Schlagwort: human rights

Reacting to the Russian Ministry of Justice’s move to seek to ban as “extremist” the leading LGBTI organizations in Russia – Russian LGBT Network and the Saint Petersburg-based group Vykhod (Coming Out) – Marie Struthers, Amnesty International’s Eastern Europe and Central Asia Director, said:

“The Russian authorities are once again abusing vague ‘extremism’ laws to criminalize human rights work, erase independent civil society and intimidate people whose identity does not fit a state-approved narrative.”

“This move reflects a deliberate strategy by the Kremlin to legitimize and weaponize homophobia in its assault on dissent and equality, non-discrimination, and human dignity. This cynical policy, conducted under the pretext of ‘protecting traditional values,’ creates enduring rifts in society, stigmatizes entire communities and does real harm to many people.

This move reflects a deliberate strategy by the Kremlin to legitimize and weaponize homophobia in its assault on dissent and equality, non-discrimination, and human dignity

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

“Russia’s authorities must immediately halt their vicious campaign against LGBTI people, end all attempts to undermine, stigmatize and persecute LGBTI organizations and rights activists, and ensure that everyone – regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity – can exercise their rights to freedom of association and expression without fear of discrimination.”

Background

On 2 February, the Joint Press Service of the Courts of Saint Petersburg announced that the Ministry of Justice had filed lawsuits seeking to have the two prominent LGBTI initiatives designated as “extremist organizations” and banned. Saint Petersburg City Court will hear both cases on 24 February. The hearings will be closed to the public as the lawsuit purportedly contains “secret documents.”

In November 2023, Russia’s Supreme Court declared the non-existent “international LGBT movement” as “extremist,” which led to a wave of arrests, detentions and fines of individuals for displaying rainbow flags and other symbols associated with LGBTI rights. In November 2025, the Ministry of Justice’s Samara regional branch filed a lawsuit to declare the local queer initiative Irida “extremist,” following 2024 targeting by authorities of its head Artyom Fokin under “extremist” and “foreign agents” legislation.

The post Russia: Authorities seeking to use “extremism” laws as pretext to ban leading LGBTI organizations appeared first on Amnesty International.

• Escapees tell of brutal system of arbitrary punishments for watching South Korean TV
• Wealthy can escape harshest penalties by bribing corrupt officials
• Children ‘forced to watch’ public executions as warning not to consume foreign media

North Koreans caught watching South Korean television shows face public humiliation, years in labour camps or even execution – with the harshest punishments for those too poor to pay bribes, according to testimonies given to Amnesty International.

North Koreans who fled the country have told Amnesty of an arbitrary and corrupt system where secret consumption of South Korean TV is widespread but the penalties for violating vaguely worded “culture” laws banning foreign media are determined largely by wealth and connections.

Many of those interviewed recounted living in constant fear of home raids and arbitrary detention, while some said they were forced to watch public executions as schoolchildren as part of their “ideological education”.

“These testimonies show how North Korea is enforcing dystopian laws that mean watching a South Korean TV show can cost you your life – unless you can afford to pay,” said Sarah Brooks, Amnesty International’s Deputy Regional Director.

“The authorities criminalize access to information in violation of international law, then allow officials to profit off those fearing punishment. This is repression layered with corruption, and it most devastates those without wealth or connections.”

Laws criminalizing freedom of expression

Amnesty International conducted 25 in-depth individual interviews with North Korean escapees in 2025. The group included 11 individuals who fled North Korea between 2019 and 2020, with the most recent departure in June 2020. Most were aged between 15 and 25 at the time of their escape. Covid-19 border closures have made escapes extremely rare since 2020.

North Korea has long maintained one of the world’s most restrictive information environments. Testimonies gathered by Amnesty International describe how accessing foreign culture or information was being actively punished, including by execution, at least before 2020.

The introduction of the 2020 Anti-Reactionary Thought and Culture Act, which defines South Korean content as “rotten ideology that paralyzes the people’s revolutionary sense”, enables these severe punishments to persist. The new law mandates between five and 15 years of forced labour for watching or possessing South Korean dramas, films or music and prescribes heavy sentences including the death penalty for the distribution of “large amounts” of content or for organizing group viewings.

Despite the severe risks, interviewees described a society in which consumption of South Korean and other foreign media are widespread. Dramas and films are commonly smuggled in on USB drives from China, which young North Koreans watch on “notetels” – notebook computers with built-in televisions.

‘People sell their houses to get out of camps’

North Koreans who fled the country between 2012 and 2020 told Amnesty International that people commonly watched South Korean TV knowing that they risked extreme punishment, but also that it was possible to escape the worst penalties if you were able to pay.

“People are caught for the same act, but punishment depends entirely on money,” said Choi Suvin, 39, who left North Korea in 2019. “People without money sell their houses to gather 5,000 or 10,000 USD to pay to get out of the re-education camps.”

Kim Joonsik, 28, was caught watching South Korean dramas three times before leaving the country in 2019, but avoided punishment because his family had connections to officials.

“Usually when high school students are caught, if their family has money, they just get warnings,” he said. “I didn’t receive legal punishment because we had connections.”

But he said three of his sisters’ high school friends received years-long sentences in labour camps in the late 2010s for watching South Korean dramas. Their families could not afford bribes. When Kim’s own sister was arrested, the family paid USD 9,000 to secure her release before the case progressed to formal charges.

The bribes described by Choi and Kim – from between USD 5,000 to 10,000 – represent several years’ worth of income for most North Korean families, making them unreachable for all but the wealthiest.

‘Everyone knows everyone watches’

For decades, North Korea’s government has reportedly deployed a specialized law enforcement unit to crack down on foreign media consumption. Referred to as the “109 Group”, the unit conducts warrantless home and street searches of bags and mobile phones. Fifteen interviewees from different regions mentioned the 109 Group to Amnesty, indicating a nationwide, systematic approach to enforcement of these restrictive laws.

Workers watch it openly, party officials watch it proudly, security agents watch it secretly, and police watch it safely. Everyone knows everyone watches, including those who do the crackdowns.

Kim Gayoung, 32, who left North Korea in 2020

Interviewees said security officials actively solicit bribes from people arrested for consuming foreign media, and from their families. One escapee who had been caught watching foreign media quoted members of the 109 Group telling them: “We don’t want to punish you harshly, but we need to bribe our bosses to save our own lives.”

The arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of laws is systematic. Officials who most likely consume South Korean media themselves arrest and prosecute others for identical conduct. One interviewee described the open secret: “Workers watch it openly, party officials watch it proudly, security agents watch it secretly, and police watch it safely. Everyone knows everyone watches, including those who do the crackdowns.”

Nonetheless, it appears that periodic crackdowns have temporarily disrupted the usual operation of this system of bribery.Kim Gayoung, 32, who left North Korea in June 2020, described how North Korean leader Kim Jong Un began ordering ‘intensive crackdown’ campaigns in the late 2010s. During these periods, officials faced pressure to demonstrate enforcement results, making bribes less effective even for wealthy or well-connected families.

“My cousin worked at the People’s Committee [the local government administrative body]. He said when someone was caught, no one would help them out. Even with bribes or connections, there was no guarantee of help because the crackdowns had become so severe,” she said.

‘Tens of thousands gathered to watch executions’

Interviewees described how North Korea uses public executions to terrorize entire communities into compliance. Choi Suvin witnessed a public execution in Sinuiju, North Pyongan Province “in 2017 or 2018” of someone accused of distributing foreign media.

“Authorities told everyone to go, and tens of thousands of people from Sinuiju city gathered to watch,” she said. “They execute people to brainwash and educate us.”

People were executed for watching or distributing South Korean media. It’s ideological education: if you watch, this happens to you too.

Kim Eunju, 40, who left North Korea in 2019

Some interviewees described schools systematically forcing students to attend public executions as part of “ideological education”. Executions were carried out by firing squad – in one case witnessed, a squad of 10 people fired approximately 30 rounds at the condemned person. Authorities in some cases placed a substance in victims’ mouths to prevent them from speaking before execution. 

“When we were 16, 17, in middle school, they took us to executions and showed us everything,” said Kim Eunju, 40, who fled in 2019. “People were executed for watching or distributing South Korean media. It’s ideological education: if you watch, this happens to you too.”

An interviewee who left in 2017 described how “all” middle and high schools in Chongjin, North Hamgyong Province, were ordered to watch executions. “The message is: this is what happens [when you watch South Korean shows]. I saw two executions, both times in middle school.”

Schools also serve as sites for public humiliation. Kim Yerim, 26, who escaped in 2019, witnessed 10 high school seniors subjected to hours-long “public criticism” sessions for having watched foreign TV.

“Authorities gathered elementary, middle and high school students to show what happens when you do wrong,” she said. “For several hours, officials from the Youth League and other Party organizations criticized the accused, saying ‘your spirit is corrupted,’ ‘you lack ideological preparedness.’”

Schools conduct regular ideological education sessions on the dangers of foreign media. Kim Gayoung described weekly “ideological education” sessions where “teachers explain the laws and new rules”, while other sessions involve witnessing trials.

A system built on corruption and fear

Amnesty International is calling on the North Korean government to respect and protect freedom of expression, including the right to access information, and urgently repeal all laws that unjustly criminalize access to information, including the 2020 Anti-Reactionary Thought and Culture Act. It must abolish the death penalty for all offences, and as a first step urgently establish an official moratorium on all executions, including public executions. Children, in particular, must be protected from the cruel exposure to public executions.

The government must also end the use of arbitrary detention and cease discriminatory treatment based on wealth or social status. Authorities must ensure equal application of the law and guarantee fair trial rights for all persons accused of crimes in line with international standards.

“This government’s fear of information has effectively placed the entire population in an ideological cage, suffocating their access to the views and thoughts of other human beings. People who strive to learn more about the world outside North Korea, or seek simple entertainment from overseas, face the harshest of punishments,” Sarah Brooks said.

“This completely arbitrary system, built on fear and corruption, violates fundamental principles of justice and internationally recognized human rights. It must be dismantled so that North Koreans can dare to enjoy the freedoms to which they are entitled.”

Background

Covid-19 border closures from 2020 to 2023 largely halted North Koreans leaving the country, with arrivals in South Korea plummeting from 1,047 in 2019 to 224 in 2025. The escape process itself typically takes months to years, during which individuals are at risk of human rights violations and abuses. This traumatic journey means escapees often need time before they can provide testimony. Upon arrival in South Korea, they must complete debriefing by South Korean authorities and resettlement programmes.

While Amnesty International publicly and regularly reports on the resort to public executions in North Korea, along with other alarming practices, due to severe restrictions on access to information the organization has been unable to independently verify the extensive use of the death penalty in North Korea. The adoption of the Reactionary Thought and Culture Law in 2020 signified a codification of some of these harsh penalties.

The experiences shared by escapees who left North Korea before 2020 appear consistent with practices allowed for in North Korean laws and policies of more recent years. They also show internal consistency across different time periods and regions and align with findings from UN agencies, notably the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Testimonies gathered by Amnesty International in 2025 indicate that the consumption of foreign media was criminalized, prosecuted and punished including by death before the 2020 law came into effect. Testimonies collected in separate research, and in media reports, have also indicated that extrajudicial executions have been carried out without any investigation, trial or sentencing.

However, Amnesty International was unable to determine if other laws were used to convict people in these cases, and which ones, or whether the executions witnessed by interviewees were carried out extrajudicially. Amnesty International opposes the death penalty unconditionally, in any cases and under any circumstances.

North Korea’s laws and practices violate international human rights law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which it ratified in 1981. Systematically forcing children to witness public executions constitutes multiple grave violations and also violates children’s rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which North Korea ratified in 1990. 

Since the 1953 armistice that paused but did not formally end the Korean War, North and South Korea have remained technically at war, with the two countries remaining deeply divided.

Amnesty International wrote to the government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, sharing these research findings and inviting a response to the allegations documented. No response has yet been received.

*All names are pseudonyms to protect interviewees.

The post North Korea: People ‘executed for watching South Korean TV’, bribery to escape punishment widespread appeared first on Amnesty International.

The 3 January US attack on Venezuela was an unlawful use of force under the UN Charter, further threatening the rules-based international order. Meanwhile, the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Maduro government against the Venezuelan people remain without justice or guarantees of non-repetition, warned Amnesty International today.

“The US military operation in Venezuela constitutes a clear violation of the UN Charter. It is an act of aggression that endangers civilians and tears apart the guardrails of international law. Not only was the Trump administration’s use of force illegal, but it could encourage unlawful actions by other states and herald similar future actions by the USA,” said Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General.

As President Trump himself has stated, control over resources and geopolitical power in the region have largely driven the 3 January attack. He has since openly claimed authority to direct policy in Venezuela, even as acting President Delcy Rodríguez maintains defiant rhetoric while effectively cooperating with the USA. Amid the uncertainty generated by the volatile internal situation and the persistence of the state’s repressive apparatus, the Venezuelan population faces increasing US interference, failure to deliver comprehensive and lasting human rights solutions, and threats of further harm to their rights and security.

Amnesty International unequivocally condemns both the unlawful use of force by the United States and the multiple crimes by the Venezuelan authorities against the people of Venezuela.

Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General

“Impunity for the crimes against humanity committed by Venezuelan authorities under Maduro for more than a decade is so far continuing under Delcy Rodríguez’s acting government. Even as prisoners are being released, no meaningful steps toward justice, nor guarantees of non-repetition, have been taken. At the same time, threats to civic space continue, and human rights defenders and their organizations continue to face the risk of persecution and criminalization,” said Agnès Callamard.

“Let us be clear: Amnesty International unequivocally condemns both the unlawful use of force by the United States and the multiple crimes by the Venezuelan authorities against the people of Venezuela. Denouncing the United States’ illegal military action must in no way overshadow the urgent need for accountability and reparation for the Venezuelan government’s litany of grave human rights violations and crimes against humanity.

“Two wrongs don’t make a right. There must be full accountability and redress for the Trump administration’s illegal attack on Venezuela, and for the crimes under international law committed by the Venezuelan authorities.”

President Trump’s open-ended threats to escalate unilateral military action elsewhere, paired with rhetoric about “running” Venezuela and controlling its oil, accelerate the dismantling of the rules of international law designed to protect civilians and prevent conflict, threatening human rights across the world. Since attacking Venezuela, President Trump has threatened to use military force against Colombia, Cuba, Greenland, Iran and Mexico. Meanwhile, China continues to engage in threatening actions against Taiwan and its neighbors, and Russia continues its aggression against Ukraine and has engaged in overflights into NATO airspace.

“Make no mistake, these are calculated efforts to normalize a ‘might-makes-right’ approach to foreign affairs and sideline the UN Charter, Geneva Conventions, human rights treaties, and other bedrocks of international order. Other states must push back against these reckless efforts to dismantle the global rules designed to maintain peace, protect civilians in conflict, and guarantee the human rights of all people everywhere.”

Why this was an unlawful use of force, and an act of aggression

International law could not be clearer: Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state; Article 2(3) requires peaceful settlement of disputes. The Friendly Relations Declaration (UNGA 2625) codifies the ban on armed intervention. And UNGA Resolution 3314 defines aggression, noting that a state’s first use of armed force in violation of the Charter is prima facie evidence of an act of aggression, including bombardment or attacks on another state’s armed forces. The 3 January operation involved precisely those modalities.

The US government started its military escalation with extrajudicial executions in international waters and carried out the capture of Nicolás Maduro under the pretext of fighting drug trafficking, only to reveal with no ambiguity its real motivation: the control of Venezuela’s natural resources. But beyond the ever-changing official justification given, the facts are unequivocal and constitute grave violations of international law. Even if the US government’s claims of countering drug trafficking were accepted, it would still be unlawful to exercise enforcement jurisdiction on the territory of another state without its consent, a violation of sovereignty long recognized in international law. Drug trafficking allegations are not an “armed attack” that can trigger self-defense under Article 51 of the Charter.

The Inter-American Juridical Committee has likewise affirmed that, for OAS member states, the only exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force are self-defense and UN Security Council authorization, limits whose purpose is precisely to safeguard peace and human rights in the region.

No label can convert a bombardment into ‘law enforcement.’ The facts, not political rhetoric, determine the applicable law.

Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General

The US attack clearly meets three of the seven prohibited acts that Resolution 3314 defines as constituting acts of aggression: “The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State”; “bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State”; and an “attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State”.

International human rights law applies at all times. The UN Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No. 36 makes clear that acts of aggression resulting in deprivation of life violate Article 6 of the ICCPR ipso facto, and that failure to resolve disputes by peaceful means may breach the duty to protect life.

“No label can convert a bombardment into ‘law enforcement.’ The facts, not political rhetoric, determine the applicable law. Without Security Council authorization or a genuine case of self-defense, the USA’s unilateral use of force against Venezuela was unlawful, and an act of aggression. The right to life is not suspended when a government chooses to ignore the UN Charter,” said Agnès Callamard.

Inside Venezuela: a machinery of repression that did not stop on 3 January

For years, Amnesty International and multiple international investigations have documented the systematic policy of repression, including arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, extrajudicial executions, torture, and other ill treatment, particularly targeting human rights defenders, political opponents, protesters, journalists, and real or perceived critics of the government.

In 2019, Amnesty International established the existence of a widespread and systematic attack by the Venezuelan authorities under Nicolás Maduro against the civilian population, finding that crimes against humanity had been committed since at least 2014. The organization has since published further evidence of persecution and enforced disappearances as well as other crimes against humanity, while calling for and backing investigations by the UN Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela and the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), as well as ongoing criminal investigations under the principle of universal jurisdiction in Argentina.

“Crimes against humanity do not end with Maduro’s removal. Venezuelan victims, survivors, and their families continue to carry physical and psychological scars. The fate and whereabouts of many people subjected to enforced disappearance remain unresolved. The state machinery responsible for those crimes is still firmly in place, now supported by the US authorities’ involvement,” said Agnès Callamard.

During the first days of Delcy Rodríguez’s interim government, security forces and intelligence agencies (the civilian Bolivarian Service of National Intelligence, SEBIN; and the military General Direction of Military Counterintelligence, DGCIM) and pro-government armed groups have continued to detain people, surveil communities, and intimidate those suspected of supporting the 3 January attack, including by establishing checkpoints and forcing individuals to unlock their phones for arbitrary checks. There were reports of arbitrary detentions – including 14 journalists while covering an official press conference who have since been released – threats, and reprisals, echoing the well-documented patterns of the past decade.

More recently, after the Rodríguez government announced mass releases on 8 January, hundreds of people who were unfairly imprisoned have been freed. On 31 January, acting president Delcy Rodríguez also announced an amnesty law, intended to benefit all those accused of crimes since 1999, and the closure of the major detention facility El Helicoide, which would supposedly be converted into a social centre.

The US administration’s actions currently make the prospect of any potential justice proceedings concerning Nicolás Maduro much more challenging and complex.

Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General

While these announcements are welcome, the amnesty law on its own is far from sufficient if there are no guarantees of non-repetition, including the repeal of laws and the dismantling of state agencies that have enabled arbitrary detentions and other serious human rights violations. Amnesty International has witnessed before how authorities release detainees as a gesture of goodwill, only for new waves of detention to be carried out shortly afterwards. Additionally, it is unclear whether the amnesty law might extend to state agents, potentially turning it into a mechanism for impunity, an outcome that must not be allowed.

Similarly, the closure of El Helicoide is wholly inadequate to end the serious crimes committed there. Local NGOs have documented politically motivated arbitrary detentions in dozens of other facilities across the country, and there is evidence of clandestine detention centres operating outside any legal framework.

Finally, the restrictive laws that prevent civil society organizations from fully exercising their rights to defend human rights remain untouched. These legal obstacles continue to severely limit victims, their relatives, activists, and organizations from pursuing justice and accountability.

“Authorities in Venezuela must immediately release all arbitrarily detained individuals, with no exceptions, end enforced disappearances and torture immediately, and guarantee the rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly. Anything less perpetuates further cycles of violations, entrenches impunity and denies victims their right to truth, justice, and reparation,” said Agnès Callamard.

In 2020, the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC stated that it believed there was a “reasonable basis to conclude” that crimes against humanity had been committed in Venezuela since at least April 2017, and in November 2021 the Prosecutor formally opened an investigation. Since then, Pre-Trial Chamber I and the ICC Appeals Chamber have authorized the continuation of the investigation despite Venezuela’s attempts to halt it, noting that domestic authorities have not demonstrated genuine proceedings regarding the same categories of perpetrators, namely senior officials and members of state security forces. Given this consistent pattern of findings, including the documented chain of command, the central role of the presidency in Venezuela’s security and intelligence apparatus, and the scale and systematic nature of the violations, Nicolás Maduro is among the individuals most likely to fall within the ICC’s investigative and prosecutorial scope should the evidence meet the Rome Statute thresholds for individual criminal responsibility.

“Venezuelan victims have a right to truth, justice, and reparation for crimes against humanity they have suffered. We call on the International Criminal Court to expedite its work, including issuing arrest warrants when the evidentiary threshold is met. Justice delayed is justice denied, especially for Venezuelans who have waited years to be heard. However, the US administration’s actions currently make the prospect of any potential justice proceedings concerning Nicolás Maduro much more challenging and complex,” said Agnès Callamard.

A dangerous precedent beyond Venezuela

Since taking this action, President Trump has effectively asserted that he does not consider himself bound by international law, and that the Western Hemisphere is a region the United States is entitled to control, even through armed force, as it sees fit; a position increasingly referred to as the so-called “Donroe Doctrine”. This is not the first unilateral use of force by the United States, but it may be the first time the USA has attempted to justify its actions in a way that is blatantly misaligned with the principles of international law. Instead, President Trump and his top senior aides appear intent on declaring themselves unconstrained by the international legal framework that the United States itself helped design after the Second World War.

Today’s silence will be tomorrow’s permission slip. States must draw a clear line, here and now.

Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General

The 3 January strike also caps months of lethal US strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific – conduct that Amnesty International and many legal experts have denounced as constituting extrajudicial executions. At least one additional strike has taken place since the act of aggression. The buildup of US naval assets in the Caribbean and declared intent to use force against criminal groups further blurred the line between law enforcement and war, feeding fears of regional escalation.

What must happen now: our demands for protection and justice

All states should reassert the primacy of the UN Charter and the global consensus on the peremptory nature of the prohibition of the use of force in international relations. In multilateral fora and bilateral engagements, governments must reject the normalization of unilateral uses of force as a tool of policy, and center civilian protection and human rights.

“Today’s silence will be tomorrow’s permission slip. States must draw a clear line, here and now. The suffering of those harmed by unlawful force and the suffering of those brutalized by their own authorities are not competing tragedies. The only path that respects their dignity is one rooted in law: comply with international law, protect civilians, investigate violations, and guarantee justice,” said Agnès Callamard.

The United States must cease lethal strikes against alleged drug boats and any further use or threat of force against Venezuela. Where credible evidence shows civilian deaths or unlawful killings, it must investigate promptly, independently and impartially, and provide reparations. These steps are essential not only under international law, but also to restore minimal trust that civilians are not bargaining chips in a geopolitical gambit.

The Venezuelan authorities must end crimes against humanity: guarantee the right to life and release all those who are still arbitrarily detained; halt enforced disappearances, torture, and other ill treatment; dismantle pro-government armed groups, which are also responsible for serious human rights violations; and guarantee the rights to freedom of expression, association, political participation and peaceful assembly, including by repealing the laws that have been named as “anti-NGO legislation”. The authorities should dismantle the policy of repression as a whole and put guarantees of non-repetition in place, starting by strengthening the independence of the judiciary and other institutions within the state. Perpetrators of these crimes must be held accountable and victims’ rights to justice, reparation and guarantees of non-repetition must be fulfilled. The renewed context cannot serve as a pretext for entrenching the machinery of repression.

The post USA: Act of aggression against Venezuela further weakens rules-based international order and leaves Venezuelans still waiting for justice appeared first on Amnesty International.

In response to the 1 Feb ruling by the Court of Appeal in Oum El Bouaghi to uphold the conviction of trade unionist and human rights defender Ali Mammeri, and reduce his prison sentence from 15 to 10 years, Diana Eltahawy, Deputy Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International said:  

The court’s deeply unjust decision to uphold Ali Mammeri’s conviction on baseless charges is another clear assault on peaceful dissent and independent union activity in Algeria.

Diana Eltahawy, Deputy Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International

“The court’s deeply unjust decision to uphold Ali Mammeri’s conviction on baseless charges is another clear assault on peaceful dissent and independent union activity in Algeria. Ali Mammeri’s 10-year prison sentence is deeply arbitrary and sends an alarming signal to other trade unionists in the country. 

“The unfounded charges against him, of ‘glorification of terrorist acts’ and ‘dissemination of classified information’, are the result of nothing more than his union activism, including his union sharing information about workers’ rights with the International Labour Organization. The Algerian authorities must immediately and unconditionally release Ali Mammeri and quash his conviction. 

“Using torture-tainted statements to support a conviction is a grave violation of his right to a fair trial. It is also imperative that the authorities promptly open an independent, impartial, and effective investigation into Ali Mammeri’s allegations of being beaten, stripped naked, and forced to ‘confess’ during interrogation by police.” 

Background 

Ali Mammeri is a civil servant, human rights defender, and the president and founder of the independent National Union of Civil Servants in the Field of Culture and Arts (SNFC), affiliated with the Trade Union Confederation of Productive Forces (COSYFOP). 

In March 2025, he was arrested without a warrant and held in incommunicado detention for four days, while his family and lawyers were denied information about his fate and whereabouts, subjecting him to enforced disappearance. During his interrogation, he reported being repeatedly beaten and stripped naked to force a “confession.” His family’s attempts to file a formal complaint for torture have so far been ignored by the authorities. On 29 October 2025, the Criminal Court of First Instance of Oum El Bouaghi sentenced Ali Mammeri to 15 years in prison.  

The charges against him rely on the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation and legislation regarding the “protection of administrative documents.” He was convicted on the basis of his private and professional communications and Facebook posts about other detained activists; activities protected under international human rights law. Algerian authorities have been using such overly broad counter-terrorism legislation to unduly restrict civic space and criminalize legitimate trade union activity. 

The post Algeria: Trade unionist Ali Mammeri faces 10 years in prison after court upholds his unjust conviction   appeared first on Amnesty International.

Israeli Knesset members must vote against a series of bills introducing controversial amendments that would allow Israeli courts to expand their use of death sentences with discriminatory application against Palestinians, said Amnesty International, ahead of an expected vote on one of the main bills by the Knesset’s National Security Committee. The death penalty would apply to defendants convicted of intentionally killing a person with the purpose of harming an Israeli citizen or resident, or to those convicted by military courts of causing death in circumstances defined under Israeli law as “acts of terrorism,” a provision that would primarily affect Palestinian defendants. In some cases, the death penalty would be mandatory or imposed without the right to appeal.

One of the proposed bills, which passed a first reading in the Knesset in November 2025, seeks to amend both military law applicable in the occupied West Bank, excluding occupied East Jerusalem, and laws that apply in Israel and illegally annexed East Jerusalem, in order to expand the offences punishable by death and remove key due process safeguards.

“Israel’s Knesset is moving against the global trend towards the abolition of the death penalty and is instead seeking to create new avenues for imposing death sentences. Rather than fast-tracking discriminatory bills that would serve as yet another tool within Israel’s institutionalized system of apartheid against all Palestinians whose rights it controls, Knesset members should immediately drop these amendments,” said Amnesty International’s Senior Director for Research, Advocacy, Policy and Campaigns, Erika Guevara Rosas.

“With these bills, the Israeli government is brazenly granting itself carte blanche to impose death sentences on Palestinians. Any death sentences imposed under these amendments would constitute a violation of the right to life and, when imposed by a military court may also amount to war crimes.”

In addition to expanding offences punishable by death, the bills introduce special procedures that strip away key fair‑trial and human rights safeguards under international human rights law. These include restricting access to information about executions on vague “security” grounds; authorizing ad hoc military courts ruling on offences related to the 7 October attacks to deviate from standard procedures and evidentiary rules, thereby further limiting the rights of individuals facing the death penalty; and permitting executions without judicial or religious representatives present.

With these bills, the Israeli government is brazenly granting itself carte blanche to impose death sentences on Palestinians.

Erika Guevara Rosas, Amnesty International

Israel has not carried out an execution in more than 60 years. The proposed legislative measures would also represent an alarming 20-year setback following Israel’s past engagement since 2007 on UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a moratorium on executions towards the abolition of the death penalty.

The proposed amendments to the military laws would grant military court judges across the occupied West Bank, excluding occupied East Jerusalem, to impose a mandatory death sentence by simple majority of a three-judge court, and even in cases where the prosecution has not requested it. Death sentences could not be commuted or pardoned and would have to be carried out within 90 days, in a stark violation of restrictions and safeguards established under international law. These West Bank military courts have jurisdiction over Palestinians and foreigners, but not over Israeli settlers living in illegal settlements, who are tried before civilian courts in Israel under civilian laws.

Any death sentences imposed under these amendments would constitute a violation of the right to life and, when imposed by a military court may also amount to war crimes.

Erika Guevara Rosas, Amnesty International

A second bill proposing additional legislative measures would grant special jurisdiction to ad hoc military courts to try individuals accused of having committed offences in connection with the 7 October 2023 attacks “according to any laws”, including Israel’s genocide law, and to impose death sentences with a simple majority of the panel of sitting judges. This bill was approved at its first reading at the Knesset on 13 January 2026. The Constitution, Law and Justice Committee of the Knesset is set to resume its consideration of this bill on 4 February.

“If adopted, these amendments will further reinforce the matrix of longstanding dehumanizing laws, policies, practices and unchecked public narratives that have enabled Israel’s ongoing genocide against Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip and sustained its system of apartheid over all Palestinians. This is also happening against the backdrop of the documented, widespread and rampant torture and other ill-treatment of Palestinian prisoners by Israeli authorities, and the spike in Palestinian deaths in custody since late 2023, as well as the rise in numbers of Palestinians unlawfully killed in apparent acts of extrajudicial executions over the past decade,” said Erika Guevara Rosas.

“Members of the Knesset must staunchly oppose these bills and scrap all legislative measures aimed at introducing, expanding and facilitating the use of the death penalty, with a clear goal of ensuring its full abolition. The international community, in particular Israel’s strong allies, must vocally oppose Israel’s legislative amendments that would further entrench its cruel system of apartheid against Palestinians. They must not turn their gaze away and embolden Israel’s violations of Palestinians’ rights by granting it further impunity.”

Background

Israel abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes in 1954 but has retained this punishment for offences under the Genocide Act and for treason under the Penal Law. The last execution was carried out in 1962.  

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception, regardless of who is accused, the nature or circumstances of crime, guilt, innocence, or the method used. As of today, 113 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes, including seven since 2020.

The post Israel/OPT: Knesset must drop discriminatory death penalty bills that would further entrench Israel’s system of apartheid appeared first on Amnesty International.