Explore the vast range of titles available.

On March 13, 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Ukraine violated the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to prevent and effectively investigate violence erupted during the May 2, 2014 clashes in Odesa.

On January 20, 2025 the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Italy violated the right to life (Article 2 of the Convention) and the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 of the Convention). The ruling was based on Italy's prolonged failure to address widespread illegal waste dumping by organized criminal groups in the Terra dei Fuochi (Land of Pyres) region near Naples.

On June 26, 2024, Trial Chamber X found Al Hassan guilty of some of the charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity brought against him for acts committed between April 2, 2012, and January 29, 2013, in Timbuktu. According to a press release issued by the Court, the Court found that Al Hassan became a senior member of the Islamic Police and was given the task of, among other things, organizing police work. The Islamic Police played a “pivotal” role in the system put in place by armed groups Ansar Dine and Al-Qaida in Islamic Maghreb (AQIM)—a system put in place to commit the crimes at issue. The Court also determined that Al Hassan contributed to the police system put in place by Ansar Dine and AQIM through actions including writing and signing police reports, taking part in the transfer of accused persons to the Islamic Court, and implementing the Court's judgments and sentences. He was committed of the direct commission of crimes, contributing to crimes with others, and aiding and abetting the crimes of others in relation to crimes against humanity and torture, and the war crimes of torture and outrages upon personal dignity. He was convicted of contributing to crimes of Ansar Dine and AQIM in relation to the war crimes of mutilation, cruel treatment and passing sentences without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable, and the crimes against humanity of persecution and other inhumane acts.

On May 23, 2024, the Fifth Section of the Court issued its judgment in Saakashvili v. Georgia concerning the immunity of former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili from prosecution for acts committed while in office. After giving up his Georgian citizenship and becoming a Ukrainian national, Saakashvili was convicted in absentia in two separate sets of criminal proceedings against him and was sentenced to a total of six years in prison. As part of a larger effort to make reparations for past wrongdoing, the Georgian Government received over 20,000 complaints from people claiming to be victims of serious human rights violations committed during the rule of Saakashvili's political party, the United National Movement, and under his presidency. The first case concerned a July 2005 attack on a member of parliament who was forced out of his car, beaten by several men, and was left permanently disfigured. The member of parliament alleged that the attack was retaliation for an interview he gave in which he spoke negatively about Saakashvili and his wife. The second case concerned Saakashvili's pardoning of four former high-ranking officials of the Ministry of the Interior who had been convicted of murder. That led to a separate investigation being opened in 2014 to explore charges of abuse of power.

On February 16, 2024, the UK Central Criminal Court handed down its sentence in the unprecedented female genital mutilation (FGM) case against British national Amina Noor for her role in carrying out an FGM procedure performed on a UK citizen abroad.

This is the latest judgment in a case filed in 2020 by the state of Missouri against several named defendants and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) for allegedly allowing COVID-19 to spread, engaging in a coverup of the virus, and hoarding PPE, such as high-quality masks, which caused the virus to spread further. In July 2022, the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed the complaint, finding that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) applied to all the defendants in the case, including the CCP and that neither the commercial activity exception or the noncommercial torts exception applied. The Court of Appeals affirmed, barring one difference. The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that the FSIA applied to all the defendants and that neither exception raised applied. However, it reversed the lower court's dismissal of the PPE hoarding claim, finding that that the taking over of “mask-producing factories and buying up a substantial portion of the world's supply of personal-protective equipment” was commercial in nature.

On December 19, 2023, the Svea Court of Appeal in Sweden issued its judgment in the above case affirming the conviction and sentencing of Hossein Seyed Ahmadi, an Iranian citizen, for grave breaches of international humanitarian law and murder that took place in Iran in 1988. Specifically, he was charged with having executed prisoners associated with the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran in the Gohardasht prison. Though the Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction of grave breaches of IHL with regard to some of the prisoners at issue, it found overall that the district court was correct in holding that the prosecutor substantiated the charges levied against Ahmadi. With regard to the murder charge, the Court of Appeal affirmed and noted that it should actually have been considered several acts of murder instead of just one single act. One judge dissented and argued that the defendant should have been found guilty of aiding and abetting murder rather than murder itself. The Court of Appeal also agreed with the district court's assessment that the acts took place in relation to the conflict between Iran and Iraq, thus triggering the application of IHL. Ahmadi's sentence to life in prison stands, and damages have been awarded to surviving plaintiffs and relatives of the deceased prisoners.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) handed down a unanimous decision on November 23, 2023, in a case brought by former Polish President Lech Walesa against the Polish Government. The Court concluded that a Polish Appeals Court, the Chamber of Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs (CERPA), had violated Walesa's right to an independent and impartial trial, breached “the principle of legal certainty,” and violated his right to respect for private and family life. The Court found that the CERPA “was not an ‘independent and impartial tribunal established by law’” and was often used by the state to “further its own political opinions and motives,” as the Prosecutor General of Poland and the Executive branch of government held considerable influence and authority over the judicial system. Additionally, the 2017 law that created the CERPA gave to the General Prosecutor “the unlimited power to contest virtually any final judicial decision” and extended the time limits for filing appeals, which enabled the Prosecutor to act retroactively and undermine the “requirement of foreseeability.”

On November 16, 2023, the International Court of Justice voted 13 – 2 in favor of issuing a binding Order in the case of Canada and the Netherlands v. Syrian Arab Republic. The Order adopted two provisional measures, which require Syria to prevent acts of torture and other cruel punishment, ensure that its officials and organizations do not commit torture or other cruel punishments, and preserve any evidence related to the allegations of the case. A Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures seeking such an order had been entered on June 8, 2023, by Canada and the Netherlands, for which oral arguments were held on October 10, 2023. The Request came alongside Canada's and the Netherlands' Joint Application instituting proceedings against Syria for violations of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Request and Application were made pursuant to Articles 36 and 41 of the Statute of the Court, Article 30 of the Convention against Torture, and Articles 73, 74, and 75 of the Rules of the Court. Vice-President Gevorgian and Judge Xue voted against both provisional measures, with Vice-President Gevorgian appending a dissenting opinion and Judge Xue appending a declaration.

On September 5, 2023, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Panel (CPTPP Panel or the Panel) issued its first decision. The case was initiated in May 2022 by New Zealand which claimed that Canada's system for the administration of its tariff rate quotas on dairy projects is inconsistent with Canada's obligations under the Partnership Agreement. After consultations with Canada failed, New Zealand requested that a panel under Article 28.7 of the Agreement be established to examine the issue. There was a dispute about the role to be played by a prior decision of the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) Panel on similar issues. New Zealand felt that the USMCA Panel decision was “highly pertinent” because of the similarities between relevant provisions in the two agreements, but Canada disagreed, arguing that not only is the USMCA decision irrelevant but that its interpretation of the relevant provisions was incorrect. Australia, which intervened as a third party participant, agreed with New Zealand, pointing to the need to ensure consistent decisions concerning what it deemed were identical provisions in the two agreements. Japan, another third party participant, suggested that the panel ensure that its decision was made in reliance on Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (concerning rules of interpretation).