Amnesty International rejects the enactment of Law 32735, which allows alleged crimes committed by members of the Armed Forces and the Police to be investigated and tried by military and police courts, rather than by the ordinary justice system, even when the victims are civilians.
The law, enacted on 20 July, amends the Military-Police Criminal Code and the New Criminal Procedure Code. It could result in ongoing investigations and judicial proceedings being transferred or halted, including cases in which a first-instance conviction has already been handed down.
Under international human rights standards, which Peru is legally obliged to uphold, military courts must not try civilians or hear cases involving possible human rights violations or crimes under international law. Their jurisdiction must be strictly limited to military offences committed by military personnel in the exercise of specifically military duties.
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has affirmed this principle in several judgments concerning Peru. Referring these cases to the military justice system jeopardizes the rights of victims of human rights violations and their families to know the truth, access justice and obtain reparation.
“This law seriously jeopardizes judicial independence and the ability of victims of human rights violations to access justice. It undermines judicial independence and accountability for the unlawful use of force by police and military personnel, and seeks to revive, from the darkest depths, a policy of impunity that the Peruvian state has attempted to impose for decades,” said Jennie Dador, Executive Director of Amnesty International Peru.
This law seriously jeopardizes judicial independence and the ability of victims of human rights violations to access justice. It undermines judicial independence and accountability for the unlawful use of force by police and military personnel, and seeks to revive, from the darkest depths, a policy of impunity that the Peruvian state has attempted to impose for decades,”
Jennie Dador, Executive Director of Amnesty International Peru.
The enactment of this law is even more alarming in a context of weakened institutions, attacks against bodies responsible for the administration of justice, and the persistence of a pattern of unlawful—and in some cases lethal—use of force by the state during protests, security operations and routine police interventions, as documented by Amnesty International in 2023 and 2024.
State repression during those years left at least 50 people dead. More recent allegations include the death of a 17-year-old boy who reportedly died in police custody, and the death of an eight-year-old boy who, according to available information, died in the context of a police intervention. It is therefore deeply concerning that such cases could be investigated and prosecuted within the military justice system.
The involvement of military courts in cases concerning extrajudicial executions, torture, enforced disappearances, sexual violence or the unlawful use of force prevents the rights of victims to truth, justice and reparation from being adequately guaranteed. Both Peru’s Constitutional Court and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have affirmed this.
“The Peruvian state must adopt laws that help prevent the recurrence of human rights violations and remove from its legal framework any provisions that disregard victims’ rights. Instead, the authorities are passing legislation that rolls back the protection of these rights, undermines due process and places justice at risk,” concluded Ana Piquer, Amnesty International’s Americas Director.
The Peruvian state must adopt laws that help prevent the recurrence of human rights violations and remove from its legal framework any provisions that disregard victims’ rights. Instead, the authorities are passing legislation that rolls back the protection of these rights, undermines due process and places justice at risk,”
Ana Piquer, Amnesty International’s Americas Director.
For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact [email protected]
Oxfam and Palestinian organisations hand world leaders a blueprint for Gaza’s recovery — one that puts Palestinian ownership and accountability for Israel’s genocide at its core.
The $71.4 billion needed to rebuild Gaza is seven times, in real terms, the combined cost of reconstruction after every major Israeli military offensive there over the past two decades, a new joint Oxfam report has found.
Even that figure captures only part of what was destroyed — the physical and economic cost — not the deliberate erasure of the social fabric that holds Gaza together, which will take generations to restore.
The report Building Gaza Anew–co-authored by Oxfam, the Palestine Economic Policy Research Institute(MAS) and the Palestine Trade Centre(PalTrade) –offers a blueprint that treats Gaza’s recovery as a matter of rights and reparations, not charity. Built on extensive consultations across Gaza, it sets out for the US-chaired Board of Peace and world leaders how a reconstruction Palestinians lead can succeed – and warns that any model imposed from outside will fail, however much money sits behind it.
Oxfam analysis of successive World Bank, EU and UN assessments shows the scale of the rupture: recovery needs after the 2008-09, 2014 and 2021 wars were around $10 billion in today’s money. Each reconstruction was strangled by blockade, access restrictions and donor shortfalls, then destroyed by the following war before it was finished.
“Gaza has never been allowed to finish rebuilding. A decade after Israel’s 2014 offensive on Gaza, families were still waiting for homes that never came, and then the bombs returned,” said Amitabh Behar, Oxfam International Executive Director. “This is not fate. It is Israel’s illegal occupation and blockade, and the impunity producing the same result, war after war. Every government that funds the rubble but never the reckoning is complicit in it.”
“This is not fate. It is Israel’s illegal occupation and blockade, and the impunity producing the same result, war after war. Every government that funds the rubble but never the reckoning is complicit in it.”
Amitabh Behar, Executive Director
Oxfam International
According to the UN-EU-World Bank Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA) of April 2026, Gaza has suffered $57.9 billion in total damage and economic losses, with $71.4 billion required for recovery and reconstruction over the next decade.
More than 73,000 Palestinians have been killed, 173,000 injured, 1.9 million forcibly displaced, and human development set back an estimated 77 years.
In September 2025, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry concluded that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. The report argues that governments which armed, funded or shielded the destruction share responsibility for its repair.
The report documents how the war has erased what no damage assessment can calculate – Gaza’s knowledge, care systems, environment, and the community bonds, mosques, churches, libraries, and cultural institutions where social life once lived:
Knowledge and memory erased: nearly all schools are destroyed or damaged, universities levelled, thousands of teachers, professors and researchers have been killed, and libraries and archives of Palestinian history lost.
A care system collapsed onto women: around 58,600 households are now headed by women while female unemployment stands at 92 per cent. Oxfam’s latest care research finds most women spend 8 to 12 hours a day – some up to 16 – on unpaid care: queuing from 5am to fill 20 litres of water, cooking single meals for hours over firewood or burning rubbish, and nursing the injured.
Broken bodies and stripped dignity: around one in four injuries is life-changing, more than 50,000 people need long-term rehabilitation, and an estimated 83 per cent of people with disabilities were forced to abandon their assistive devices. Many have been living in tents or shelters built for 2,000 that at times held 20,000, with as many as 650 people sharing a single toilet.
A land poisoned: orchards that took decades to grow, greenhouses and topsoil have been destroyed; farmland contaminated with heavy metals and explosive residue; the coastal aquifer is collapsing; and raw sewage is flowing into the sea, bringing back once-eradicated diseases including polio.
“What was destroyed in Gaza was not merely steel and concrete. Israel eradicated an entire social and economic world, built up over generations, and only Palestinians can rebuild it.”
Mohammad Skaik, Gaza Program Manager
PalTrade
“What was destroyed in Gaza was not merely steel and concrete. Israel eradicated an entire social and economic world, built up over generations, and only Palestinians can rebuild it,” said Mohammad Skaik, Gaza Program Manager, PalTrade.
“Reconstruction is not only a humanitarian task; it is a political one. A plan designed in foreign capitals, however well-funded, would be a cosmetic exercise – simply another form of control over Palestinian land and lives. Our consultations across Gaza carried one unmistakable message: nothing about our future without us,” adds Misyef Jamil, Senior Researcher at MAS.
The report sets out a five-year framework for recovery and rebuilding grounded in Palestinian ownership at every stage, underpinned by rights-based principles and a single national vision linking Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It rejects externally imposed models that sideline Palestinian agency or fragment Palestinian territory, including any international trusteeship over Gaza, and calls for coordination with the EU, Egypt, Arab Gulf states, the UN and international agencies, anchored in international law and protected from profit-driven models of recovery.
Ahead of the 81st session of the UN General Assembly and upcoming donor talks, the report sets a clear test for the Board of Peace and every government funding Gaza’s recovery: transfer real decision-making power to Palestinians, dismantle the blockade and restrictions that have strangled every previous reconstruction, guarantee accountability for Israel’s genocide, and commit to a political horizon that ends the occupation and delivers the Palestinian self-determination owed for decades.
“The world has become very good at costing Gaza’s destruction but very bad at stopping it,” said Behar. “Palestinians have now set out how their recovery can actually succeed. Back their plan, end the impunity, and Gaza can be rebuilt for the last time.”
Responding to the passing of a bill by France’s parliament banning children under 15 from accessing social media and restricting the use of phones in schools, Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General, said:
“There is no doubt that regulating platforms to protect children is an imperative of our time. We commend states for taking social media harms seriously but rather than pursuing blanket bans, efforts should be on forcing platforms to abandon their reckless pursuit of profit to the detriment of human rights.
“Building safe platforms requires a robust response. To ensure platforms are spaces where children can access community, connection and knowledge in a healthy and safe way, governments should first focus on banning the features that drive harm, including engagement-based algorithms that Amnesty International’s research has shown can draw children into rabbit holes of depressive and suicidal content. Any proposed solution must also proactively address the increasing risks posed by AI chatbots to children’s rights and safety.
“Bans alone, without any requirements to change the underlying algorithms and addictive features, will leave children who manage to circumnavigate age-gates, older children and adults exposed to the same risks.
Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General
“We encourage French lawmakers and others considering social media bans to take a cue from recent recommendations by the EU Special Panel on Child Safety Online advising regulators to take constructive steps to tackle the harmful design of social media instead of defaulting to blanket bans.
“The panel rightly stated that children’s right to participate in a safe online environment is the basis upon which governments must approach this debate. Where social media bans are introduced, they must be a temporary measure implemented as part of building a different social media with design principles focused on child safety.”
Thirty-year-old Tala Camara grew up in the Upper River Region in rural Gambia. An entrepreneur and consultant, she also volunteers for several organizations. A survivor herself, she raises awareness about the harm caused by female genital mutilation (FGM) through community meetings and mentoring for children.
According to the2020 Demographic and Health Survey, 73% of Gambian women aged 15–49, and 63% of girls aged 10–14, have been subjected to FGM. FGM can lead to a range of complications including chronic pain, infections, difficulties during childbirth, mental health issues and even death.
The 2015 Women’s (Amendment) Act sets out punishments for performing, aiding and abetting FGM. A bill introduced in parliament to reverse the ban on FGM wasrejectedin July 2024. In April 2025, a member of parliament and religious organizations appealed to the Supreme Court to request the repeal of the law passed in 2015. The Supreme Court began reviewing the appeal on 18 December 2025.
“The act that has been done on me is still fresh in my memory. I was only seven, but it still lingers in my head. During the holiday season, I was taken to the village with my cousins. We were cut by a woman who used to live in our community.
If I hadn’t undergone FGM, I would have been much happier. It has held me back on so many things, including getting married and having children. Whenever I hear a story about FGM it triggers something in me. Sometimes I can speak out on my social media handles, but other times I just need to go mute because I don’t know how to balance it in my head. I haven’t fully recovered. Being a survivor is challenging whether we speak about it or not.
I’ve been an activist for over 15 years now. Because I stood my ground, my little sister was not cut. I have a sense of responsibility towards her and other children. Most of the children I have mentored are now adults. I always tell them that they should serve as protectors to the younger ones, just like they were protected themselves.
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands, 22 July 2026 – Greenpeace Netherlands has launched legal proceedings against a multi-billion-dollar global expansion plan by the biggest meat producer in Australia, JBS, in an escalation of climate litigation against the livestock industry.
Greenpeace petitioned a Dutch court to compel the meat giant to disclose information in order to challenge its business policies in court, including a US$6 billion global expansion, for which almost half is earmarked for Nigeria.
Elizabeth Atieno, Food Campaigner at Greenpeace Africa, said: “JBS’ meat empire expanded hand-in-glove with Amazon destruction, colossal emissions, human rights and corruption scandals, all with barely a semblance of transparency. This is the business model it wants to export to sub-Saharan Africa. JBS promises food security, but its expansion in Nigeria risks causing irreversible environmental damage and the displacement of smallholder farmers to line the pockets of wealthy global elites.
“Nigerians know well from the legacy of companies like Shell the destructive impact wrought by unchecked corporate power. As Greenpeace Africa has argued before the African Court of Human Rights, states with jurisdiction over multinationals must hold those corporate actors accountable – wherever they operate in the world. We welcome this bold legal action: the Netherlands and other European states must not be safe havens for corporations like JBS seeking to evade their responsibilities.”
In light of JBS’ longstanding failure to publish accurate and reliable information on its climate, nature and human rights impacts or its expansion plans, Greenpeace Netherlands views accessing this data as a necessary precursor to formal litigation in order to support its case. The case has the potential to be the first climate litigation of this scale against the livestock industry. This could set a major precedent for future legal challenges against the industrial agriculture sector, a major source of global emissions, particularly of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, responsible for 0.5°C of warming since the Industrial Revolution.[1]
JBS, via its subsidiary JBS Foods Australia, is the largest meat and food processing company in Australia. With a weekly processing capacity of over 50,000 cattle, it accounts for almost a quarter of all beef processing in the country, as well as a significant presence in the lamb, pork and farmed fish markets. [2] In 2022, ABC’s Four Corners accused the company of ‘repeatedly failing to protect its workers from horrific injuries.’ [3]
Marieke Vellekoop, Executive Director at Greenpeace Netherlands, said “In a month where JBS has thrown its flagship environmental commitments onto the scrap heap, JBS’ disdain for basic transparency only adds to the impression that this meat giant has something to hide and is desperate to prevent its expansion plans from going public. We were hoping we wouldn’t have to trouble a judge with this matter, but JBS has left us no choice but to seek our right to information through the Dutch courts.
“JBS appears to believe that despite moving to the Netherlands, our rules do not apply to it. This legal action aims to prove it wrong – and lay the ground for a first major climate and nature lawsuit against the dangerous expansion of the global meat industry.“
At the centre of the dispute is JBS’ planned US$ 2.5 billion investment in industrial livestock production in Nigeria.[2] Civil society groups in Nigeria have raised urgent warnings that the aggressive expansion will threaten local food security, drive regional instability, and accelerate ecological degradation. There is no available evidence that JBS has conducted any impact assessments or community consultations in Nigeria, and local efforts to gather more information via Freedom of Information requests have reportedly been ignored.[3]
The escalation to the courts follows the refusal of JBS, the world’s largest meat company, to comply with a formal disclosure demand delivered by Greenpeace Netherlands in April. The environmental group is utilising new Dutch legislation, which grants parties with a legitimate interest the right to demand access to specific corporate data necessary to build litigation against Dutch companies.[4]
Greenpeace Netherlands’ lawyers allege that JBS’ historic business practices and future expansion plans are inconsistent with the company’s climate and biodiversity obligations and represent a breach of its Dutch duty of care, which requires companies to act in line with international human rights law.[5]
If the court rules in favor of Greenpeace Netherlands, it is entitled to seek the required information in the form of documents and from senior JBS figures under oath, raising the prospect of the Batista brothers being forced to testify in Dutch court. JBS reincorporated as a Dutch entity (JBS N.V.) last year to facilitate a dual listing on the New York Stock Exchange.
In April, JBS was forced to temporarily suspend its first annual general meeting since moving its headquarters to Amsterdam after it was disrupted by dozens of Greenpeace Netherlands activists.
Last week, JBS scrapped two flagship commitments to reach Net Zero emissions by 2040 and eradicate deforestation from its supply chain. It also removed any explicit reference to Indigenous lands from all of its current policies. Greenpeace Netherlands is concerned this indicates JBS is seeking to expand unconstrained by the climate, nature and human rights impacts of its business.
–ENDS–
Notes:
[1] The livestock sector is estimated to be responsible for 31% of global methane emissions (more than oil and gas operations). In comparison to CO2, methane is shorter lived (around 12 years) but has a much stronger ability to trap heat in the atmosphere over its lifetime: it has approximately 80 times more climate impact than CO2 when measured over 20 years. This means that changes in methane emissions have a more rapid effect on the climate than changes in CO2. See Greenpeace Netherlands letter to JBS dated 30 April 2026.
[7] Greenpeace Netherlands petition to Dutch court available here. Media briefing with further details on JBS expansion plans, including in Nigeria, available here.
SYDNEY, Wednesday 22 July 2026 — Beetaloo Energy hassecured land from the NT Governmentfor a massive $40 billion “hyperscale” AI data centre near Darwin, which would be powered by 2 gigawatts (GW) of gas power fracked directly from the Beetaloo basin, prompting calls from Greenpeace for urgent federal legislation.
The proposal marks a dangerous escalation in the AI data centre industry’s expansion, which threatens to entrench fossil fuel infrastructure for decades and put immense pressure on the region’s fragile water resources — while continuing to be unregulated.
Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “This disaster proposal for a 2GW gas-powered AI data centre in the NT is a shocking example of the unchecked expansion of hyperscale data centres in Australia. It is also, critically, more evidence for the urgent need for a moratorium on all new data centres until strong, binding regulations are put in place to protect our communities and climate.
“This proposal mirrors the frenzied, unchecked expansion currently wreaking havoc on communities in the US. We are seeing cowboy data centre operators treat Australia like a playground, steam-rolling ahead with projects that would lock down precious water resources and spike emissions, despite the overwhelming community opposition.
“Every day, more councils, communities and environmental groups are joining Greenpeace’s call for a moratorium on data centres, yet as of today there is still no system of safeguards or rules in place to regulate these companies.
“While Beetaloo Energy and the NT Government prepare to bulldoze ahead with this climate and water disaster, the Prime Minister is asleep at the wheel, promising to legislate a vague set of standards next year.
“Next year is too late, and anything less than mandating data centres cover their own energy demand, and then some, with new renewable energy is not enough.”
Attack breached special protection of medical facilities
No evidence of Pakistan’s claims site was a military target
Lack of investigation and accountability risks ‘entrenching impunity’ in ongoing conflict
Four months after calling on Pakistan’s authorities to explain how and why they targeted a Kabul drug rehabilitation centre on 16 March, killing at least 269 civilians, Amnesty International has published a new investigation calling for the attack to be investigated as a possible war crime.
The organization found no evidence to support the Pakistan military’s claims that Omid Rehabilitation and Treatment Centre was being used to store weapons and ammunition or for other military purposes at the time of the attack. The air strikes violated the special protection afforded to healthcare facilities under international humanitarian law (IHL), as well the principles of distinction, precaution and proportionality designed to protect civilians.
“The attack on the Omid Centre constitutes a serious violation of international humanitarian law – possibly amounting to a war crime. Given the widely available information that the site had been used as a medical facility for more than a decade, this reflects a major failure in military planning by Pakistan that led to a significant loss of civilian life,” said Isabelle Lassee, Amnesty International’s Acting Regional Director for South Asia.
The attack on the Omid Centre constitutes a serious violation of international humanitarian law – possibly amounting to a war crime
Isabelle Lassee, Amnesty International’s Acting Regional Director for South Asia
“This was a lethal failure by Pakistan to comply with its obligation to do everything feasible to verify whether the target was a military objective. Pakistan must urgently conduct a transparent, thorough, independent, and impartial investigation into the attack – especially the decision-making process that led to the targeting of the facility – and make the results public.
“Where sufficient evidence exists, competent authorities should prosecute any person suspected of criminal responsibility, including under the doctrine of command responsibility.”
The attack was one of a series of air strikes conducted by the Pakistan military inside Afghanistan since the escalation of cross-border hostilities with the Taliban in October 2025. Between January and March 2026 alone, the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) documented more than 750 civilian casualties, 372 killed and 392 others injured in Afghanistan. The 28 June airstrikes in Paktya, Paktika and Kunar provinces killed at least 28 civilians according to UNAMA. While is no consolidated figure for civilian casualties in Pakistan, media reports indicate that at least seven civilians have been killed through mortar shelling originating from Afghanistan territories.
“All parties to the conflict must respect international humanitarian law and take all feasible precautions to protect civilians and civilian objects, with particular care afforded to medical facilities and other specially protected sites. Failure to investigate serious violations, such as the attack on the Omid Centre, shows an alarming disregard for international law and risks entrenching impunity, leading to further unlawful operations and loss of civilian life,” said Isabelle Lassee.
Amnesty International analysed and verified more than 60 photos and videos, most of which were captured in the immediate aftermath of the attack on the Omid Centre, including videos released by Pakistan’s military to support its claim that the site was being used as a storage facility for weapons and ammunition. The organization also reviewed more than 30 satellite images of the area, as well as verified videos documenting the operations at the Omid Centre prior to the attack.
Eleven interviews were conducted, including with employees and former employees of the Omid Centre and the adjacent Ibn-e-Sina Hospital. Interviewees also included individuals who visited the centre immediately after the attack and victims’ family members. Some of the interviewees witnessed the strikes, and some were also involved in the evacuation effort.
On 9 July, Amnesty International contacted the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan to request details about what the government has done to investigate any failure in targeting, and whether those involved in the process were held to account, including any information to substantiate their claim that the target was a “weapon and ammunition store”. No response had been received at the time of publication.
Prohibition of attacks on medical facilities
The principle of distinction in IHL requires parties to distinguish between civilians and combatants, and between civilian objects and military objectives. Deliberate attacks against healthcare facilities and on their personnel are specifically prohibited, unless a facility is being used outside its humanitarian function. When there is doubt as to whether medical facilities are being used to commit acts “harmful to the enemy” – the only case in which they could lose their protected status – they should be presumed not to be so used.
In a post on X the day after the strike, Attaulah Tarar, Pakistan’s Federal Minister for Information & Broadcasting, claimed that the Pakistan military had targeted: “technical support infrastructure and ammunition storage facilities” in two locations in Kabul (one of them being the Omid Centre). He also claimed that secondary detonations indicated that large ammunition depots were hit in the strikes.
Videos and photographs of bomb remnants shared directly with Amnesty International were analysed by the organization’s weapons experts, who concluded that at least one of the munitions used was a Takbir precision-guided bomb. This finding is consistent with statements by the Pakistani military that precision-guided munitions were used in the strike, suggesting that the attack was the result of a deliberate targeting decision.
The Omid Centre was established in 2016 on the site of a former NATO base. It had originally operated as a vocational training facility for people being treated for substance-dependence. After the Taliban returned to power in 2021, the site was expanded into a 2,000-bed treatment centre for people with drug-dependence problems. Ibn-e-Sina Hospital, which provided essential healthcare services to Omid Centre patients, is also located on the site.
There is a wide range of publicly available information on the Omid Centre’s work including a 2023 Al Jazeera documentary showing patients undergoing treatment at the centre.
Amnesty International identified at least two large in-local-language signboards, located above the main gate and inside the camp, clearly indicating that the location was a rehabilitation and treatment centre. The organization also verified a video recorded in 2025 and captured inside the centre, showing some of the hangars where patients were housed, and analysed satellite images of the Omid Centre between April 2023 and 15 March 2026. On 13 March, just three days prior to the attack, imagery shows large groups of people present.
Satellite imagery shows the main patient living area and administration area on 13 March 2026 . Many people are visible in the imagery and an unknown pink substance or material is visible on the ground. The three areas most heavily impacted later are highlighted with yellow circles.
“The Pakistani authorities should have known the facility was a civilian object and that any aerial attack could result in large-scale civilian casualties. Even if the Pakistani military had any reliable information of military use, it was clear that the civilian harm would be excessive,” said Isabelle Lassee.
No evidence of weapons or ammunition
The strikes occurred at around 9pm, just as the evening tarawih prayers for Ramadan were being concluded, according to people who spoke to the organization. On the night of the attack, according to several interviewees who worked in the centre, more than a thousand patients were housed there.
Under IHL, attacking forces have an obligation to do everything feasible to verify whether their intended target is a military objective and, if there is doubt in this respect, to refrain from launching an attack or to cancel or suspend it. Even if a medical facility is being used for non-humanitarian purposes, an attack can only be justified after an effective warning has been issued and ignored. Amnesty International found no indication that any warning was issued, and the timing of the attack at evening prayers ensured civilian presence and left no opportunity for evacuation.
In his post on X, Attaulah Tarar included several videos that he said corroborated the Pakistani military’s claims that the site was being used to store weapons and ammunition.
Amnesty International open-source investigators and weapons experts analysed these videos, as well as evidence directly received from local sources and online. The videos consist of black and white drone and fighter aircraft feeds that show the air strikes from various angles. None of these videos, nor footage gathered from ground sources, allow the identification of conclusive evidence of weapons, ammunition or other explosive goods stored in the area. The footage does not show secondary explosions immediately following the strikes, which would constitute evidence of a possible ammunition storage.
Our investigation strongly indicates that this was not a legitimate military target under international humanitarian law
Isabelle Lassee
“Our investigation strongly indicates that this was not a legitimate military target under international humanitarian law. The ‘evidence’ Pakistan has made public so far does not rebut the conclusion that this was an unlawful attack causing harm to civilians and civilian objects,” said Isabelle Lassee.
Locations impacted by the strikes
Digital evidence and witness testimonies indicate that at least three locations within the site were heavily damaged or destroyed as a result of the air strikes.
Satellite imagery from 13 March (above) shows the Omid Centre three days before the strikes. The east and west sides of the complex are separated by a controlled gate. Many people are visible on the east side of the gate in the imagery, which according to testimony is the main living area for patients.
On 23 March satellite imagery shows three heavily damaged and burned areas. The video posted by Attaulah Tarar shows three of the impacted buildings being struck: the large building in the north-east and two buildings in the north-west. Satellite imagery also shows heavy burning and destruction in the south-west.
Satellite imagery from 23 March shows the three heavily damaged and burned areas including the large hangar and adjacent buildings on the east side and the structures in the south-west and buildings in the north-west. No craters are visible in the imagery.
At one of these locations, the destruction included a large hangar situated in the north-east of the site. Several interviewees said that the site housed patients undergoing treatment, as well as the kitchen and dining hall. Videos and photos captured in the immediate aftermath of the attack and during the evacuation process indicate that the dead bodies were mostly recovered from this area.
A second location, in the north-west of the site, was used by Taliban security personnel and for food storage, according to several interviewees. The third location, in the south-west of the site, was, according to several sources, used for storing items such as coal, wood, and essentials such as clothing, and accommodated a tailoring centre.
One interviewee who visited the Omid Centre after the attack, said: “One of the buildings which was hit was used for storage of wood and coal. When I visited, I saw remnants of wood and coal. There were many clothes. There were many shoes. These were not military shoes.”
“Anywhere I stepped, there was a dead body”
Shortly after the attack, the Taliban said that more than 400 civilians had been killed and more than 250 others wounded. In May, UNAMA independently verified that at least 269 civilians were killed and 122 others wounded.
According to several interviewees, the actual number of deaths is likely higher due to the level of destruction causing some remains to be unidentifiable.
Amnesty International spoke with the relative of one victim whose family had been unable to locate their loved one after searching hospitals and drug rehabilitation centres where patients were transferred: “The situation is uncertain for the family. The hangar that housed newly admitted patients was hit. However, nothing of his body has been found. The family has reviewed all the photos collected by the Forensic Laboratory to identify him. He was not identified.”
A healthcare worker who was involved in the evacuation of the victims in the aftermath of the attack, said: “I rushed to help anywhere I heard noise and calls for help. After a while I was no longer hearing any voices…Anywhere I stepped, there was a dead body.”
Reacting to proposed legislation in the Russian Duma that would impose sweeping restrictions on government critics targeted with problematic laws in Russia and living abroad, including the denial of consular services and the blocking of banking and property rights, Marie Struthers, Amnesty International’s Eastern Europe and Central Asia Director, said:
“This legislation is a chilling attempt to punish people who have left Russia but continue to criticize its authorities. By denying them access to their bank accounts, blocking property transactions and denying consular services, the Russian authorities are seeking to harass and penalize their opponents by any means possible.
“Many of those targeted by this legislation fled Russia to escape intimidation and the constant threat of lengthy prison terms for speaking out. The Russian state is now designing new ways to reach across borders and harm them.
“Calls on parliament to reject these draconian proposals are unlikely to halt their adoption. The governments of hosting countries must urgently develop practical mechanisms to counter the Russian government’s repressive overreach and ensure that people targeted by these measures can obtain access to basic services such as banking and secure essential documents such as passports.”
The governments of hosting countries must urgently develop practical mechanisms to counter the Russian government’s repressive overreach and ensure that people targeted by these measures can obtain access to basic services such as banking and secure essential documents such as passports
Marie Struthers, Amnesty International’s Eastern Europe and Central Asia Director
Reacting to a social media video shared with Amnesty International, and confirmed by Mozambican police, showing a plain-clothed police officer shooting a man, later identified to be Narciso Castigo Sambo (also known as Macovo), after he had been subdued by other officers in Xinavane district, Maputo province on 18 July, Amnesty International’s Regional Director for East and Southern Africa Tigere Chagutah said:
“The execution-style killing of Macovo, after he had already been restrained, is an egregious contravention of the right to life as enshrined in the Mozambique constitution and international and regional human rights treaties to which Mozambique is a party.
“The announcement of an investigation by the National Criminal Investigation Services (SERNIC) is a step in the right direction towards accountability and justice. Their findings must be made public, and those responsible for carrying out this summary execution must be removed from the line of duty until investigations are concluded.
“This is not an isolated case of unlawful use of force by Mozambique’s police. Amnesty International calls on the authorities to ensure that all previous allegations of violations by law enforcement, including killings, torture, arbitrary arrests and detention, are thoroughly and impartially investigated, and that those responsible are brought to justice.”
Background
On 18 July, members of the Police’s Rapid Intervention Unit were deployed to a liquor store, in Xinavane district, Maputo province, to arrest Macovo, apparently a suspected criminal who was wanted by SERNIC for homicide, sexual assault, robbery and kidnapping. According to the police, the operation was triggered following a public tip-off. During the arrest, although other officers had already restrained him, a plain-clothed officer shot Macovo five times, twice in his upper body and three times in the head. He died instantly.
Luxembourg, Ireland and all European Union (EU) member states must stop the sale of Israel Bonds in the EU or risk complicity in Israel’s ongoing genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, Amnesty International said in a public statementissued today.
“Israel has become increasingly reliant on foreign investments to finance its genocide, apartheid and unlawful occupation and bankroll its crimes against Palestinians. Israel Bonds increase the funds available to the government and thereby help finance Israel’s genocide against Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip that has wiped out entire families, levelled civilian infrastructure, including hospitals and schools and left 90% of the population forcibly displaced with their homes in ruins,” said Steve Cockburn, the Regional Director for Europe at Amnesty International.
“Allowing these bonds to be sold in the EU markets comes with an enormous ethical and legal cost. International law is clear: all states have an obligation not to aid or assist in genocide and the obligation to prevent it.”
According to the Israeli government, Israel dramatically increased the issuance of Israel Bonds, a financial instrument issued by the government to raise money from individuals and small investors, since 7 October 2023 “due to Israel’s security situation” in the Gaza Strip. The proceeds of the bonds go into the general Israel state budget, and as advertised by the authorities, help to sustain its military capacity.
Approval of Israel Bonds by any EU member state for sale in the European financial market is a clear instance of financial facilitation, which could amount to a failure to prevent genocide under international law and even carries the risk of aiding or assisting in genocide.
To trade these bonds in Europe, Israel requires an EU member state to host the programme. Since 2021 and after the UK left the EU, the Central Bank of Ireland has been acting as the ‘home member state’ allowing Israel to access the EU market. In 2025, following public pressure and protests in Ireland in opposition to Israel’s genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, Israel requested a transfer of the bonds to Luxembourg, which approved the prospectus, or legal document, allowing for these bonds to be sold to people in the EU for another year.
Since September 2025, Israel Bonds have been regulated in the EU by Luxembourg’s financial regulatory authority, the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF), and offered to the public in Austria, France, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
On 31 August, the prospectus in Luxembourg is due to expire. Amnesty International is calling on the state of Luxembourg to reject a new prospectus for Israel Bonds. As the host EU state for the bonds, Ireland should also decline to transfer, and reject, the approval of a new prospectus. The organization is also calling on all EU member states to refrain from accepting the transfer or approving a new prospectus.
“It is a political choice to allow these bonds to be sold in Europe. One of the most obvious and effective ways to end Israel’s genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip is to stop financing it. By continuing to facilitate the sale of these bonds, EU member states risk complicity in Israel’s international crimes against Palestinians,” said Steve Cockburn.
Background
From 2022 to 2024, the Israeli military budget grew from 4.2 % to 8.3% of its gross domestic product (GDP) with Israel Bonds raising on an average 2.4 billion USD annually from 2023 to 2025. After 7 October 2023, the Israeli government increased financing for its military activities. Israel Bonds were offered as opportunities to “support Israel at War” in 2023.
In January 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) determined that there was a plausible risk of genocide against Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip, ordering Israel to take effective measures to prevent it. The ICJ issued subsequent provisional orders in March and May 2024, amongst other things, reaffirming these measures. In light of the ICJ’s ruling, all states parties to the Genocide Convention are under heightened obligations, requiring any EU actor - or other state party - that facilitates financial flows enabling Israel’s military capacity to assess its role under the duty to prevent genocide.
Since Luxembourg approved the trade of Israel Bonds in 2025, civil society and legal experts have mobilized against it and published research to support their call to the authorities to stop the bonds.
