Author: MIL-OSI Publisher

Source: Greenpeace Statement –

While politicians at ICoNE 2026 speak of first-world ambitions, the fishing families of Lake Victoria (who were not adequately & meaningfully consulted) are being asked to stake their livelihoods, their health, and their children’s futures on one of the world’s most dangerous and expensive energy technologies.

This week, President Ruto opened the International Conference on Nuclear Energy (ICoNE 2026) by declaring that fears about nuclear power are not supported by evidence. Siaya Governor James Orengo went further: nuclear energy, he said, is non-negotiable if Kenya wants to be a first-world economy. Greenpeace Africa has a question for both leaders. First-world for whom? Not for the 200,000-plus fishing families on Lake Victoria’s shores who have no idea their lake has been earmarked as a coolant source for a nuclear reactor.

Make no mistake: what is being proposed is the construction of a 2,000 MW nuclear power plant on the banks of Africa’s largest freshwater lake. A lake that feeds millions of people, connects to the Nile, and anchors over 100 globally significant ecosystems stretching across Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania. Nuclear plants require vast quantities of water for cooling (15 to 25 percent more than a coal facility, and even more in Kenya’s tropical heat). That warmed water goes back into the lake. It disrupts fish breeding. It degrades aquatic ecosystems. It crosses borders. And if there is ever a leak, as there has been at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, the contamination of one of Africa’s most vital freshwater systems would be irreversible.

The government calls this progress. We call it a gamble with assets that don’t belong to the state to gamble with.

What makes this worse is how it has been done. Residents in Uyombo, the original coastal site, reported being arrested for asking questions, phones confiscated, movements monitored. In Siaya, communities learned they were the preferred site not through consultation, but through a government conference announcement. The Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment is still a draft. No rights-compliant community process has taken place. And yet Governor Orengo boasts that Siaya has “moved with impressive speed.” Speed, it turns out, is easiest when you don’t stop to ask the people most affected.

“Nuclear power near Lake Victoria is not development – it is displacement dressed up as progress. Communities stand to lose their land, their fisheries, and their livelihoods, while carrying the long-term burden of radioactive waste that will outlast every promise being made at ICoNE this week. Africa and her Africans deserve better than this.”

Shumirai Zizhou, Responsive Campaigner, Greenpeace Africa

The economics are no more reassuring. Kenya already generates close to 90% of its electricity from clean sources: geothermal, wind, solar, and hydro. It is a continental leader. Nuclear adds nothing to the grid for at least eight years, will cost between $2 and $4 billion by optimistic estimates, and will almost certainly run late and over budget if global precedent holds. The cleanup costs of nuclear accidents and centuries of radioactive waste management are routinely excluded from headline cost figures. Kenya has no waste disposal framework. The liability, when it materialises, falls on the public. Meanwhile, ICoNE itself was co-funded by the US government’s FIRST programme and South Korea’s KHNP, entities with direct commercial interests in selling nuclear technology to new markets. Independent scrutiny of this programme is overdue.

Greenpeace Africa demands:

• An immediate suspension of Kenya’s nuclear programme pending a fully independent review, free from commercially interested parties.

• A halt to all site activity near Lake Victoria until free, prior, and informed consent is obtained from communities across Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania.

• A complete, independent ESIA that is publicly accessible, translated into local languages, with genuine participation before any further decisions are taken.

• A redirect of nuclear budgets toward Kenya’s proven clean energy strength: decentralised renewables that deliver energy justice now, not in 2034.

Kenya does not need nuclear power. It needs the political courage to invest in what is already working. The fishing families of Luanda Kotieno did not ask to be part of this experiment. They deserve a government that treats their lake, their livelihoods, and their consent as non-negotiable, not as obstacles to be managed on the way to a first-world photo opportunity.

ENDS

For media inquiries:

Sherie Gakii, Communications and Storytelling Manager, Greenpeace Africa, [email protected]  |  +254702776749

Source: Amnesty International –

In 2024, a Belgium court ordered the government to pay reparations to five ‘Metis’ women, born of an African mother and a European father between 1948 and 1952, who were kidnapped from their mothers during the colonial-era in Belgian Congo. 

It was a historic ruling and Jehosheba Bennett was one of the lawyers who represented the women. Born in French Guiana, which since 1946 became integrated into the French Republic as an “overseas territory”, Jehosheba moved to France when she was four. Affected by the systemic racism her family faced, she wanted to find a way to change things for the better.

Now an international criminal lawyer, living in Belgium, Jehosheba works on cases that address historical colonial crimes. In this piece, Jehosheba shares what working on the Metis case meant to her and why reparations are still relevant in today…

When I moved to France, I remember learning about the history of slavery at school. I spent my early childhood in French Guiana – a colonised country. However, it was clear the impacts of racism were still being felt, especially in countries across Europe.

I lived in a neighbourhood alongside people of African and Arab descent. However, we faced a lot of systemic racism. My brother, who was just 10 at time, was often targeted and beaten by the police.

I was shocked by how we were being treated and I wanted to find a way to change things. I was torn between a career in art or law – but I thought it would be more useful to learn how the world worked, so I could change it.  

Abducted from their mothers

I am now a lawyer, focusing on cases involving violence against women, and colonial wrongs and reparations. Most recently, I worked on a groundbreaking case, involving five Métis women – children born to European fathers and African mothers – who took Belgium to court for colonial kidnappings.

When my law firm took on the case, we asked the women to share their stories. It was the first time they’d been asked to relive their experience with someone who wasn’t from their community. It was a big deal.

The stories of Marie-Josée Loshi, Noëlle Verbeken, Léa Tavares Mujinga, Simone Ngalula and Monique Bintu Bingi from the Democratic Republic of Congo were all very similar – between the ages of two and five, they were snatched from their mothers and sent to live in a Catholic mission hundreds of kilometres from their home.

Public servants working for the Belgian colony were tasked with identifying any mixed-race children, who they would kidnap and take to the Commission of Tutorship.

Jehosheba Bennett

At the time, public servants working for the Belgian colony were tasked with identifying any mixed-race children, who they would kidnap and take to the Commission of Tutorship. The commission had the power to consider them abandoned even though they weren’t. From there, they were taken to the Catholic mission to live.

The young African mothers, many of whom were just 15, couldn’t oppose the public servants – they were threatened, forced to sign papers they couldn’t understand and told if they didn’t hand over their children, they of their family members would be put in jail.

Many of these Metis children were put in missions over 500 kilometres from home. The young mothers would try and visit their children, but they weren’t allowed to stay, so they would sleep in the village just to stay for an hour or two.

It was an awful situation. While the children were in the mission, they were forced to speak a different dialect, attend a village school, where they couldn’t understand the teacher, and they faced discrimination because they were Metis – or seen as white.

Even though they were raised by sisters, they weren’t baptised as they were “children of sin”. Instead, they were insulted, beaten and treated as bad seeds. There was a total absence of care, attention and love.

A web of lies

I learnt how it was common practice for Belgian colonial public servants to have more than one woman. These young mothers were seen as concubines. They birthed the children, breastfed them, and then they were taken away. The women told us how they grew up thinking their mothers were sex workers and their father was unknown – although it was all untrue.

When Marie-Josée, Noëlle, Léa, Simone and Monique spoke, it was so powerful. They didn’t prepare what to say. It wasn’t constructed, but it was clear the life they’d been forced to live was awful and unjustifiable. They showed me a file with documents from the Catholic mission that had shed light on their past.

© Private

I started looking through it. I found letters from the sisters to the governors saying they didn’t have the space to accept these children, but government said they had to.

I also discovered a book with the women’s original names, along with the names of their fathers and mothers. From there, the children were given a new name and birth document. Under father, it stated “unknown”… As I learnt more about their stories, it became clear that this was a case of systemic organization of the segregation of these children.

Crimes against humanity

I worked on the case alongside three other lawyers. We knew it wouldn’t be straightforward. The first time we took Belgium to court, in 2021, we were told crimes against humanity were only applicable to those that had taken place during World War Two. It was deeply racist, as they were essentially saying we don’t include Africans in our definition of humanity – but surely humanity means everyone.

We appealed as we knew we had a case. A few years earlier the Belgian government had publicly said discrimination against Metis children was a violation of humanity, yet the courts were saying something else. It was incredibly hypocritical and further validated our case.

We appealed again in 2024. When we received the verdict – Belgium was guilty of crimes against humanity for the abduction and systematic racial segregation of Métis children under Belgian colonial rule – we screamed, laughed and cried. We couldn’t believe our work had finally paid off.

We wanted to celebrate these brave women who became sisters by chance. They were witness to the whole trial, listening to the lawyers denying what they went through. Yet, they remained strong and powerful throughout. They spent their whole life not knowing their past. They didn’t have a family link and were torn away from their mothers and fathers. It was a real break in their construction. They didn’t have any roots; it was as though history had erased their right to exist.

Racism is the root of colonialism

This case needs to serve as a turning point when it comes to addressing colonial wrongs. If we don’t address colonialism, we will nevertackle racism. Racism has its roots in the ignorance of what happened in the past. And if we ignore what happened and don’t ask for reparations, things will never change – all non-white people will still be treated as less human. That’s the reality.

Until European governments offer reparations to those who suffered, there will be an imbalance in equity across the world.  

Jehosheba Bennett

Western countries benefitted from slavery, colonialism and neo colonialism, and it continues today. Until European governments offer reparations to those who suffered, there will be an imbalance in equity across the world.  

It’s not a story of money, but it’s a story of equity and asking for equality. After all, how can you have equality if you don’t offer to repair the crime – it’s what we teach our children every day. It should be the same for States.

This piece was originally published by La Libre.

In our series, Voices of Reparatory Justice, we speak with artists, activists and leaders who share their stories of repair and resilience in fighting against the negative impacts of historical injustices, slavery, and colonialism.  Despite existential challenges, their journey to secure dignity and rights of racialised groups, restores hopes for our collective future, humanity must always prevail. This is one of those stories. Find out more about our work.

Source: Amnesty International –

Reacting to the news that the family and lawyer of Nikita Zhuravel, who was sentenced in 2024 to 14 years’ imprisonment for “high treason”, “insulting religious feelings” and “hooliganism committed with religious hatred,” have raised concerns about his disappearance while being transferred to a penal colony, Marie Struthers, Amnesty International’s Eastern Europe and Central Asia Director, said:

“Russian authorities must urgently disclose the fate and whereabouts of Nikita Zhuravel and ensure his immediate contact with his lawyer and family. A person vanishing within the state penitentiary system for months amounts to enforced disappearance.

A person vanishing within the state penitentiary system for months amounts to enforced disappearance

Marie Struthers, Amnesty International’s Eastern Europe and Central Asia Director

“Nikita Zhuravel already experienced petrifying levels of lawlessness at the hands of the authorities, when he was detained and arbitrarily transferred to Chechnya after allegedly burning the Quran. Once there, he was brutally physically assaulted on video by the son of regional leader Ramzan Kadyrov. This assault was widely reported yet manifestly ignored by the federal investigation authorities.

“Аdding to this horror and injustice, Nikita Zhuravel’s initial sentence of three-and-a-half years was significantly extended after he was found guilty of ‘treason’ for alleged cooperation with the secret services of Ukraine. Against this backdrop, his enforced disappearance means that his life and health may be at risk.”

Background

Nikita Zhuravel’s family last heard from the 22-year-old on 24 December 2025, when they got a letter while he was transferred from Moscow to a penal colony in Ulyanovsk, Central Russia.

Originally from Sevastopol in Russia-occupied Crimea, Zhuravel was detained on 20 May 2023 in Volgograd where he was living with his family. His arrest came a day after a video showing the burning a Quran in front of a mosque in Volgograd appeared online. He reportedly admitted guilt, stating that he had acted on instructions from an individual he believed to be a representative of Ukraine’s security services, in exchange for 10,000 rubles (approximately US$ 130).

In apparent violation of jurisdictional rules, he was transferred for trial to the Chechen Republic, where he was beaten in detention by Adam Kadyrov, the then 15-year-old son of Ramzan Kadyrov. Footage of the assault was later published online by Ramzan Kadyrov himself, who praised his son’s actions.

On 27 February 2024, the Visaitovsky District Court of Grozny found Nikita Zhuravel guilty of “insulting the feelings of believers” (Article 148(2) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and “hooliganism committed on the grounds of religious hatred” (Article 213(2)) and sentenced him to 3.5 years of imprisonment in a penal colony. On 25 November 2024, the Volgograd Oblast Court increased his prison term to 14 years after finding him guilty of “high treason” (Article 275) for allegedly having “proactively offered cooperation to a representative of the Ukrainian Security Service” by sharing video footage of military transport.

Source: Amnesty International –

Responding to a US jury finding that Meta and YouTube were liable for designing platforms that are harmful to children and young people, Erika Guevara-Rosas, Amnesty International’s Senior Director of Research, Advocacy, Policy and Campaigns, said: 

“This damning verdict is a landmark moment in recognizing the harm caused by tech giants in the manipulative designs of their social media platforms. For years, social media companies including Meta and YouTube have profited from targeting children and young people with addictive design features that prioritize engagement over wellbeing. They have deliberately built into their platforms features such as infinite scroll, autoplay, and persistent notifications that are engineered to ‘hook’ young users into compulsive use. 

“The toxic impact of these unsafe design features was laid bare during the trial when 20-year-old KGM told the court in Los Angeles how she began using YouTube at just six and Instagram at nine. She described being online ‘all day long’ as a child. Over time, her compulsive use of these social media platforms intensified, leaving her struggling with addiction and deepening depression. 

“This court decision is clear: these platforms are unsafe by design and meaningful change is urgently needed. 

Erika Guevara-Rosas, Amnesty International’s Senior Director of Research, Advocacy, Policy and Campaigns

“Rather than using blunt tools like banning young teens from social media, states must require a fundamental overhaul of how these platforms operate, including addressing their addictive design. This is the only path to a truly safe social media.” 

Background 
 
Delivering the landmark judgement in KGM’s case, jurors said Meta and YouTube were negligent and ordered them to pay $6 million in damages. Meta and Google have both both stated separately that they disagree with the verdict and will appeal.  

Snap, the owner of Snapchat and TikTok were initially part of the case, but both companies reached a settlement before trial. 

The ruling could influence a raft of other cases accusing social media companies of causing children and young people harm. 
 
In a separate case in New Mexico, a jury also found Meta liable for harms to the mental health and safety of children in the state and ordered it to pay a hefty fine though Meta has indicated that it will appeal the decision. 

Source: Amnesty International –

Responding to the European Parliament’s vote on its position on the European Union (EU) Return Regulation today, Eve Geddie, Director of Amnesty International’s European Institutions Office, said:

“Today the European Parliament has voted to expand the EU’s punitive and restrictive detention and deportation plans. This agreement – the result of a collaboration between the European People’s Party and political groups that support anti-migration policies – was rushed through negotiations without adequate scrutiny or meaningful human rights assessments.

“This marks a growing trend towards increasingly harmful, exclusionary, and draconian policies on migration, with worrying repercussions for due process and evidence-based policymaking. Far from reducing irregularity, these proposals risk trapping more people in precarious situations.

“Today, the European Parliament has voted to ramp up disproportionate requirements, sanctions and restrictions on people issued with a return decision, and to vastly expand its use of detention and for far longer periods, falling short of international legal standards.

“People will also risk being sent to ‘return hubs’ – offshore detention centres – in countries where they have never set foot. Amnesty International is unequivocal: return hubs carry grave risks of rights violations, cannot be implemented in a human rights compliant manner, and should be rejected in full.”

Background

The European Commission presented a proposal for a Return Regulation to replace the existing Return Directive in March 2025. In December 2025, Amnesty International warned that the European Council’s negotiating position on this proposal entailed “unprecedented detention, sanctions, and stripping of rights based on migration status.”

On 9 March 2026, the European Parliament’s Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) Committee adopted its position on the Return Regulation. This followed rushed negotiations and votes on two different texts, including an alternative compromise by the European People’s Party with support from the European Conservatives and Reformists, Europe of Sovereign Nations and Patriots for Europe. It was this text that both received the LIBE Committee’s final support and was endorsed today as Parliament’s negotiating position on the reform.

Today’s vote paves the way for trilogue negotiations with the Council before the Regulation can be formally adopted. These are expected to advance quickly.

For further information please see:

Joint statement over 200 civil society organizations calling for deportation rules to be rejected

Source: Amnesty International –

BANGKOK, Thailand (26 March 2026) – We, the undersigned human rights organizations and networks, urge members of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) to continue to push for meaningful reforms at the National Human Rights Commission of India (NHRCI) ahead of GANHRI’s Annual Meeting in Geneva from 30 March to 1 April 2026.

In March 2025, GANHRI’s Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA) recommended a downgrade to NHRCI’s status from “A” to “B,” citing concerns over its ability to function independently. GANHRI gave the NHRCI a year to act upon the recommendations before it made a final decision. The NHRCI challenged the downgrade recommendation, but the appeal was rejected by the GANHRI Bureau, referring the matter back to the SCA. Under the original timeline, SCA was supposed to make a final decision in April 2026, however, it has now been postponed to November 2026.

NHRCI should use this time to undertake meaningful reforms to ensure compliance with the Paris Principles, the international minimum standards for effective, independent and transparent national human rights institutions.

The SCA first formally raised its concerns in 2011 and reiterated them in 2016, 2017, 2023, and 2024, then deferred NHRCI’s re-accreditation for two consecutive years, in 2023 and 2024.

GANHRI members should ensure continued scrutiny over the NHRCI’s persistent failures in addressing SCA’s longstanding recommendations as outlined below:

1. Conflict of interest in investigations

Concerns over the NHRCI’s reliance on police officers seconded from the government to conduct investigations remain unaddressed, particularly in cases involving alleged police abuses. This practice creates conflicts of interest, undermining impartiality and victims’ trust in the Commission. Despite consistent recommendations since 2017, the NHRCI has failed to diversify its investigative staff to include independent experts such as human rights investigators, forensic specialists, and legal professionals.

2. Lack of pluralism in leadership and staff

The NHRCI continues to fall short of the Paris Principles’ requirements on pluralism. Its composition lacks representation, with limited gender diversity and inadequate inclusion of minority perspectives. Key positions have remained vacant for extended periods, including seats reserved for civil society representation.

3. Opaque leadership appointments

The process for appointing the NHRCI’s Chairperson, members, and senior staff lacks transparency and meaningful public participation. The continued appointment of senior officials with close ties to the government, including the Secretary General, raises serious concerns over independence. Despite repeated SCA recommendations, vacancies are neither publicly advertised nor subject to open and merit-based selection processes, reinforcing a lack of independence and pluralism.

4. Inadequate response to shrinking civic space and reprisals against human rights defenders

The NHRCI has failed to effectively respond to the ever-deteriorating human rights environment in India, including increasing restrictions on freedom of expression, the misuse of repressive laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and reprisals against human rights defenders.

Despite receiving communications from United Nations Special Rapporteurs, the NHRCI has remained silent on emblematic cases, such as the illegal detention of refugees and asylum seekers from Myanmar. In other instances—including the case of Adivasi women human rights defender Suneetha Pottam—the NHRCI dismissed complaints on procedural grounds, such as pending judicial proceedings, rather than being pursued through independent inquiry.

More broadly, the Commission has failed to address patterns of repression, including the prolonged detention without trial—under the UAPA—of human rights defenders Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Ibrahim Dafadar, and Khurram Parvez. Similarly, despite rising attacks and harassment against journalists—including Rana Ayyub, Rajdeep Sardesai, Ravish Kumar, Mohammed Zubair, Arfa Khanum Sherwani, Mahesh Langa, and Prabir Purkayastha—the Commission has failed to respond to the broader pattern of intimidation and intervene beyond isolated cases.

In addition, the NHRCI has not exercised its visitation mandate to assess detention conditions and provide protection. These inactions reflect a systemic failure to address shrinking civic space and reprisals against dissenting voices.

5. Limited and selective engagement with civil society

The NHRCI’s engagement with civil society organizations (CSOs) remains limited and selective, as it largely interacts with a narrow group of actors while excluding defenders and organizations critical of its performance.

Such exclusions of independent and diverse CSOs negatively impact the NHRCI’s ability to adequately and independently address human rights violations.

For example, during the crisis in Manipur, the NHRCI failed to engage with independent civil society actors despite the availability of credible fact-finding reports, including those produced by the People’s Union of Civil Liberties alongside jurists and human rights defenders. The Commission neither consulted these actors nor facilitated a broader public dialogue, undermining its mandate for cooperative and participatory engagement.

Similarly, the NHRCI has neither engaged with civil society groups that contributed to critical reports submitted to the SCA, nor has it initiated transparent consultations on implementing the SCA’s recommendations.  Such useful engagements could have facilitated constructive dialogues that could have paved the way to concrete improvements of the NHRCI’s performance.

6. Silence on systemic human rights violations

Despite longstanding recommendations, the NHRCI has not consistently or proactively addressed serious human rights violations. It has remained largely silent on systemic issues raised by international bodies, including concerns highlighted by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination regarding forced evictions of indigenous communities, illegal detentions in Assam, and extrajudicial killings of Adivasi people in Bastar, Chhattisgarh. The NHRCI has not taken suo motu cognizance of these issues nor publicly articulated its position.

The Commission has failed to address widespread violations and systemic discrimination against minorities, including violent attacks, killings, and unlawful demolitions.

It has remained silent on the passage of new laws and regulations, such as the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, and Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, that could further enable state surveillance and undermine privacy and the right to freedom of expression.

CSOs have routinely raised concerns over the NHRCI’s inconsistencies and ineffectiveness in addressing serious human rights violations. As an example, most complaints have been routinely dismissed at the early stages of filing, often without detailed investigations. All these undermine the Commission’s mandate and compliance with the Paris Principles. 

Concerns regarding NHRCI’s remarks on the Paris Principles

We are deeply concerned over the recent suggestions of the NHRCI Chairperson—a member of the GANHRI Bureau—to “overhaul” or “revamp” the Paris Principles, the global standard for ensuring the independence and efficiency of national human rights institutions.

Overhauling the Paris Principles risks weakening human rights protections and eroding trust in an international system designed to hold NHRIs accountable.

The NHRCI Chairperson questioned the relevance of the Paris Principles, suggesting that they focus primarily on the “cosmetic” aspects of institutional design—such as formal structures and the issuance of public statements—rather than ensuring substantive effectiveness.

Such remarks risk undermining the foundational role of the Paris Principles, which were specifically developed to guarantee the independence, credibility, and functional effectiveness of national human rights institutions. Framing these standards as merely procedural overlooks their critical function in safeguarding institutional integrity and enabling these institutions to operate in line with international human rights norms.

The NHRCI Chairperson’s further suggestion to replace GANHRI as the international body overseeing the accreditation process is self-serving and alarming. Such a move risks undermining the independence and credibility of the accreditation system and weakening accountability for compliance with international standards.

Call to action

We urge GANHRI Members, especially the Bureau and the SCA, to:

1. Reaffirm the centrality and integrity of the Paris Principles;
2. Reject any attempts to weaken or reinterpret these standards in ways that compromise independence;
3. Continue to apply rigorous, consistent, and transparent accreditation processes.

We also call on the NHRCI to use the months ahead to strengthen its compliance with the Paris Principles. We urge the Commission to:

1. Act on the SCA’s longstanding recommendations without further delay;
2. Meaningfully consult with diverse and independent civil society actors beyond its existing CSO networks;
3. Ensure that reform efforts are participatory and transparent, in consultation with parliamentarians, civil society, and human rights defenders across the country.

The credibility of GANHRI’s accreditation system depends on the consistent application of its standards and the willingness of its Members to uphold them without exception. Continued principled scrutiny is essential to safeguarding the integrity of NHRIs globally.

We thank GANHRI Members for their continued commitment to strengthening independent NHRIs. We are ready to support all efforts that advance accountability, transparency, and genuine reform.

Sincerely,

Amnesty International

The All India Network of NGOs and Individuals working with National and State Human Rights Institutions (AiNNi)

The Asian NGO Network on National Human Rights Institutions (ANNI)

Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)

CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation

Front Line Defenders (FLD)

Human Rights Watch

The International Coalition against Enforced Disappearances (ICAED)

International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)

International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)

World Organisation against Torture (OMCT)

Source: Greenpeace Statement –

Greenpeace Southeast Asia condemns the escalating war in Southwest Asia and the governments driving it. Since February 2026, military strikes, including those carried out by the United States and Israel against Iran, have intensified a cycle of violence that is killing civilians and destroying the environment at scale.

This is not security. This is devastation.

We condemn the ongoing Israeli military attacks, including those impacting civilians in Lebanon, which continue to expand the war and deepen human suffering. Civilians across the region are being killed, displaced, and stripped of their right to live in peace and dignity.

We stand in full solidarity with affected communities and with Greenpeace Middle East and North Africa and Greenpeace International. We demand an immediate and unconditional ceasefire by all parties.

War is a system of destruction. It destroys lives, poisons ecosystems, and locks the world into fossil fuel dependence. It accelerates climate collapse while governments claim to act on climate. This hypocrisy is costing lives.

There are no justifications for this violence. There is no pathway to peace through war.

We stand with people everywhere who are resisting war and demanding justice. We stand with movements calling for an end to militarization, exploitation, and extraction, and for a rapid transition to clean, decentralized renewable energy systems that put people and planet first.

We demand an immediate ceasefire. We demand protection of civilians and full respect for human rights. We demand unrestricted humanitarian access. We demand accountability for the destruction of communities and ecosystems.

Governments fueling this war must be held to account. Continued military escalation is a choice, and it is the wrong one. The world does not need more weapons. It needs leadership, courage, and an end to violence.

ASEAN leaders must not hide behind silence. Neutrality in the face of injustice is complicity. The region must take a clear stand for peace, human rights, and environmental justice, and act now.

We refuse to accept a future shaped by war, fossil fuels, and destruction. A different future is possible, but only if we fight for it. Together, we will resist. Together, we will defend life. Now.

Source: Amnesty International –

Judges in Tunisia who spoke out against Kais Said and his government’s attacks on judicial independence continue to face reprisal and harassment for exercising their right to freedom of expression  and defending  the  rule of law,  Amnesty International said today, ahead of the trial of Anas Hmedi, judge at the Monastir Court of Appeal and president of the Tunisian Judges Association on baseless charges of “obstructing freedom to work” scheduled for  26 March.   

“Anas Hmedi is a courageous judge who refused to be silent and stood up for the independence of the judiciary and against executive interference. His prosecution and relentless abuse of the criminal justice system to target and harass him constitute reprisals for exercising his rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, and for speaking out for his profession. Judge Anas Hmedi’s case is a stark illustration of the ongoing reprisals faced by judges who dare to speak out,” said Sara Hashash, Deputy Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International.

“Judges must be able, individually and collectively, to participate in public debate on the organization, functioning, and independence of the judiciary without fear of intimidation, harassment, or criminal prosecution. The authorities must immediately drop all charges against Judge Anas Hmedi since they stem solely from the peaceful exercise of his human rights.”

Judges must be able… to participate in public debate on the organization, functioning, and independence of the judiciary without fear of intimidation, harassment, or criminal prosecution.

Sara Hashash, Deputy MENA Director

Since 2022, Hmedi, President of the Tunisian Judges’ Association (Association des Magistrats Tunisiens, AMT), has faced arbitrary disciplinary and criminal proceedings in reprisal for the association’s work challenging attacks on the independence of the judiciary, as well as an online defamation campaign by pro-president Facebook pages. He has been very vocal in defending judicial independence, often appearing in the media and making public statements in civil society events in defense of AMT’s positions. If convicted, he risks a sentence up to three years in prison.

After the summary dismissal of 57 magistrates on 1 June 2022 by President Kais Saied, the AMT, together with other judges’ associations, led a nationwide four-week strike to protest these arbitrary dismissals. Following the strike, as head of the AMT, Anas Hmedi was summoned for questioning four times between July and August 2022.

Trial on unfounded obstruction charges

In October 2022, following a decision to lift his immunity from the High Judicial Council at request of the prosecution, the deputy prosecutor at the Monastir Tribunal of First Instance opened a criminal investigation against Hmedi in relation to his alleged “incitement” of other judges of the Monastir Tribunal to go on strike in June and July 2022.

He is being prosecuted under Article 136 of the Penal Code, for “obstructing freedom to work” a charge frequently use[HM1] d to deter or punish those participating in strikes and social protest.

The case was repeatedly transferred during the investigative stage before Hmedi was eventually referred to trial and indicted without ever being interrogated by the investigative judge, undermining his fair trial rights including the right to a defense.

Hmedi is also facing criminal charges in a separate investigation, though this has not yet reached the trial stage. In December 2025, the AMT issued a statement denouncing the incarceration of human rights lawyer, Ayachi Hammami, who had represented many of the judges. Shortly after Hmedi warned, during an event organized by the Tunisian League for the Defense of Human Rights, about the risks of undermining fair trial guarantees and the political instrumentalization of the judiciary. He specifically referenced verdicts issued by the Tunis Court of Appeal in late 2025 against members of the political opposition.

The Public Prosecutor at the Court of First Instance in Tunis subsequently opened three investigations against him on criminal defamation-related charges, bypassing the constitutional safeguards governing criminal proceedings against judges.

Risks to the judges association AMT

Since Kais Saeid’s power grab in 2021, the AMT has documented and exposed executive interference in judicial independence, issuing statements, working with human rights organizations in defense of fair trial rights, and supporting judges facing reprisals for upholding their independence.  

With the crackdown on independent associations increasing over the past two years, in January 2026, the AMT received two warnings from the Prime Ministry’s administration claiming the association was non-compliant with some provisions of Association Law Decree 88. The authorities alleged the AMT was operating outside its mandate and supporting political actors and participating in incitement alongside claims of financial and reporting irregularities. While the AMT provided the relevant documentation to refute these claims, it remains at risk of suspension and eventual dissolution, a fate shared by many human rights associations in Tunisia over the past year.

“Since President Kais Saied dissolved the High Judicial Council and dismissed judges based on vague accusations in 2022, the harassment of judges and the unlawful interference in their work has continued in a bid to stifle peaceful dissent and make accountability unattainable,” said Sara Hashash.

“The continued pursuit of proceedings against AMT and its president raises serious concerns about the misuse of the criminal justice system to target and harass individuals for their legitimate professional and human rights activities.  The Tunisian authorities’ targeting of Hmedi through abusive disciplinary and criminal proceedings violates international standards and must cease immediately.

“Authorities must end the harassment of Anas Hmedi and other judges and allow them to freely exercise their rights to freedom of expression and association without fear of reprisal. They must uphold judicial independence and the rule of law.”

Background

On 1 June 2022, President Saied issued Decree-Law 2022-35, allowing him to dismiss any judge based on vague criteria and without due process. He announced the dismissal of 57 judges and prosecutors the same day, accusing them of “obstructing terrorism investigations,” “financial corruption,” and “moral corruption”.

Despite an August 2022 decision by the Tunis Administrative Tribunal ordering the reinstatement of 49 of these judges, the Ministry of Justice has not reinstated a single one. Moreover, judges and judicial institutions that have acted independently continue to face ongoing intimidation and harassment.

The AMT has publicly opposed these measures and denounced the unlawful interference of the executive. In an April 2024 statement AMT said that since August 2023, the Minister of Justice has ordered the appointment, transfer, and suspension of at least 105 judges and prosecutors through executive memos. The AMT also reported several work suspensions occurring outside any formal disciplinary process.

The AMT was founded in 1990 and has long been an outspoken association. From 2011, it became a leading voice in judicial reform, actively participated in the process of reforming the laws pertaining to the judiciary and advocated for transitional justice and accountability.

According to the UN Basic Principles on Independence of the Judiciary “judges shall be free to form and join associations of judges or other organizations to represent their interests, to promote their professional training and to protect their judicial independence”.

In January 2026, UN experts—including the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers—expressed grave concern at this fresh attempt to criminalize Judge Hmedi for statements made in his capacity as AMT President. The experts warned that prosecuting judges for expressing views on matters of public interest undermines the rule of law and constitutes a reprisal for the legitimate exercise of the rights to freedom of expression and association.

For more information or media requests please contact [email protected]

Source: Chatham House –

Young people generate ideas for AI adoption in ‘policy hackathon’
News release
thilton.drupal
24 March 2026

Members of Chatham House’s Common Futures Conversations community used a fictional scenario to come up with innovative ways in which governments can adopt AI.

Chatham House has completed a ‘policy hackathon’ in which young people produced transferable policy proposals for how governments could benefit from adopting AI.

Twenty-two members of Chatham House’s Common Futures Conversations (CFC) community took part in the online event ‘Intelligent Government: Reimagining Civic Infrastructure’ from 10-19 March.

They were asked to come up with creative proposals for realizing the benefits of AI adoption in government for the fictional country of Valdoria. The winning team presented their idea for an AI-assisted system, ‘Guardian Angel’, which analyses ministry employee access patterns to detect potential security risks. 

The team was comprised of CFC members Daria Bogolyubova, Yunus El-Asri, Sufyan Hatia and Eugenia Obeng-Akrofi.

Other ideas included an AI-enabled care intelligence platform that connects fragmented health and social care systems into a unified structure; an AI platform that detects tariff and trade-risk shocks early; and a predictive analytical model that eliminates the inefficiencies of manual resource allocation within a healthcare system.

‘Valdoria was fictional, but the challenges participants dealt with are very real,’ said Rowan Wilkinson, Research Associate, Digital Society Programme.

‘This policy hackathon demonstrated the complexity of emerging tech adoption in government, and participants really had to wrestle with how to scale these technologies in a transparent, democratic and open way, whilst maintaining secure, sovereign and cost-effective solutions – a difficult and ongoing problem for governments globally,’ she added.

The competition judges were Alex Krasodomski, the director of Chatham House’s Digital Society Programme, Felix Reilly, Senior AI Product Manager at the UK government’s Incubator for Artificial Intelligence, and Dr Stephanie Diepeveen, Senior Lecturer in Global Digital Politics at King’s College London.

Supported by the Ford Foundation, the policy hackathon was hosted by Chatham House’s QEII Academy, Digital Society Programme, and Global Economy and Finance Programme.