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 

ICC Disqualifies Prosecutor Karim Khan from Duterte Case, but Proceedings Will Continue

By: Tiffany D. Johnson 

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer 

THE HAGUE, Netherlands – Judges at the International Criminal Court (ICC) have disqualified Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan from the case against former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte, citing a “reasonable appearance of bias” tied to Khan’s prior representation of Filipino victims of Duterte’s anti-drug campaign. The Appeals Chamber’s ruling, issued on October 2 and made public on October 15, removes Khan from the ICC’s highest-profile active prosecution but leaves the case intact under Deputy Prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang. 

Court spokesperson Fadi El Abdallah emphasized that “this disqualification has no impact on the case itself,” and that the Office of the Prosecutor’s work “continues to be led by the Deputy Prosecutor.” 

International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Karim Khan attends an interview with Reuters in The Hague, Netherlands January 16, 2025. REUTERS/Piroschka van de Wouw/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights

Background 
Duterte, who served as president from 2016 to 2022, was arrested in March under an ICC warrant alleging crimes against humanity for thousands of extrajudicial killings committed during his “war on drugs.” He has denied the charges, calling his arrest unlawful and maintaining that he is medically unfit to stand trial. 

In August, Duterte’s defense team, led by Nicholas Kaufman, petitioned to disqualify Khan, arguing that the prosecutor’s prior legal work on behalf of victims before joining the ICC created a conflict of interest. Before his election as ICC Prosecutor in 2021, Khan had represented the Philippines Human Rights Commission and a group of victims in submissions identifying Duterte as a suspect. The defense argued this earlier advocacy rendered him incapable of impartiality. 

Khan countered that his former representation created no conflict and urged the Chamber to reject the motion. The five-judge Appeals Chamber, however, unanimously ruled that a fair-minded observer could conclude there was a reasonable appearance of bias under Rule 34(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, which bars participation by anyone whose prior functions could “adversely affect the required impartiality.” 

Court’s Decision and Next Steps 

The Chamber’s decision followed similar findings earlier this year, when Khan was ordered to recuse himself from the Venezuela investigation because of family connections to counsel for that government. Khan has also been on administrative leave since May pending an unrelated United Nations inquiry into alleged sexual misconduct, which he denies. 

With Khan’s removal, the Deputy Prosecutor Niang—who has himself faced U.S. sanctions linked to the ICC’s probe of alleged war crimes in Gaza—will continue leading the Philippine investigation. The Office of the Prosecutor reaffirmed that the case “advances solely on the strength of independently gathered evidence,” including witness statements, cooperation from states, and information from civil society. 

Significance 

The disqualification of a sitting ICC Prosecutor from an ongoing case is unprecedented, raising questions about leadership ethics and institutional credibility. Yet the decision also demonstrates the Court’s willingness to apply its own impartiality standards rigorously, even at the highest level. 

For victims of the Philippine drug war, the ruling provides reassurance that the proceedings will continue unaffected and that the Court remains committed to pursuing justice “impartially and independently.” 

As the case moves forward under Deputy Prosecutor Niang, the episode underscores the ICC’s central challenge—upholding global accountability while preserving confidence in the integrity of those who prosecute it. 

 

For further information, please see:  

Al Jazeera – ICC/ Mame Mandiaye Niang, Will Now Replace Khan – Oct. 15, 2025 

Euro News – ICC removes chief prosecutor from Duterte case over perceived conflict of interest – Oct. 15, 2025 

The Hill – ICC disqualifies chief prosecutor from Duterte case over perceived conflict of interest-Oct. 15, 2025 

Rappler – Prosecutor’s removal from Duterte case has ‘no impact’ – ICC – Oct. 15, 2025 

Reuters – Exclusive: ICC judges disqualify ICC prosecutor Khan from Duterte case, court document shows – Oct. 14, 2025 

 

 

 

 

ICC Rejects Israel’s Appeal Against Arrest Warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant

By Christina Bradic

Managing Editor of Impunity Watch

The Hague, Netherlands – The International Criminal Court (ICC) has rejected Israel’s appeal against the arrest warrants issued for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, reaffirming that the matter raised “was not an appealable issue.” The decision, delivered by the ICC’s Appeals Chamber, marks another procedural loss for Israel as it continues to contest the Court’s jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed during the war in Gaza.

Reuters October 31, 2024. Benjamin Netanyahu (L) and Yoav Gallant (R) attend a ceremony at an army base near Mitzpe Ramon, Israel.
Reuters October 31, 2024. Benjamin Netanyahu (L) and Yoav Gallant (R) attend a ceremony at an army base near Mitzpe Ramon, Israel.

The warrants, first authorized by Pre-Trial Chamber I in November 2024, allege that Netanyahu and Gallant bear individual criminal responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity under Articles 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute. The Prosecutor’s Office, led by Karim A. A. Khan KC, claims the two officials oversaw policies that resulted in intentional attacks on civilians and the use of starvation as a method of warfare. Israel, a non-party to the Statute, has repeatedly argued that the ICC lacks jurisdiction because the State of Palestine does not meet the criteria of statehood under international law.

In its latest ruling, the Appeals Chamber underscored that Israel’s appeal sought to contest a prior interlocutory finding rather than a final decision. The judges held that “issues of admissibility or jurisdiction may only be raised through established procedural channels” and that Israel’s filing did not meet that threshold. While the Chamber’s reasoning was narrowly procedural, the outcome effectively preserves the status quo—Netanyahu and Gallant remain subjects of outstanding arrest warrants enforceable by ICC member states.

Legal observers note that the Court’s ruling reinforces the autonomy of the Prosecutor and the Pre-Trial Chamber to proceed with cases involving non-member states when crimes are alleged on the territory of a State Party. In 2021, the ICC determined that its territorial jurisdiction extends to Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem following Palestine’s 2015 accession to the Rome Statute. That determination remains a cornerstone of the ongoing proceedings, despite diplomatic pushback from Israel and the United States.

Reactions to the ruling were sharply divided. Israeli officials denounced the decision as “an assault on sovereignty,” while human rights groups welcomed it as a reaffirmation of judicial independence. “This outcome demonstrates that even powerful states cannot unilaterally shield their leaders from accountability,” said one Hague-based legal expert, noting that procedural formalism often masks deeper questions about global inequality in international justice.

The rejection also raises questions about enforcement. Neither Israel nor the United States is obligated to cooperate with the ICC, and previous attempts to execute warrants against sitting heads of state, such as Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir, have faced political resistance. Still, the ICC’s position signals its intent to uphold jurisdictional consistency, even amid geopolitical pressure.

As proceedings move forward, the Court is expected to revisit admissibility and complementarity issues, including whether ongoing Israeli investigations preclude ICC intervention. For now, the ruling underscores a familiar tension in international criminal law: between law’s universality and the limits imposed by state sovereignty.

For further information, please see:

Associated Press (AP News) – ICC prosecutor says Netanyahu arrest warrant should remain as Israel jurisdiction challenge is heard – July 15, 2025

The Guardian – ‘Reward for terrorism’: Israeli politicians unite to condemn ICC arrest warrant for Netanyahu – November 21, 2024

International Criminal Court (Official) – Situation in the State of Palestine: ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I rejects State of Israel’s challenges – November 21, 2024

JNS – ICC rejects Israeli appeal of Netanyahu, Gallant arrest warrants – October 18, 2025

Le Monde (English edition) – US warns ICC member states to drop proceedings against Israel – July 10, 2025

Middle East Eye – ICC rejects Israel’s appeal to cancel Netanyahu’s arrest warrant – October 18, 2025

TRT World – ICC rejects Israel’s bid to appeal over arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant – October 17, 2025

United Nations – International Criminal Court issues arrest warrants for Israeli officials – November 22, 2024

WAFA (Palestinian News Agency) – ICC rejects Israel’s second appeal against arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant – October 18, 2025

International Criminal Court Holds First In-Absentia Hearing: The Case of Joseph Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army

By: Tiffany D. Johnson 

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer 

THE HAGUE, Netherlands – On September 9, 2025, the International Criminal Court (ICC) opened a landmark evidentiary hearing against fugitive Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) leader Joseph Kony, in what has become the Court’s first-ever in-absentia proceedings. Kony, who has evaded capture since his indictment in 2005, faces 39 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity for atrocities committed in northern Uganda and neighboring states. 

Image shows Judge Althea Violet Alexis-Windsor (Presiding Judge), Judge Iulia Motoc and Judge Haykel Ben Mahfoudh.
Photo credit © ICC-CPI. The confirmation hearing in the case The Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony opened on 09 September 2025 at 9:30 (The Hague local time) before Pre-Trial Chamber III of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Pre-Trial Chamber III is composed of Judge Althea Violet Alexis-Windsor (Presiding Judge), Judge Iulia Motoc and Judge Haykel Ben Mahfoudh.

Background 

Kony founded the LRA in the late 1980s, leading a violent campaign of abductions, child soldier recruitment, sexual enslavement, and mass killings that terrorized Central Africa for decades. The ICC issued its first arrest warrants against Kony and senior LRA commanders in 2005, charging them with crimes including murder, rape, enslavement, and the conscription of children under 15. While several commanders have since been captured or tried domestically, Kony has remained at large despite multinational efforts to arrest him. 
 
Until recently, ICC procedure required the accused to be physically present. However, Rome Statute amendments and judicial interpretation now allow in-absentia proceedings when suspects remain fugitives but have been given reasonable opportunity to appear. The Kony case is the first to invoke this expanded procedure. 

Prosecution, Defense, and Victims 

The Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) argued that proceeding without Kony was essential to preserve fragile evidence and to recognize victims who have waited nearly two decades for judicial acknowledgment. The charges, brought under Articles 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute, allege crimes against humanity and war crimes tied to widespread and systematic attacks on civilians. 
 
Although Kony was not present, the Court appointed standby defense counsel to safeguard his procedural rights. Counsel raised concerns about the challenges of mounting a defense without the accused’s participation, including difficulties contesting evidence or questioning witnesses. 
 
At the same time, hundreds of victims have registered to participate in the case, and several survivor testimonies were heard in the opening days. Victim representatives stressed that the proceedings are not only legal milestones but also critical for community healing and truth-telling. 

Judicial Developments 

The judges of Pre-Trial Chamber II ruled that in-absentia hearings were justified under the Rome Statute, citing Article 63(2) (which allows proceedings without the accused in exceptional circumstances) and recent amendments permitting such hearings when fugitives have been given a reasonable opportunity to appear. They emphasized that Kony has been under an active ICC arrest warrant since 2005, has repeatedly failed to surrender, and therefore cannot indefinitely block justice by evasion. 

 The charges against Kony include crimes against humanity (Article 7) and war crimes (Article 8), encompassing murder, enslavement, rape, and the conscription of children. While judges stressed that any final conviction and sentencing would still require Kony’s physical presence, they determined that preserving evidence, hearing victims, and formally recording proceedings outweighed further delay. Early sessions included documentary evidence, NGO reports, and expert testimony on the LRA’s command structure and Kony’s personal role in ordering atrocities. 

Significance 

The Kony in-absentia proceedings represent a historic expansion of the ICC’s toolkit for combating impunity. For victims, the hearings provide long-delayed recognition and an official record of the crimes. For international justice, the case raises important debates about how to balance fair-trial rights with the imperative to ensure accountability, even when suspects remain beyond the Court’s reach. 
 
As the hearings progress, the ICC’s handling of Kony’s case may set precedent for addressing other long-term fugitives and will test whether international criminal law can adapt without compromising legitimacy. 

For further information, please see:  

ICC opens war crimes hearing against Ugandan rebel Joseph Kony | ICC News | Al Jazeera 

International Criminal Court holds hearings on charges against Joseph Kony | AP News 

Justice must not be delayed: ICC holds hearing in absentia against Joseph Kony | Coalition for the International Criminal Court 

Q&A: Understanding Joseph Kony’s ICC Confirmation of Charges Hearing | International Federation for Human Rights 

Uganda: Victims demand justice as the International Criminal Court opens historic Kony hearing in absentia | International Federation for Human Rights 

International Criminal Court holds hearings on charges against Joseph Kony | AP News

ECHR Rules Spain Violated Right to Privacy and Freedom of Religion

By: Neha Chhablani

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

 

STRASBOURG, France – On September 17, 2024, in the case of Pindo Mulla v. Spain, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Spain had violated the right to privacy and religious freedom of Ms. Rosa Edelmira Pindo Mulla, a Jehovah’s witness, by administering blood transfusions against her will. The ruling marks another victory for individual autonomy and religious freedom in healthcare, reaffirming the ECHR’s commitment to self-determination.

 
Photograph of the Pindo Mulla v. Spain judgement delivery. Photo Courtesy of the European Court of Human Rights.
 

Ms. Rosa Edelmira Pindo Mulla, an Ecuadorian national living in Spain, firmly opposes blood transfusions due to her religious beliefs. Following a series of medical evaluations between May and July 2017, she was advised to undergo surgery to remove a myoma. In preparation for the procedure, she issued two legal documents—an advance directive and a lasting power of attorney—refusing blood transfusions under any circumstance.

On June 6, 2018, Ms. Pindo Mulla was admitted to the hospital due to severe internal bleeding. She reiterated her refusal of a blood transfusion and was transferred to a specialized hospital in Madrid that could provide alternative treatments. However, multiple miscommunications during this transfer—including incomplete sharing of her advance directive, unclear information about treatment preferences, and a failure to consult with her or her family—resulted in a duty judge authorizing blood transfusions without knowledge of her legal documents or religious beliefs. The doctors administered three life-saving blood transfusions while Ms. Pindo Mulla was unaware and unable to give informed consent. 

Ms. Pindo Mulla pursued her case through each level of the Spanish judiciary before appealing to the ECHR. Both the local judge and the provincial court concluded that the absence of her advance directive and insufficient evidence of her refusal justified the transfusion. When the case reached Spain’s Constitutional Court, she argued that medical professionals violated her rights to legal protection, physical integrity, and freedom of religion, under Articles 24, 15, and 16 respectively of the Spanish Constitution. Ultimately, her appeal was deemed inadmissible as it did not meet the “special constitutional significance” threshold under Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.

On March 13, 2020, Ms. Pindo Mulla brought her case to the ECHR, claiming that Spain violated Article 8 (right to respect for private life) and 9 (freedom of thought, conscience, and religion) under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Spain relinquished jurisdiction to the ECHR on July 4, 2023, and the Grand Chamber hearing took place on January 10, 2024.

The court scrutinized the medical professionals’ decision-making process and evaluated whether they had shown sufficient respect for Ms. Pindo Mulla’s autonomy. Based on its investigation, the court determined that the doctors’ shortcomings in providing incomplete information and failing to confirm consent prevented her from exercising self-determination and autonomy. The court ruled that Spain had violated Article 8 in light of Article 9 and ordered the government to pay Ms. Pindo Mulla 12,000 Euros in non-pecuniary damage and 14,000 Euros for her legal costs and treatment expenses.

In this case, the ECHR had to carefully weigh the right to life under Article 2 of the ECHR and the right to religious freedom. While medical professionals justified their actions as necessary to preserve life, the court held that when a patient refuses treatment freely, autonomously, explicitly, and without ambiguity—as Ms. Pindo Mulla had done—the right to autonomy supersedes the right to life. By ruling in her favor, the ECHR reaffirmed the primacy of self-determination in healthcare and strengthened the legal protections of religious minorities in medical jurisprudence.

 

For further information, please see:

ECHR – Case of Pindo Mulla v. Spain – 17 Sept. 2024

ECHR – Grand Chamber Judgment Pindo Mulla v. Spain – 17 Sept. 2024

ECHR – European Convention on Human Rights – 29 Sept. 2024

Human Rights Without Frontiers – EUROPEAN COURT: Ruling about forced blood transfusion of a Jehovah’s Witness – 17 Sept. 2024

Tribunal Constitucional de España – The Spanish Constitution – 29 Sept. 2024