Schlagwort: Amnesty International

Responding to the International Criminal Court confirming all crimes against humanity charges against former Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, paving the way for full trial proceedings, the Director of Amnesty International Philippines Ritz Lee Santos said:

“Families of victims and survivors of the ‘war on drugs’ have waited far too long for justice. The ICC’s confirmation of all charges against former President Duterte is a historic moment for victims and international justice. It sends a clear message that those who are alleged to have committed widespread and systematic murder as a crime against humanity will one day find themselves in the dock, facing trial. Justice may be slow in coming, but it cannot be delayed forever.

“This trial is not about politics. It is about a campaign in which thousands of people were killed in cold blood, and a justice system in the Philippines that has consistently failed them. The ICC is acting because the authorities would not. For years, those responsible for unlawful killings have operated with impunity, but that era is ending.

“For the survivors and victims’ families who have carried their grief in silence, today affirms that their voices have been heard and their persistence is not in vain. As these proceedings move forward, the international community will bear witness not only to the crimes that Duterte is alleged to have committed, but to the courage of those who never stopped demanding justice.

“The ICC must now ensure victims’ rights to participate in the trial and guarantee that witnesses are protected so that the trial can decide on the allegations facing Duterte. Meanwhile, efforts must stop at nothing to ensure that all those individually responsible for crimes under international law and grave human rights violations are held accountable, whether in the Philippines or at the ICC.”

Background

The Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court today decided that former President Duterte should stand trial for all three charges against him of murder and attempted murder as crimes against humanity.

In March 2025, former President Duterte was arrested by the Philippine government and surrendered to the ICC to face charges of murder and attempted murder as crimes against humanity linked to his government’s so-called “war on drugs” and previously his time as mayor of Davao City between 2013 and 2016. Duterte’s initial appearance before the Court took place on 14 March 2025.

Since his arrest, he has been awaiting trial in ICC custody in the Netherlands. Lawyers for the former President have challenged the Court’s jurisdiction, his ongoing detention and his fitness to stand trial.

In January 2026, a Pre-Trial Chamber determined, following a review by medical experts, that Duterte is fit to stand trial. On 22 April 2026, the Appeals Chamber confirmed that the Court may exercise jurisdiction over the alleged crimes.

During the Duterte administration from 2016 to 2022, thousands of people, mostly from poor and marginalized communities, were unlawfully killed by the police – or by armed individuals suspected to have links to the police – as part of the “war on drugs”.

Amnesty International has published major investigations detailing extrajudicial executions and other human rights violations by police and their superiors. The organization has determined that the acts committed reach the threshold of crimes against humanity.

The ICC continues to investigate further potential crimes against humanity, during the “war on drugs” and by the Davao Death Squad in Davao City while Duterte served as mayor from 2011 to 2016. On 13 February 2026 a “Public Lesser Redacted Version” of the document containing charges listed eight other persons as co-perpetrators of crimes alongside Duterte. No further arrest warrants have been made public yet.

The post Philippines: Confirmation of Duterte trial offers victims prospect of long-awaited truth and justice appeared first on Amnesty International.

Reacting to the EU’s failure to call for a vote to suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement or to agree on any other concrete measures today at the EU Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg, Erika Guevara-Rosas, Amnesty International’s Senior Director for Research, Advocacy, Policy and Campaigns said:

“At this point, the EU’s decision to maintain its trade agreement with Israel represents a moral failure and illustrates brazen contempt for civilian lives, particularly in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) and in Lebanon.

“One million people in Europe, more than 75 NGOs, almost 400 former diplomats, UN experts as well as Belgium, Ireland, Slovenia and Spain have all called for the immediate suspension of the agreement. Once again, these calls have been disregarded with Germany and Italy playing a key role in blocking the suspension.

This will be remembered as another shameful chapter in one of the most disgraceful moments in the EU’s history.

Erika Guevara-Rosas, Senior Director for Research, Advocacy, Policy and Campaigns

“Almost a year ago, the EU found that Israel’s crimes under international law against Palestinians violate the agreement’s human rights clause. Since then, Israel has continued to cross every single EU red line. 

“Decades of impunity afforded to Israel by the international community, including the EU, have only emboldened it to escalate its violations of international humanitarian law. This is evidenced by Israel’s genocide in Gaza, its ongoing unlawful occupation of the whole OPT, the system of apartheid imposed against all Palestinians whose rights it controls and its new death penalty law, which will in practice apply exclusively to Palestinians.

“Since the so-called ceasefire in Gaza in October 2025, which the EU has used to justify its inaction, over 740 Palestinians have been killed as Israeli air strikes, shelling and cruel blockade persist.  In Lebanon, Israeli forces have killed and wounded thousands of people, including healthcare workers, and have displaced more than a million people since the re-escalation of hostilities with Hezbollah on 2 March.

“The EU must not again use fragile ceasefires as an excuse to give Israel yet another free pass. Each delay only further entrenches impunity and paves the way for further grave human rights violations. EU member states must urgently take matters into their own hands and unilaterally suspend all forms of cooperation with Israel that may contribute to its grave violations of international law.”

Background

At today’s foreign affairs council, EU ministers failed to agree on any concrete measures, once again delaying meaningful action.

The suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement is one of many concrete steps the EU can and must take to bring an end to Israel’s violations and its own risk of complicity in them. The EU should also bring its actions in line with international law by banning trade with Israel’s illegal settlements in the OPT, a call long supported by Belgium, Ireland, the Netherlands, Slovenia and Spain, recently joined by France and Sweden. Until then, member states must adopt national bans on trade with settlements.  

Amnesty International launched a new campaign action calling on Italy and Germany to support the suspension of the EU-Israel Association agreement.

The post EU: Failure to suspend EU-Israel Association Agreement shows contempt for civilian lives appeared first on Amnesty International.

Responding to the Fijian authorities’ announcement that a man, Jone Vakarisi, died in military custody on 17 April, Amnesty International’s Pacific Researcher Kate Schuetze said:

“The information provided by authorities on this death in custody raises more questions than answers. Initial responses from the military suggested that Jone Vakarisi died from a pre-existing medical condition, yet copies of the police autopsy report circulating online suggest that this was a case of serious assault.

“Any death in custody must be met with an independent, impartial, effective and prompt investigation, with results being made public. Statements of regret by the Commander of Fiji’s military are meaningless unless followed by comprehensive and transparent explanations and – where there is sufficient admissible evidence – appropriate criminal charges against those responsible.

“This death also raises questions about the culture of impunity within Fiji’s military forces and the role of the military in policing matters, including its ability to meet the needs of detainees in line with international human rights law and standards.

“Meanwhile, the military’s cautioning against people discussing the incident raises serious freedom of expression concerns. Questions and reporting about this case cannot be supressed for reasons of ‘national security’.”

Background

On Saturday 18 April 2026, Fiji authorities confirmed that Jone Vakarisi died in custody at the Queen Elizabeth Barracks on 17 April. He was taken into custody on 16 April with three other people, two of whom have since been released.

It is unclear what Vakarisi and others detained with him were being investigated for, as no criminal charges have been confirmed. Republic of the Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) statements have suggested that the detentions were related to drug crimes and an organized criminal network they described as being a threat to national security.

In a statement on 18 April, the RFMF said Jone Vakarisi “voluntarily presented” himself at their barracks then died of a “medical emergency” relating to a pre-existing condition. The RFMF described the death as a ‘national security’ incident and cautioned people against discussing it. However, on 20 April the military admitted its initial communication was not factually correct, acknowledging the findings of the autopsy.

Under international standards, any death in custody creates an assumption of the state’s responsibility and a violation of the right to life by state authorities. This assumption can only be overcome on the basis of a proper investigation that demonstrably establishes that the state complied with all its human rights obligations.

The post Fiji: Death of man in military custody must be promptly investigated appeared first on Amnesty International.

Throughout 2025, voracious predators stalked through our global commons, hulking hunters plundering unjust trophies. Political leaders like Trump, Putin and Netanyahu, among many others, carried out their conquests for economic and political domination through destruction, suppression and violence on a massive scale.

As Amnesty International has long warned, a global environment where primitive ferocity could flourish has been long in the making. But in 2025, accelerants were recklessly poured over dry kindling, as sharp U-turns were taken away from the international order that had been imagined out of the ashes of the Holocaust and the utter destruction of world wars, and constructed slowly and painfully, albeit insufficiently, over these past 80 years.

Yet rather than confront the predators, in 2025 most governments opted for appeasement, including most European states. Some sought even to imitate the predator. Others ducked for cover under their shadow. A mere handful chose to stand up to them.

One firebreak after another was breached: through complicity in, or silence about, the commissions of genocide and crimes against humanity; and through imposition of crippling sanctions against those working to deliver justice. That’s how 2025 will be remembered: for its bullies and predators; for the pouring of the politics of appeasement onto burning betrayals of international obligations; for self-defeatism; for states playing with a fire that threatens now to burn us all and scorch the future too, for generations to come.

Not an illusion

Some might suggest that by 2025 there was little left to undermine, the now failing global system delivering little other than greater power to the already powerful Western world. Some claim 2025 simply laid bare a pleasant illusion.

Those narratives distort the history of the post-World War II order. They erase the masterful work of generations of diplomats and civil society activists the world over, who, often against the wishes of far more powerful actors, helped imagine, shape and advocate for that rule-based order, and never gave up demanding that the order live up to its stated purpose.

The 1948 adoptions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Genocide Convention, and the many other normative instruments debated and adopted over the subsequent 80 years, are no illusion. They are tangible manifestations of a post-world war order founded on a multilateral system of equal states, rooted in universal human rights, and dedicated to non-recurrence of atrocities.

We all know that the system’s promise remains unfulfilled, but it is not for the promise-breaker to declare that promise a fantasy.

Moreover, that system was never just in the hands of the powerful. At its very inception, smaller nations outmanoeuvred the large. It was they who ensured that the Universal Declaration promised human rights for all people universally, without distinction, and equally between men and women. In the years thereafter, waves of anti-colonial struggles and emancipatory movements took nourishment and additional legitimacy in those very affirmations, often against the wishes of Europe. It was the newest states of Africa, the Caribbean, Latin America, and Asia, who, along with civil society the world over, led the development of the Covenant on Economic and Social Rights, the Convention on the Right of the Child, and the Convention for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, against the will of the United States of America.

Under the influence of international human rights instruments, these past 80 years have seen deep transformations of our world for the better. The direction of travel has bent towards greater justice, towards addressing power imbalances between states, towards recognition and protection of the rights of racialized and Indigenous peoples, of women, of LGBTI persons, and by enshrining in domestic laws universal commitments on substantive equality, sexual and reproductive rights, and labour rights, to name but a few.

Make no mistake: reports of the death of the international rule-based order are greatly exaggerated. But the death notices are issued not because the system is ineffective, inefficient or too slow, but because it is not serving the interests of the politically and economically powerful and their appeasers. They now wish us to believe it was all but a chimera, a pleasant fiction that has outlived its purpose.

This must be resisted by defending normative guardrails, disrupting the worst attacks against the 1948 rule-based order and transforming it for greater fulfilment and reach of its promises.

That resistance does not mean papering over the raging double standards that have dogged its implementation or discounting its ineffectiveness or paralysis. Nor does it mean ignoring the multiple violations of its universal promise, with millions denied its protections – including the Palestinian victims of Israel genocide, apartheid and occupation; Afghan women whose country has become an open-air prison; or Iranian protesters who, early in 2026 were subjected to perhaps the largest mass-killing in Iran’s recent history.

Nor does resisting Donald Trump or Vladamir Putin’s attacks on the rule-based order mean accepting China’s vision. That is no alternative, for China too has consistently rejected universal human rights, and monitoring of compliance with global conventions. The Chinese search for hegemony may take a different form and be delivered with different tools, but it has the same outcome: inequity and repression.

A new order in the making?

What alternative to the imperfect global experiment initiated in 1948 is on offer? The undermining of international law, attacks against the International Criminal Court (ICC), withdrawal from international conventions, abandonment of UN agencies. Having paralysed the UN Security Council through unconscionable abuse of their veto powers, the predators now assert that peace and security mechanisms don’t work and seek to replace them with self-serving alternatives.

The predatory world order discards racial and gender justice, mocks women’s rights, declares civil society a common enemy and rejects international solidarity. It directs an unprecedented hike in military investments, enables unlawful arms transfers and imposes sweeping cuts to international aid budget, risking millions of avoidable deaths and decimating thousands of organizations working for human rights, sexual and reproductive rights or press freedom.

This predatory alternative world order silences dissent and suppresses protests, deploys dehumanizing rhetoric, and facilitates hate crimes and the weaponization of the law. It is predicated not on respect for our common humanity, but on trade supremacy and technological hegemony.

At the beginning of 2026, the vision for that new order was expounded by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio as a Western alliance of Christian people led by the US, rooted unapologetically and proudly in a common heritage, romantically described throughout the speech. But the words cannot hide the facts: this is a history too of domination, colonialism, slavery and genocide.

In that “new” but all too familiar system, the predators and their appeasers rebuke, deter and persecute those seeking equality within and between states. Atonement for past injustices is mocked. War, not diplomacy, rules: Israel’s genocide against Palestinians in Gaza continues in spite of the so-called ceasefire; Russia’s crimes against humanity in Ukraine escalate; the USA engages in extraterritorial extrajudicial killings and unlawful attacks on Venezuela and Iran, and threats to take over Greenland; multiple crimes in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar and Sudan remain unchecked; and people in the Middle East are plunged again into a chaos that threatens to engulf more and more countries.

That is a vision for naked hegemony, for a world without a moral compass.

A turnaround in 2026?

Few states have found the courage to speak up against the roaring of cannons over diplomacy. Some joined the Hague Group, a bloc of states committed to “coordinated legal and diplomatic measures” in defence of international law and solidarity with the people of Palestine. Others contributed to South Africa’s genocide case against Israel. Canada called on the Middle Powers to come together and invest in collective resilience. A few, such as Spain, consistently denounced the dismantling of normative guardrails.

In early 2026, some European states appeared to take fuller measure of the risks, refusing to join the US and Israeli attacks on Iran and committing to protect strategic sovereignty, but along with the European Union fell short of reasserting the primacy of international law and universal rights.

Determination to stand up for global norms

A fear of retaliation for speaking out against the powerful is palpable the world over. But there was also much evidence throughout 2025 of governments continuing to lay down the brickwork of the allegedly “illusory” international rule-based order and of widespread civil society determination to stand up for and enhance global norms.

The Council of Europe established the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine. The ICC issued arrest warrants against two Taliban leaders for the crime against humanity of gender-based persecution, and unsealed warrants against Libyan nationals accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity. A hybrid criminal court in the Central African Republic convicted six former members of an armed group for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The UN Human Rights Council established an independent investigative mechanism for Afghanistan. Rodrigo Duterte, former president of the Philippines, was handed over to the ICC under a warrant for the crime against humanity of murder. In the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, 156 states voted for negotiations on an international instrument on autonomous weapons systems. In July, the EU extended the scope of goods covered by its pioneering Anti-Torture Regulation. Significant progress was made in 2025 towards a binding UN tax convention. At COP30, civil society and trade union pressure helped adoption of a Just Transition Mechanism for the protection of workers and communities as countries shift to clean energy and a climate-resilient future. The International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued advisory opinions affirming state human rights obligations to respond to climate damage. Colombia and the Netherlands agreed to co-host the First International Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in April 2026. Countrywide strikes and actions by dockworkers mounted in France, Greece, Italy, Morocco, Spain and Sweden disrupted arms shipment routes to Israel. The governments of Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Colombia, Cuba, Honduras, Malaysia, Namibia, Slovenia, South Africa and Spain committed in 2025 to modify or halt arms trade with Israel. Women gained expanded abortion rights in Denmark, the Faroe Islands, Norway, Luxemburg, and Malawi. In Nepal, a youth-led uprising against corruption toppled the government.

Resist, we did. Resist, we must. And resist, we will.

This is not just another “challenging period”. It is the challenging moment, threatening to destroy all that was built up over the last 80 years. We the people will rise to this historical moment. We will have the ambition these times demand, and the courage to also change with them. We must do so as politicians and diplomats; as activists and consumers; as workers and producers; as an electorate and as investors; as persons of faith and people with the courage of our convictions. Together, we must build strong multi-stakeholder coalitions and encourage states to do the same.

Today “still we rise” means focusing on what must be defended as a matter of priority and at all costs, not only for the sake of our human rights but those of future generations too. In our resistance, we must also clearly identify what must be disrupted as a matter of absolute priority, among the tsunami of laws, policies, and practices unleashed by predatory State and non-State actors. Resistance also means getting clear about what must be transformed. Given the unprecedented pace and amount of change underway, we will have to turn once again to the power of our imagination and the daring of our creativity. We must imagine a transformed and transformative human rights vision for the world that we are becoming, not merely defend human rights in terms of the world we once were. Together, we must then lead that transformation into existence, with all our creativity, determination and resilience.

History is not just something that is done to us. It is also ours to make. And for the sake of humanity, it’s time to make human rights history.

Agnès Callamard

Secretary General

The post Secretary General Agnès Callamard’s reflections on the state of human rights in 2025/26 appeared first on Amnesty International.