In commenting on the sheer gravity of the crimes, the experts stated:

The deteriorating security situation in northern Nigeria and the Middle Belt has created an environment in which armed extremist groups, including Boko Haram, Islamic State West Africa Province [ISWAP], and radicalised individual herdsmen involved in the “farmer-herder” conflict continue to operate with devastating consequences for civilians, amid persistent reports of impunity, institutional failures, and inadequate protection by authorities.

Religious persecution in Nigeria against Christian and minority religious groups is a longstanding issue, with radical Islamic groups such as Boko Haram and various jihadist factions operating with the goal of eradicating the presence of these vulnerable groups and establishing strict Sharia law. Forced conversion is a commonly used tactic to exert control over these minority religious groups, with militants abducting schoolchildren from their educational institutions.

A high-profile example, which received international condemnation, was the 2014 Chibokschoolgirls kidnapping, in which 276 mostly Christian girls aged between 15 to 18 were kidnapped from a village in Borno state, forced to convert to Islam, subjected to sexual slavery, and forced to marry Boko Haram fighters. Although a large number of the girls managed to escape or have been released, the fate of a remaining 82 is uncertain. Tensions between settled Christian communities and Muslim semi-nomadic groups such as the Fulani have also exploded into violence; in December 2023, multiple villages were attacked in central Plateau state, resulting in at least 160 deaths.

June 2022 saw an armed attack on St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church in Ondo state during Sunday service that left over 50 people dead. In May 2022, Christian college student Deborah Yakubu was stoned to death by a mob in Sokoto state. Her murder came after her classmates accused her of making blasphemous sentiments in a WhatsApp group, an illustration of the deep ethnoreligious tensions in the West African region.

The widely reported executions of Christian students at Kaduna state’s Greenfield University in April 2021 resulted in rights groups criticizing the Nigerian government for its lack of accountability in protecting civilians. Religiously targeted sexual exploitation, with young women and girls sometimes coerced into performing sexual acts to access food, has also been seen in this culture of impunity.

From JURIST, June 8. Used with permission. Internal links added.

Several members of the Committee to Defend Prisoners of Conscience were arrested on May 25 after organizing an exhibition called “They Don’t Belong in Prison,” highlighting cases of persons unjustly detained for political reasons. They were charged with “disseminating false news,” and one activist, lawyer Mohamed Abu al-Dayyar, is also facing terrorism-related charges. Other prominent figures among the arrested are Dr. Hanan Altantawy and Wafaa al-Masry, who have been released on bail but still face criminal charges.

Amnesty International charged that the government is pursuing a “relentless crackdown on freedom of expression and peaceful assembly,” with “rampant use of arbitrary detention to intimidate activists.”

The Egyptian Human Rights Forum issued a joint statement decrying the arrests, stating that the activists’ prosecution “constitutes punishment for their political activism and their dedication to various causes.”

Amnesty International called for the immediate release of the detained activists, including Mohamed Abu al-Dayyar, and for charges to be dropped against Hanan Altantawy and Wafaa al-Masry. It urged the government to drop its façade of human rights progress when “it has no intention of changing course or addressing the country’s decade-long arbitrary detention crisis.”

Arbitrary detention, or deprivation of liberty in the course of exercising rights or freedoms, is a violation of international law, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

From JURIST, June 6. Used with permission.

See our last report on the crackdown in Egypt.

Image: Egyptian Human Rights Forum

Reporting on his visit to the CAR, Nononsi noted that despite the mostly peaceful electoral process that took place in December, the country continues to face instability due to attacks by armed groups against civilians, tensions involving nomadic pastoral communities, and spillover consequences of the conflict in Sudan. The reported attacks include forced displacements, extortion, and conflict-related sexual violence against women and girls.

The UN expert called on authorities to bring the perpetrators of rights violations to justice, and urged international partners to back CAR authorities’ efforts in combating violence and restoring security. He commended the significant role played by the Special Criminal Courtand called for its increased independence, as well as providing more support for national human rights institutions, including the National Human Rights Commission and the Truth, Justice, Reparations & Reconciliation Commission (CVJRR).

During his visit to the CAR, Nononsi met with senior representatives of the country’s authorities, UN agencies, civil society organizations, and international partners. He will present his detailed findings and recommendations in a full report to the UN Human Rights Council.

The Central African Republic has been struggling with an internal conflict between armed groups and government forces, in addition to general poverty and escalating climate hazards. In March 2025, the UN reported grave human rights violations committed by armed groups against civilians, which included torture, looting, and sexual violence against women and girls. The attacks in Haut Oubangui region, in the southeast of the country, mainly targeted Muslim communities and Sudanese refugees and asylum-seekers.

From JURIST, June 2. Used with permission.

Note: The report comes nine years after a peace accord that officially put an end to the CAR’s internal conflict.

Map via Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection

The rights organization emphasized that hostage-taking and the abduction of civilians are prohibited under international law.

The call comes weeks after armed groups from the Kuki and Naga communities reportedlyabducted more than 48 civilians in Manipur’s Kangpokpi and Senapati districts following an ambush by unknown armed men that killed three church leaders. The church leaders had recently participated in efforts to facilitate dialogue between Kuki and Naga groups in neighboring Nagaland. Kuki leaders blamed the slayings on the Zeliangrong United Front (ZUF), a Naga insurgent organization, sparking the inter-communal violence.

While 12 Naga and 16 Kuki captives have since been released, local organizations report that several civilians remain in captivity. Kuki Inpi Manipur (KIM), the apex body representing Kuki tribes in the state, stated that 14 Kuki civilians continue to be held by Naga groups. The possibility of a broader release appeared to diminish when the United Naga Council (UNC), a representative body for Naga tribes in Manipur, withdrew a proposal to release the remaining Kuki captives. The organization said the planned release had been cancelled due to the “prevailing sentiment of the Naga public,” and maintained that six Naga civilians being held by Kuki groups must first be released.

Conrad K. Sangma, president of the National People’s Party (NPP), which forms a part of the ruling coalition in Manipur, has urged both sides to ensure the immediate and unconditional release of all civilians being held. Sangma stated that the release of the remaining captives could serve as an important step toward reconciliation and lasting peace in the conflict-affected state.

Amnesty International and other human rights organizations have criticized Manipur state authorities and the Bharatiya Janata Party-led central government for failing to adequately protect civilians and prevent further violence. The group warned that the continued detention of civilians by armed groups underscores broader security concerns in Manipur, where ethnic tensions have fueled recurring violence and displacement since 2023.

The conflict has displaced more than 60,000 residents and resulted in at least 200 deaths since it broke out in May 2023, according to rights groups and government figures. Homes, businesses, villages and places of worship have been damaged or destroyed during successive waves of violence.

The violence has drawn condemnation from both domestic and international rights groups, which have repeatedly urged authorities to restore security and ensure accountability for abuses committed during the conflict. In February 2025, the government of India imposed an emergency state of “president’s rule” in Manipur following months of political instability and security concerns. The measure ended in February 2026, when Yumnam Khemchand Singh of the BJP assumed office as chief minister. However, incidents of violence and insecurity have continued in the state.

From JURIST, June 5. Used with permission.

See our last report on the struggle in Manipur.

Photo: Asia Media Centre

The 2006 violence began when the criminal organization Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC) launched coordinated prison rebellions and attacks on public officials after authorities transferred hundreds of suspected gang members to maximum-security prisons. The attacks included prison riots, shootings, and assaults on police and public facilities. During this period, 59 police and prison officers were killed.

According to human rights organizations and victims’ families, police officers and death squads carried out a retaliatory campaign that resulted in more than 500 deaths and at least four enforced disappearances. The victims were disproportionately young Black men from low-income communities, and many had no known connection to the criminal group whose attacks triggered the violence.

The UN experts’ statement comes weeks after rights organizations Conectas Direitos Humanos and the Independent Mothers of May Movement submitted an urgent appeal to the United Nations. The groups alleged that Brazil has failed to adequately address the crimes. They charged that authorities have not guaranteed victims’ “rights to memory, truth, reparations and non-repetition.” They also reported that many mothers and relatives affected by the violence continue to face poverty and social vulnerability because of the lack of state support and accountability.

The Mothers of May movement was formed by mothers and relatives of those killed during the violence. It first emerged after the death of Edson Rogério Silva dos Santos at the hands of police in São Paulo. His mother, Débora Maria da Silva, became one of the movement’s leading advocates for accountability. For two decades, the group has sought the reopening of investigations, the prosecution of those responsible, and reparations for victims and survivors.

The UN experts warned that denying justice on procedural grounds would reinforce impunity for racialized police violence. They noted that people of African descent continue to experience disproportionate levels of police violence in São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and other Brazilian cities.

The experts also linked the anniversary to wider concerns about accountability for violence against marginalized communities in Brazil. Earlier this year, UN experts described the upcoming trial of individuals accused of orchestrating the 2018 murders of Rio de Janeiro city councilor and human rights defender Marielle Franco and her driver, Anderson Gomes, as a test of Brazil’s ability to confront racism, discrimination and violence.

From JURIST, June 1. Used with permission. Internal links added.

See our last report on Brazil’s favela wars and the prison crisis in Latin America.

Photo: Conectas

According to the Tiananmen Mothers group, the authorities notified family members of people who lost their lives in the 1989 crackdown that they cannot travel to Beijing’s Wan’an Cemetery or conduct any commemoration in the cemetery. Sarah Brooks, Amnesty International’s deputy regional director for Asia, described the ban as “heartless,” saying:

The Tiananmen Mothers were not previously blocked from cemetery visits on the 4 June anniversary, and it is deeply troubling that this year the suppression of Tiananmen commemoration appears to be escalating—reflecting the government’s deep-seated insecurity about people’s demands for accountability.

Ahead of the anniversary, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a statement commemorating the Chinese civilians who lost their lives for exercising their right to peaceful assembly. He said in the statement: “No amount of censorship can erase the past.” Foreign embassies in China, including those of the UK, Canada and Australia, made similar social media posts to support survivors and families of those who lost their lives in the crackdown.

In a press conference on June 4, Mao Ning, spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, accused Rubio of distorting historical facts, smearing the Chinese political system, and interfering in China’s internal affairs.

In a June 1 press release, Human Rights Watch (HRW) also reported China’s intensifying efforts to quell commemorative activities. This includes preventing a gathering of the Tiananmen Mothers in December 2025, which has never happened since the group started meeting in 2009. HRW urged the Chinese authorities to permit an independent public inquiry into the killings, and respect the right to free speech and peaceful assembly.

The Tiananmen Mothers is an activist group made up of family members of people who lost their lives in the 1989 massacre and its aftermath. In May, the group urged the Chinese authorities to disclose the full truth of the crackdown, provide compensation for the victims and their families, and hold all responsible parties accountable.

On June 4, 1989, troops and tanks forcefully entered and cleared Tiananmen Square, where thousands of unarmed protesters, mostly students, had established an encampment. The occupation of the square began in April, when students gathered to commemorate the death of liberal Communist Party official Hu Yaobang, and call for political and economic reforms. The Chinese Communist Party called the movement a “political turmoil” that “Western hostile forces” instigated to counter socialism and the party. Hundreds and perhaps thousands were killed in the clearing of the square, with tens of thousands arrested in the subsequent repression across China.

Detained Hong Kong activist Chow Hang-tung has launched a 37-hour hunger strike in jail to commemorate the massacre. She has been in custody since September 2021, facing a charge of “incitement to subvert the state power,” with judgment expected in July. The prosecution has included footage of the annual candlelight vigils commemorating the massacre as evidence in the trial. The annual June 4 vigil in Hong Kong has been prohibited by authorities since 2020.

From JURIST, June 4. Used with permission. Internal links added.

See our last reports on the legacy of Tiananmen Square.

Photo: Hong Kong Alliance via Amnesty International

Ana Piquer, Americas director at Amnesty International, emphasized the many concerns raised leading up to the “grave event.”

Brooklyn Rivera should not have died in the custody of the Nicaraguan state. His death followed the deterioration of his health while he was being arbitrarily detained. During this time, the authorities held him without confirming his whereabouts, without access to his family or to trusted legal counsel, and without independent oversight to verify his situation. Amnesty International repeatedly warned that these circumstances placed his personal integrity and life at risk. Today, those warnings have materialized into a death that the state must explain.

On May 31, Nicaragua’s government attributed Rivera’s cause of death to a bacterial infection.

Last week the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) called for Rivera’s immediate release and urgent medical attention. WOLA raised concerns over his condition following the release of a statement and photographs by the Nicaraguan government on May 27 to provide proof of life, as requested by UN experts.

Jan-Michael Simon, chair of the UN Group, outlined the government’s legal obligations moving forward, stating:

Under international law, Nicaragua must conduct an independent investigation into Brooklyn Rivera’s death in custody, ensure a transparent forensic autopsy, return his remains to the family without delay, and guarantee accountability for his enforced disappearance and related violations.

Similarly, Piquer stressed the “right to truth,” stating that Nicaraguan authorities are obligated to provide “immediate and unrestricted access” to all information on his detention and death.

Rivera was arrested in September 2023 after he returned to Nicaragua despite being banned from the country for his remarks at the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in Geneva that April. He lived in hiding until he was apprehended and charged with “terrorism.” According to Reed Brody, human rights lawyer and member of the UN panel, “Nobody heard from him since then.”

Rivera was a renowned leader of the Miskito indigenous people. Beginning in the 1980s, Rivera fought the ruling Sandinista government, seeking to establish an autonomous region for the Miskito in Nicaragua’s east. After returning from exile in Costa Rica, he played a central role in winning pledges of regional autonomy in peace negotiations. In the late 1980s, he founded the indigenous political party YATAMA. A detailed history has been published by the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs.

“Brooklyn Rivera spent 40 years fighting for his people, and hopefully the international community will finally pay attention,” Brody said.

Rights groups are also calling for attention to those who remain imprisoned for “political reasons.” The UN Group has documented serious human rights violations against other members of YATAMA, and a total of 124 arbitrary detentions of Indigenous leaders between 2018 and 2024. There are nine other detained persons whose whereabouts are currently unknown.

From JURIST, June 1. Used with permission.

See our last reports on the career of Brooklyn Rivera.

Photo: Brooklyn Rivera family via Amnesty International

The Special Rapporteur on the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, Astrid Puentes Riaño, confirmed that she will testify before the Australian court as amicus curiae, an intervenor with a strong interest in the matter. Puentes Riaño will advise the court on the applicable international law on assessing climate impact before authorizing development projects.

Puentes Riaño is to intervene in light of last year’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision, in which the ICJ found that assessing the risk of significant harm, and exercising due diligence to avoid activities that cause significant damage to another state’s environment, constitute a customary legal obligation on states. Australia voted in the UN General Assembly to support a resolution endorsing the ICJ’s opinion on May 21.

“Advising States to help advance decisions based on international law and participating in priority legal cases aligns precisely with my mandate, as it was established by the Human Rights Council,” Puentes Riaño said in a statement.

The Australian Conservation Foundation initiated the judicial review in October. It asserts that the country’s Environmental Minister Murray Watt unlawfully approved extension of the North West Shelf (NWS) project’s operating life. The advocacy group argues that Watt wrongfully neglected the climate impact on the Dampier Archipelago, and approved the project without ascertaining the scale of the pollution.

In a parallel proceeding, Friends of Australian Rock Art asserted that Watt’s approval failed to consider the ongoing and irreversible damage to the Murujuga Cultural Landscape.

When approving the project’s extension for another 45 years in September 2025, Watt stated that he had imposed 48 strict conditions to mitigate the impact on the Murujuga rock art. One of the conditions requires that the operation site reduce 60% of its current gas emissions by 2030.

The NWS project is one of the largest LNG operation sites in the country, contributing $1.3 million USD to the Australian economy in 2024. According to a report prepared by the Australian Conservation Foundation that year, the operation site’s lifetime emissions would be 13 times more than the country’s annual emissions from all sources.

From JURIST, May 31. Used with permission.

Photo: UNESCO

HRW analyzed around 8,000 cases involving property seizures filed between March 2024 and January 2026 in 25 courts in occupied areas, with court records showing “consistent disregard of evidence of ownership and efforts by owners to assert their rights.” The seizure of property has affected millions of displaced Ukrainians or those who refuse to re-register their properties under Russian law, as they are stripped of shelter, income, or the means to sustain their lives. The rights group claims that this process undermines the prospect of refugees and internally displaced people returning home in “safety and dignity.”

HRW associate Ukraine director Yulia Gorbunova stated: “Millions of Ukrainians have been forced to flee their homes in areas under Russian occupation due to the ongoing war. Now they also face the unlawful seizure of their property as Russia blatantly disregards its obligations as an occupying power.”

In October 2022, Russian authorities introduced “an unlawful and opaque administrative process” in occupied areas, through which Ukrainian owners are required to re-register their property under Russian law by January 2028. Ukrainian property owners are also required to obtain Russian citizenship to participate in this process. The deadline, however, was later brought forward to July 2026, with Russian authorities claiming residents had already had “more than enough time” to re-register their property. The authorities designate the private property that is not re-registered as “ownerless,” after which courts transfer it to municipal ownership.

Following its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russia unilaterally annexed the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts (regions), imposing their own administrative and legal systems. This annexation has been rejected as unlawful under international law. Russian authorities have also “methodically made passportization a tool of administrative control by linking all essential services to accepting Russian citizenship,” including phone communication, as SIM cards from local operators now require Russian identification.

According to Maksym Beznosiuk, a strategic policy specialist: “Moscow’s ultimate objective is to force pro-Russian allegiance and erase any traces of Ukrainian identity. Ukrainians who resist these efforts are receiving administrative removal orders and forced expulsions.”

Article 51 of Customary International Humanitarian Law, which applies universally to all warring parties, prohibits an occupying power from confiscating private property without justification of military necessity. Regulation 46 of the Hague Convention (1907), to which Russia is a party, provides a similar prohibition.

From JURIST, May 28. Used with permission. Internal links added.

See our last report on Russian war crimes in Ukraine.

Map: PCL

The issue before the court was whether First Nations can assert Aboriginal title when private parties hold a fee simple interest in land. The top court’s refusal to hear the appeal makes final a lower court’s decision, holding that the Wolastoqey Nation cannot seek declarations of Aboriginal title over privately-owned lands but may seek damages against the government for unjustified infringement of Aboriginal title.

In response to the refusal, the Wolastoqey Nation maintained that it does not remove the government’s duty to First Nations. Chief Patricia Bernard of Madawaska said: “Our ancestors never surrendered our lands and waters. The Peace and Friendship Treaties signed with the British Crown in the 1700s were treaties of peace and alliance—not land surrender or cession. Our title has not been extinguished… The fight for our homeland will continue.”

In 2021, the six Wolastoqey Nation communities commenced an action against the Canadian and New Brunswick governments, and several private companies. They sought to assert Aboriginal title over government and private lands owned by the defendants. In 2024, Justice Kathryn A. Gregory removed the private defendants from the case, saying they had no direct legal relationships with the Wolastoqey. The ruling still allowed the plaintiffs to pursue claims against the government even over the private lands, finding that it has a reposnibility adjudicate or order resolutions in such cases.

In December 2025, however, a three-judge panel at the Court of Appeals of New Brunswick unanimously limited the claim only to government lands. Even when the Wolastoqey Nation can prove Aboriginal title existed before the government assigned the land to private owners, they may only seek compensation from the government in relation to the lands owned by private individuals—not actual restitution of the lands.

In August 2025, the Supreme Court of British Columbia adopted a different approach to the overlapping Aboriginal title and private ownership in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada. Justice Barbara M. Young held that Aboriginal title and fee simple interest can coexist on the same land, urging the government to negotiate with the First Nations communities. She issued a declaration rendering the fee simple interests defective and invalid for 18 months, allowing time for negotiation. The federal and provincial governments are appealing the decision.

At the House of Commons, Conservative lawmaker Jamie Schmale introduced a motion on May 25, calling on the government to take all necessary actions to prioritize private property in the Cowichan Tribes case over all other titles. It was defeated, with all parties except the Conservatives voting against the motion.

From JURIST, May 29. Used with permission.

See our last report on the Indigenous struggle in Canada.

Map of traditional Wabanaki Confederacy lands: Wikimedia Commons