ISSN 2965-8780
22 January 2025 | Nº. 13 | Editorial Staff: Henrique Napoleão Alves, Sarah Ebram Alvarenga, João Fernando Martins Posso, Bruno José Fonseca, Thiago Fernandes C. de Castro * |
* Attributions: research and data gathering: SEA, JFMP, BJF, TFCC; research supervision, writing, final edition: HNA; Portuguese edition: TFCC, HNA.
A periodical bulletin with World News, new developments in international law and human rights, recent rulings by international courts and tribunals, and selected academic and professional opportunities!
Click here and sign up to receive the next editions!
Editorial
In this issue, we cover the hopeful yet precarious ceasefire in Gaza, brokered by key regional actors and major world powers. While the images of war-ravaged homes and families seeking to return to whatever is left of their land are sobering, the stories of perseverance and courage underscore the human capacity for resilience. We also highlight UNICEF’s latest findings that the world is entering a new era of crisis for children—triggered by conflict, climate change, and growing inequality.
The newsletter’s coverage extends to the ongoing work of international legal bodies, from the International Court of Justice to the European Court of Human Rights. We witness the ICJ grappling with the Gaza case; the ICC facing political pressures; and the ECtHR issuing a wealth of new rulings, from property rights in Cyprus to freedom of expression in Romania and fair trial rights across the continent. The present issue also addresses the diverse human rights concerns across Africa and the Americas, from massacres in Sudan to the devastating wildfires in California.
As always, our academic and professional opportunities’ section provides numerous possibilities to assist the development of our readers’ career paths. We encourage our readers to explore these third-party opportunities and to independently verify the details provided.
We conclude with an update about the educational activities of the Facts and Norms Institute: the 2nd Winter Course on Legal Theory, International Law and Human Rights.
The course, held in partnership with the University of Lisbon, exemplifies the vital role of academia in fostering critical thinking and promoting interdisciplinary dialogue. The diverse range of topics covered, from technology and artificial intelligence to environmental challenges and historical perspectives on human rights, mirrors the breadth of concerns presented throughout this newsletter.
May you find in this issue not just a briefing on the world’s most pressing concerns, but also an invitation to contribute—whether through scholarly research, humanitarian service, legal advocacy, or even a renewed commitment to kindness in everyday life. Our world depends on the community of people willing to work toward a more just, inclusive future.
Welcome to the latest edition—and thank you for reading.
Professor Henrique Napoleão Alves
Chief Editor
The Facts and Norms Newsletter is distributed to you without cost.
The publication is currently unfunded!
To support us, please subscribe, follow us on social media, and spread the word to colleagues and friends about our endeavors!
Thank you.
SUBSCRIBE FOR FREE to receive the Newsletter in your preferred email: https://forms.gle/23zQLwe21pyGxpLq9
Universal News
UN News
UN CELEBRATES MARTIN LUTHER KING’S DAY WITH REMEMBRANCE (20 Jan 2025)

As the United States marks Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day, the UN Archive remembers Dr. King’s powerful petition for peace outside UN Headquarters, in the spring of 1967.
Dr. King called for an immediate and peaceful solution to the Vietnam conflict (1961-1975) after marching alongside 125,000 protesters in what was the first of many mass marches in opposition to the war.
“From towns and villages, cities, campuses and farms, we have come in tens of thousands to march and rally at the United Nations in New York and at the birthplace of the world organization in San Francisco…”
“We are determined that the killing be stopped and that a nuclear holocaust be avoided.”
“We rally at the United Nations in order to reaffirm our support of the principles of peace, universality, equal rights and self-determination of peoples embodied in the Charter and acclaimed by mankind, but violated by the United States.”
“In the final analysis, there can be no peace without justice, and there can be no justice without peace.”
UN SECRETARY-GENERAL WELCOMES CEASEFIRE IN GAZA (19 Jan 2025)
UN Secretary-General António Guterres welcomed the start of the ceasefire and hostage release in Gaza, as UN humanitarian convoys brought in urgently needed food aid to begin pulling the war-ravaged territory back from starvation.
Brokered by the Qatar, Egypt and the United States, the three-phase ceasefire comes 15 months after Hamas militants attacked Israel on 7 October 2023. Some 1,200 people were killed and 250 were taken as hostages, with around 100 still being held.
Israel launched the military campaign following the Hamas-led attacks on its territory. More than 46,000 Palestinians have been killed since the conflict began, according to Gaza’s health authorities. The Gaza strip has since been devastated and its two million inhabitants left in dire need of food and other necessities.

GAZANS HOPE FOR CEASEFIRE AND A BETTER FUTURE (16 Jan 2025)
In the wake of a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, displaced Gazans – ground down by 15 months of devastating conflict – have told UN News they hope an end to their suffering is in sight.
Around 90 per cent of the population across the Gaza Strip have been displaced from their homes, forced to move to avoid Israeli military operations.
Much of Gaza is rubble, while Israeli airstrikes and military operations have damaged or destroyed around 60 per cent of buildings, including homes, schools and hospitals.
Despite the critical humanitarian conditions, um Mohammed Hanoun is determined to go back to the Al-Karama neighborhood in northern Gaza with her family, even though she received news that her house had been destroyed in a drone attack.
“My plan is to remove the rubble, set up a tent on my land, and live there,” um Mohammed Hanoun said. “All I care about is seeing my home. I hope that Gaza will be rebuilt to the way it was, and that our lives will return to what they were."
"I want to go back to Gaza City for one reason, and that's to see my father," says Sami Abu Tahoun, a child displaced from Gaza City. “When we left our home, I lost something essential in life, my father. When my mother asked me to pray, I refused. I wanted to wait until I could pray with my father."

“We want to think now about our future. Enough death and destruction,” says Ayman Abu Radwan, a Palestinian man who, like Sami, had to leave his home in Gaza City for central Gaza for a tattered tent. “We are tired. We have endured the full heat of summer, and the frost and cold of winter. Children are dying. Every night, I am woken up by the cries of a two-week old baby shivering from the cold. I hope that our conditions will improve. We deserve a better life than this.”

RIGHTS EXPERTS URGE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY TO LIFT AL JAZEERA BAN (13 Jan 2025)
Independent UN human rights experts urged the Palestinian authorities to end its widely criticized ban on the broadcaster Al Jazeera and ensure that all journalists, local or international, can work freely and safely in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
“THE WORLD IS ENTERING A NEW ERA OF CRISIS FOR CHILDREN”, UNICEF WARNS (13 Jan 2025)

The world is entering a new era of crisis for children; climate change, inequality and conflict are disrupting their lives and limiting their futures. These are the warnings of UNICEF’s latest report, “Prospects for Children 2025: Building Resilient Systems for Children’s Futures”.
Over 473 million children — more than one in six globally — now live in areas affected by conflict, with the world experiencing the highest number of conflicts since World War II.
Governments of developing countries are finding it increasingly difficult to fund key investments in children, thanks to slow growth, rising debt and inadequate tax revenues and development assistance.
Children are disproportionately impacted by climate change and the effects on their development, health, education and well-being can be lifelong and irreversible.
UN RIGHTS EXPERTS URGE U.S. SENATE TO REJECT BILL SANCTIONING THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (10 Jan 2025)
UN experts urge U.S. Senate to reject bill seeking to impose sanctions and cut funding to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The bill is a political response to the ICC’s issuance of arrest warrants against Israeli leaders accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. The Court also issued an arrest warrant for a former Hamas commander alongside the others.
“IT’S NOT CENSORSHIP TO STOP HATEFUL ONLINE CONTENT”, SAYS UN HCHR (10 Jan 2025)
Meta chief Mark Zuckerberg announced the end of the company's U.S. fact-checking program, citing concerns over political bias and excessive censorship. UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk criticized the move:
“Allowing hate speech and harmful content online has real world consequences. Regulating this content is not censorship”, said the UN Human Rights Chief.
“Unregulated space means some people are silenced – in particular those whose voices are often marginalized.”
“Allowing hatred online limits free expression and may result in real world harms.”
WORLD NEWS IN BRIEF: DEADLY CHINA QUAKE, ALAWITES KILLED IN SYRIA, EXECUTIONS IN IRAN, C.A.R. RIGHTS DEFENDERS, FINANCE AND FOOD CRISES (7 Jan 2025)

- At least 126 people were killed and 188 injured in the 7.1-magnitude quake in Dingri county, China, a remote region near Mount Everest.
- The UN human rights office has urged restraint in Syria, amid reports that Alawite individuals and members of other minority groups have been targeted and killed.
- At least 901 people were reportedly executed in Iran in 2024. The UN human rights chief urged the Iranian authorities to halt all further executions, and to place a moratorium on the use of the death penalty.
- The recent adoption of a law increasing protections for human rights defenders in the Central African Republic (CAR) has been welcomed by the UN independent expert on the human rights situation in the country, Mr. Marc Yao Agbetse.
- The 2024 Financing Flows and Food Crises report by the Global Network Against Food Crises, which includes the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), highlights a disconnect between financial aid and rising global hunger.
In 2023, 281 million faced acute food insecurity, yet food sector aid fell 30% from 2022. Humanitarian aid continues to outweigh development investments in active crises.
International Court of Justice (ICJ)
JUDGE NAWAF SALAM, PRESIDENT OF THE COURT, RESIGNS (14 Jan 2025)
Judge Nawaf Salam, President of the ICJ, has resigned as Member of the Court with effect from today, 14 January 2025. His term as Member and President of the Court was due to expire on 5 February 2027.
CUBA FILES A DECLARATION OF INTERVENTION IN GAZA GENOCIDE CASE (13 Jan 2025)
Cuba filed a declaration of intervention in the case concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). The full text of the declaration of intervention of Cuba is available on the Court’s website.
IRELAND FILES A DECLARATION OF INTERVENTION IN GAZA GENOCIDE CASE (7 Jan 2025)
Cuba filed a declaration of intervention in the case concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). The full text of the declaration of intervention of Cuba is available on the Court’s website.
International Criminal Court (ICC)
LATVIA INCREASED ITS SUPPORT TO THE TRUST FUND FOR VICTIMS AT THE ICC (2 Jan 2025)
Latvia, a State Party to the ICC since 2002, increases its support to the Trust Fund for Victims at the ICC. The country has provided voluntary contributions to the TFV since 2007, and tripled its contribution in 2024 from 2023, the highest it has provided to date.
ICC WELCOMES UKRAINE AS A NEW STATE PARTY (2 Jan 2025)
On 1 January 2025, the Rome Statute, founding treaty of the ICC, entered into force for Ukraine. Ukraine formally became the 125th State Party to the ICC, and the 20th State from the Eastern Europe region.
SUBSCRIBE FOR FREE to receive the Newsletter in your preferred email: https://forms.gle/23zQLwe21pyGxpLq9
Regional News
Africa
ACHPR CONDEMNS MASSACRES IN SUDAN, CALLS FOR URGENT ACTION (17 Jan 2025)
The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) strongly condemned recent massacres in Al-Kanabi and Wad Madani, in Sudan, against civilians. The ACHPR urges the Sudanese authorities to conduct investigations, protect civilians, and ensure humanitarian access. The Commission also calls on the African Union and the international community to restore peace and stability.
ECOWAS: HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE TO FLOOD VICTIMS IN NIGERIA (14 Jan 2025)
The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Emergency Flood Response Project has concluded in Bauchi State, Nigeria, distributing food, non-food items, and cash transfers to 1,000 families affected by the 2024 floods.
The initiative, a collaboration between ECOWAS, the Nigerian government, and the Nigerian Red Cross, aimed to provide relief and support sustainable livelihoods. ECOWAS plans to extend the initiative to Borno State, Nigeria, in 2025, following the 2024 devastation.
Americas
IACHR’s REDESCA EXPRESSES SOLIDARITY FOR WILDFIRE LOSSES IN CALIFORNIA, URGES CLIMATE ACTION (17 Jan 2025)
The Special Rapporteurship on Economic, Social, Cultural, and Environmental Rights (REDESCA) of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has expressed profound concern and solidarity regarding the devastating wildfires in Los Angeles and other areas of California.
The fires have severely impacted human rights by causing loss of life, displacement, and widespread destruction of property and ecosystems.
The disaster has been exacerbated by climate change factors such as heatwaves, drought, and strong winds, all of which have created highly flammable conditions, leading to an ecological catastrophe and placing immense strain on affected communities.
REDESCA acknowledged the disaster declaration by the U.S. and federal aid mobilization, along with efforts to track the fires and inform the public. However, REDESCA expressed concern over reports of reduced insurance coverage in high-risk areas and highlights the need for long-term solutions, urging a review of territorial management policies in light of climate change.
IACHR PUBLISHES SECOND COMPENDIUM ON STATE PROGRESS AND MEASURES OF COMPLIANCE (14 Jan 2025)

The IACHR has released the second edition of its Compendium of Progress and Measures of Compliance with Recommendations and Other Decisions (available in Spanish). The new publication highlights significant measures adopted by Member States in 2023 to comply with the IACHR's recommendations, emphasizing structural improvements to human rights conditions. The Commission adopted a specific methodology focusing on measures that had substantial impact on human rights. As part of its 2023-2027 strategic plan, the IACHR will publish a similar compendium annually.
The IACHR invites all stakeholders to review this edition and reaffirms its commitment to supporting States, individuals, and institutions within the Inter-American Human Rights System to advance compliance with its recommendations and decisions.
IACHR URGES ECUADOR TO ACT ON ONGOING PRISON VIOLENCE (14 Jan 2025)
The IACHR voiced deep concern over the persistent violence in Ecuador's prisons, which has resulted in at least 591 deaths since 2020, including 37 in 2024. The Commission called on the State to adopt urgent measures to protect the lives and well-being of detainees, investigate incidents, and ensure accountability while reasserting control over organized crime within the facilities.
IACHR WELCOMES COMMUTATION OF US DEATH PENALTY SENTENCES, URGES ABOLITION (03 Jan 2025)
The IACHR welcomed the US President’s commutation of 37 federal death penalty sentences to life imprisonment.
However, the Commission condemned the 25 state executions in 2024 and urged the United States of America to eliminate the death penalty or implement a moratorium on executions, highlighting the risk of executing innocent people, arbitrary application and inhumane conditions faced by those awaiting execution. The IACHR also called on the U.S. to ratify the Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty.
IACHR REQUESTS THE IACtHR TO EXTEND PROVISIONAL MEASURES IN FAVOR OF CATALINO LÉO CÁRCAMO (03 Jan 2025)
The IACHR has requested the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) to expand provisional measures in the case of Juan Sebastián Chamorro and others concerning Nicaragua, to include Catalino Leo Cárcamo Herrera and his family.
Cárcamo's situation is deemed extremely grave and urgent, as his whereabouts are unknown since his detention on November 22, 2024. Despite inquiries, authorities have not provided official information, causing deep concern. This action comes in light of Cárcamo's prior status as a beneficiary of precautionary measures due to his work as Head of the Press Department for Radio "Darío".
The IACHR cited Cárcamo's unknown location, advanced age, and existing health conditions, which increase the risks to his well-being, particularly in detention. Despite previous efforts to obtain information, the Nicaraguan state has not provided sufficient responses or measures to mitigate the risks. Consequently, the IACHR is asking the IACHR Court to order Nicaragua to immediately protect Cárcamo's life, health, freedom, and freedom of expression. It also demands they officially disclose his detention location, consider his release, and offer protection to his family from reprisals.
Europe
GREECE VIOLATED CHURCH'S RIGHT TO COURT ACCESS OVER LAND TAX REQUIREMENT, RULES ECtHR (21 Jan 2025)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), in the case of Church of Greece v. Greece (Application no. 44547/15), ruled that Greece violated Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair hearing). The case concerned the Church of Greece's inability to pursue a civil action to reclaim land due to a requirement to demonstrate payment of, or inclusion in, property tax declarations for the previous five years, a requirement the Court found disproportionate.
The applicant organization, the Church of Greece, sought to reclaim ownership of 31.9 hectares of land that had been donated to the Greek State in 1978 for the construction of a hospital. The donation was subject to a subsequent condition, which if not met, would return ownership to the Church. The Church argued that the condition was not met and thus attempted to reclaim the land, which had been registered as State land. The Greek courts, however, declared the hearing of the Church's claim inadmissible because the organization had not submitted a certificate proving that it had included the land in the tax declarations and paid the relevant tax (FAP and ENFIA) for the previous five years. The Church argued it was not obliged to submit such certificate as the land was in possession of the Greek State, which was therefore the liable party and that the requirement itself was unconstitutional.
The ECtHR found that while the aim of the tax requirement was legitimate (to ensure public revenue), the application of the requirement in this case was disproportionate. The Court noted the significant estimated tax burden the Church would have faced (around €500,000 over five years) for land it did not possess and was actively trying to reclaim. Moreover, the State was exempt from the same tax requirements, creating unequal treatment. The Court highlighted that the domestic courts had failed to strike a fair balance between the State’s interest in collecting taxes and the Church’s right to have its property claim adjudicated. The requirement constituted a barrier to effective access to court and had essentially prevented the Church from pursuing its property claim.
The Court also noted that, although the tax law had been amended since the Church’s original claim, the applicant organization was still affected by the requirement to include the land in tax declarations, and that it had raised a breach of Article 6.1 in the domestic proceedings. The ECtHR therefore held that Greece had violated the Church's right to access a court and awarded the applicant organization z€6,000 in damages. It found no need to examine the complaint raised under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
ICELAND VIOLATED FAIR HEARING RIGHTS OF FORMER BANK EXECUTIVE, RULES ECtHR (21 January 2025)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), in the case of Jóhannes Baldursson and Birkir Kristinsson v. Iceland (Applications nos. 14175/16 and 3 others), ruled that Iceland violated Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair hearing) with respect to the first applicant, Mr. Baldursson, but found no violation in relation to most of the complaints raised by either applicant. The case concerned the convictions of two former employees of Glitnir bank for financial crimes related to a loan and share transaction.
Mr. Baldursson, an executive at Glitnir, and Mr. Kristinsson, an employee of Glitnir's Private Banking department, were convicted of fraud and market manipulation following an investigation into a loan granted by Glitnir to a company owned by Mr. Kristinsson for the purchase of Glitnir shares. The ECtHR found no issues with the impartiality of the Supreme Court judges, despite the fact that three of the five judges on the panel had suffered financial losses related to the collapse of Icelandic banks, including Glitnir. The Court held that these losses did not create an objectively justified fear of bias as they were not directly related to the specific actions that the applicants had been convicted of.
However, the ECtHR found a violation of Mr. Baldursson’s right to a fair hearing because the Supreme Court failed to address his arguments concerning the credibility of a key witness, the bank’s compliance officer, whose testimony was central to the case against him. Mr. Baldursson had raised specific concerns regarding the compliance officer's mental state, and inconsistencies in his testimony. The Court held that these submissions were pertinent and called for an explicit reply, which the Supreme Court failed to provide. Additionally, the Court found that the Supreme Court was not required to re-hear the accused and witnesses in this case.
The Court also rejected the second applicant, Mr. Kristinsson’s, complaint that his right to a fair trial had been violated by the way his pre-trial status had been changed from suspect to witness and then back to suspect. While acknowledging the potential unfairness in changing someone’s status, the Court noted the Supreme Court had decided to disregard the evidence obtained from him when he had been interviewed as a witness. This change of status did not violate his rights to legal certainty and fair trial. Finally, the Court also concluded that the length of the criminal proceedings against Mr. Kristinsson was not excessive and thus found no violation. The ECtHR awarded Mr. Baldursson €4,000 in non-pecuniary damages and €8,000 for costs and expenses.
Judge Darian Pavli issued a partly dissenting opinion, expressing the view that the manner of Mr. Kristinsson's questioning at the pre-trial stage violated his right to a fair trial. Judge Pavli noted the "prosecutorial zigzagging," where Mr. Kristinsson was initially questioned as a suspect, then as a witness without legal counsel, and then again as a suspect. Judge Pavli considered that the prosecution had rushed into changing Mr. Kristinsson's status from suspect to witness and that a comprehensive review of the impact of this change on his defense rights was required but not sufficiently conducted at national level. While acknowledging the Supreme Court’s decision to exclude the testimony gathered while Mr. Kristinsson had witness status, Judge Pavli argued that this was not sufficient to address the potential implications for legal certainty and the privilege against self-incrimination, arguing that a more substantive analysis was necessary. Judge Pavli emphasized that the prosecution's approach undermined the privilege against self-incrimination and that a less formalistic approach was required under Article 6.1 of the Convention in this respect.
TÜRKIYE VIOLATED FAIR TRIAL RIGHTS BY DENYING WITNESS TESTIMONY IN FINES CASE, RULES ECtHR (21 Jan 2025)
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), in the case of Dilek Genç v. Türkiye (Applications nos. 74601/14 and 78295/14), ruled that Turkey violated Articles 6.1 and 6.3(d) of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair hearing, including the right to examine witnesses). The case concerned administrative proceedings against Ms. Genç, a music hall owner, who was fined for allegedly violating closing time regulations. The ECtHR found that Ms. Genç was unable to effectively challenge the police evidence against her, as domestic law did not allow the examination of witnesses in such proceedings.
Ms. Genç was fined twice for keeping her music hall open after the legally permitted closing times, based solely on police reports. She challenged these fines in the domestic administrative courts arguing that her venue was open for cleaning and maintenance not for customers. She argued that her case should be re-examined and that the courts should hear her witnesses. However, Turkish law lacked a provision enabling her to call witnesses in those proceedings and the Administrative Court failed to address her request to have her witnesses heard, relying solely on the police reports. The Regional Administrative Court refused her appeal citing that the judgement was final. Finally, the Constitutional Court deemed the complaints manifestly ill-founded on the basis that there was no clear procedural breach.
The ECtHR found that the lack of a mechanism for examining witnesses in administrative proceedings, coupled with the domestic courts' failure to remedy this deficiency, constituted a structural procedural defect. It acknowledged that the right to have witnesses heard is a cornerstone of a fair trial, particularly when the case hinges on disputed facts. The Court concluded that the applicant was not given a proper opportunity to challenge the police evidence. The ECtHR emphasized that while states have discretion in regulating their legal systems, they must do so in a manner that provides effective procedural guarantees, and the failure to allow a challenge to the veracity of the reports amounted to a breach of Article 6 of the Convention. The Court held that the State’s response and interpretation of the domestic legal framework at the time constituted a denial of a fair trial and ruled that there had been a violation of Articles 6.1 and 6.3(d) of the Convention. No compensation was awarded as the applicant did not claim any damages.
GREECE FAILED TO INVESTIGATE POLICE ILL-TREATMENT OF ROMA, RULES ECtHR (21 January 2025)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), in the case of Panayotopoulos and Others v. Greece (Application no. 44758/20), ruled that Greece violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) both procedurally and substantively, and Article 14 in conjunction with Article 3 (prohibition of discrimination) procedurally. The case concerned three Greek nationals of Roma ethnicity who alleged police brutality and a discriminatory investigation.
The applicants alleged they were subjected to ill-treatment by police officers during their arrest, transfer to, and detention at a police station after a car chase. The first and third applicants sustained injuries, while the second applicant sustained some abrasions. The applicants claimed that the police used excessive force, and that the ill-treatment was also motivated by racism. Following their complaints, both a criminal and an administrative investigation were launched, and concluded that the applicants had not been victims of ill-treatment and that the police officers had acted in self-defense.
The ECtHR found that the Greek authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment. The Court noted a lack of independence in the preliminary stages of the administrative investigation, the failure to order prompt forensic medical examinations despite repeated requests by the applicants, inconsistencies in the police testimony concerning the circumstances of the arrest, as well as the authorities’ failure to explore all plausible lines of enquiry. It concluded that the investigations lacked thoroughness, objectivity, and independence, as is required by the procedural limb of Article 3.
Regarding the substantive aspect of Article 3, the Court found that the use of force by the police officers against the first and third applicants, to overcome their alleged resistance to arrest, was excessive, considering their circumstances and caused suffering amounting to inhuman treatment. The Court found no such ill-treatment in respect of the second applicant. However, the Court could not find a direct link between the use of excessive force by the police officers against the first and third applicants and a racist motive. However, the authorities had also failed to adequately investigate whether discrimination may have played a role in the events, thus breaching their obligation under Article 14 taken together with Article 3 in its procedural aspect. The Court awarded the first and third applicants €20,120 each in damages (including €120 for pecuniary damage) and the second applicant €12,000 in damages.
ECtHR FINDS NO VIOLATION IN TURKISH CASE OVER LIMITS ON APPEAL FOR MINOR FINES (21 January 2025)
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), in the case of Çağıl v. Türkiye (Application no. 19085/18), ruled that Türkiye did not violate Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair hearing). The case concerned the applicant's inability to appeal to the Court of Cassation against his conviction which involved fines below the statutory threshold for appeal.
Mr. Çağıl was convicted in a Turkish court on charges of making public insults, threats, and inflicting actual bodily harm, stemming from a fight he had been involved in. He was sentenced to fines amounting to approximately €1,447 in total. These sentences were deemed final, as they fell below the threshold for appeals to the Turkish Court of Cassation under domestic law at the time.
The applicant argued that this denial of a right of appeal violated his right of access to a court under Article 6.1 of the Convention.
The ECtHR acknowledged that the right of access to a court is not absolute and may be subject to limitations. It found that the statutory threshold for appeals in this case was a foreseeable limitation which pursued a legitimate aim, namely, to ensure the proper administration of justice and prevent an excessive caseload at the Court of Cassation, allowing for more efficient court proceedings.
The Court further found that the restriction of appeals to higher courts did not impair the very essence of the right of access to a court as it was found that such restrictions could be reasonably applied to minor offences.
The ECtHR noted that while the public prosecutor had a judge-made right to appeal on a point of law, this did not create an imbalance given that the applicant also had access to an extraordinary appeal in the “interests of justice.” The Court found that these mechanisms, along with the fact that the applicant's case concerned relatively minor offenses and financial penalties, meant the limitation on his right of appeal was proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued and did not render the proceedings unfair.
The Court concluded that the applicant's inability to appeal to the Court of Cassation did not impair the very essence of his right of access to court and therefore found no violation of Article 6.1 of the Convention.
UKRAINIAN LANDOWNER DENIED FAIR HEARING IN PROPERTY TITLE ANNULMENT, RULES ECtHR (16 Jan 2025)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), in the case of Tverdokhlebova v. Ukraine (Application no. 15830/16), ruled that Ukraine violated Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair hearing). The case concerned a Ukrainian woman who had her ownership title to a plot of land annulled by the domestic courts in proceedings of which she was not properly notified.
Ms. Roza Borisovna Tverdokhlebova had purchased a plot of land in 2013, which had previously been allocated by the Brovary District State Administration to another person, D. In 2014, a local prosecutor challenged the validity of that allocation to D. and therefore the sale to the applicant claiming that the land was, in fact, located within the boundaries of Bohdanivka village, and not within the Brovary District. The Ukrainian courts, including the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal and the Higher Specialized Court for Civil and Criminal Cases, eventually upheld the prosecutor’s request to invalidate the applicant’s property title, and to return the land to the village.
The applicant argued that she had never received notification of the court hearings and learned of the annulment of her ownership title only after the appellate court’s judgment. The ECtHR found that the Ukrainian courts’ failure to ensure the applicant was duly notified of the proceedings constituted a violation of her right to a fair hearing. The Court highlighted that the domestic courts had sent summonses to an incorrect address and had failed to take any alternative measure to ensure that the applicant was informed of the proceedings. Furthermore, these procedural shortcomings at the lower levels were not remedied by the court of cassation. Although the applicant was later awarded compensation from the seller of the land through separate civil proceedings, the Court found that the violation of her right to fair proceedings had already occurred.
The Court did not find a property rights violation, as the original land allocation was legally flawed and she was fully reimbursed.
ECtHR UPHOLDS CONVICTIONS OF BELGIAN UNION MEMBERS FOR HIGHWAY BLOCKADE (16 Jan 2025)
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) ruled in Bodson and Others v. Belgium (Applications nos. 35834/22 and 15 others) that Belgium did not violate Article 11 of the European Convention (freedom of assembly and association) when convicting sixteen union members for blocking a highway during a strike.
The applicants, members of the Fédération générale du travail de Belgique (FGTB), participated in a general strike on October 19, 2015, protesting austerity measures. A picket line was set up near a commercial center by the A3/E40 highway near Liège, but some protesters, including the applicants, moved onto the highway, blocking traffic and setting fire to barricades with materials taken from a construction site. The blockade, lasting five hours, caused significant disruption, with traffic delays of around 400 kilometers and damage to the highway surface.
The applicants argued that the FGTB did not plan the blockade and that their actions were a legitimate exercise of their rights. However, Belgian courts found them guilty of “malicious obstruction” under Article 406 of the Penal Code. The ECtHR acknowledged that the convictions interfered with their freedom of assembly but deemed the interference lawful and necessary to ensure public safety and protect the rights of others.
The Court emphasized that the blockade went beyond peaceful protest, posing a deliberate and dangerous obstruction. It ruled that unions have the right to demonstrate but within limits, and that the Belgian authorities had balanced competing interests without excessive force. The sanctions—ranging from suspended prison sentences of 15 days to one month and fines of 300 to 600 euros—were found to be proportionate given the disruption and risks posed by the blockade.
The ECtHR concluded that the State’s response through penal sanctions was justified and proportionate.
FRANCE DID NOT VIOLATE RIGHTS OF MAN LEFT PARAPLEGIC AFTER POLICE SHOOTING, RULES ECtHR (16 Jan 2025)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), in Ghaoui v. France (Application no. 41208/21), ruled that France did not violate Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to life), neither substantively nor procedurally. The case concerned a French national, Mr. Ryad Ghaoui, who became paraplegic after being shot by a police officer during an attempted traffic stop on April 15, 2009.
The incident occurred in a parking lot in Tours, where Mr. Ghaoui and another individual were deemed suspicious by a patrol of three officers from the canine unit. As the officers approached in their marked vehicle, both men entered their cars. Mr. Ghaoui started his Audi, despite being ordered to stop by an officer, identified as R., who positioned himself in front of the car. Officer B., seeing his colleague was about to be hit, fired two shots. One bullet struck the vehicle, and the second hit Mr. Ghaoui, causing a spinal cord injury and resulting in paraplegia.
The Court found that the domestic investigation was thorough, independent and effective. The initial inquiry was opened immediately and conducted by the Regional Directorate of the Judicial Police (DIPJ) of Orléans, ensuring an independent process from the local police involved. The officers involved were interviewed separately soon after the event and key evidence was gathered from the scene, including traffic radio logs.
The Court acknowledged that the criminal investigation took several years with instances of delays, which were also recognized by the Paris Court, awarding the applicant €5,400 in damages for the excessive length of the proceedings. On the other hand, the Court considered that these delays did not undermine the investigation's effectiveness, which ultimately allowed to establish essential facts.
The Court emphasized that the domestic authorities had the opportunity to examine all the key evidence and consider the diverse testimonies from all those involved and deemed that they were able to determine whether the use of force was justified.
Regarding the substantive aspects of Article 2, the Court concluded that Officer B. acted under an honest belief that his colleague was in imminent danger and that the force used was necessary. The Court emphasized that Mr. Ghaoui's sudden and rapid acceleration towards R., after having been ordered to stop, justified the officer's actions. It also noted that the officer did not have time to fire a warning shot, as the entire incident occurred within seconds. The Court acknowledged that while the consequences for the applicant were tragic, it could not replace its own judgment for the assessment made by the officer who had to act rapidly to protect his colleague. The Court therefore found that the domestic courts' conclusions that Officer B. acted in legitimate self-defense were neither arbitrary nor manifestly unreasonable. Therefore, the ECtHR found no violation of Article 2 of the Convention.
CYPRUS VIOLATED PROPERTY RIGHTS OF HOMEOWNER IN BUFFER ZONE, RULES ECtHR (16 Jan 2025)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), in Ioannides v. Cyprus (Application no. 32879/18), found Cyprus in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (protection of property).
The case concerned Ms. Maryanne Ioannides, a British citizen, whose house in Nicosia was located within the UN-controlled buffer zone established after the 1974 conflict. While the house was inaccessible to the public due to its location in the buffer zone, the State, in 2001, authorized the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) to use the house for lodging troops. This was done without directly informing Ms. Ioannides, and despite the fact that the applicant's father and the Republic of Cyprus had allowed a British cultural organization to rent it in the past. While the State did carry out significant repairs on the property, the Cypriot authorities decided that it would not pay rent to the owner.The ECtHR acknowledged that Cyprus has limited jurisdiction over certain sectors of the buffer zone and, as a consequence, the State had a positive obligation to protect Ms. Ioannides’s property rights by taking diplomatic, economic, judicial or other measures within its powers and in accordance with international law. It found that the restriction of public access to the buffer zone did not constitute a violation of property rights. However, the Court noted that the State directly interfered with Ms. Ioannides’s ability to enjoy her property when it authorized UNFICYP's occupation and failed to consider the proportionality of this interference. It highlighted the domestic courts' failure to assess the arguments relating to the occupation and lack of rent payment, because those courts had focused on the lack of effective control over the territory, which in the end was deemed not to be relevant for this issue.
The Court concluded that the Cypriot courts had not properly evaluated the balance between the public interest served by allowing the property's occupation and the burden placed on the applicant, particularly as the State was responsible for authorizing the use of the house, and should have considered setting the conditions for the house's use, including how much compensation should be paid to Ms. Ioannides. Consequently, the ECtHR ruled that Cyprus had violated the applicant’s property rights, awarding Ms. Ioannides €10,000 in damages and €12,000 for costs and expenses.
FRANCE FAILED TO PROTECT UNACCOMPANIED MINOR MIGRANT DUE TO DISPUTED AGE, RULES ECtHR (16 Jan 2025)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), in A.C. v. France (Application no. 15457/20), ruled that France violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for private life) concerning a Guinean national, identified as A.C., who arrived in France claiming to be an unaccompanied minor.
A.C., born in Guinea, traveled through several countries and eventually arrived in France in January 2020, declaring himself an unaccompanied minor. He was initially placed under temporary care, but following a social and medical age assessment, French authorities concluded that he was over 18 years of age.
The social assessment by a socio-educational assistant included a brief interview that did not delve into the details of his journey or personal circumstances. The medical assessment, based on a radiological bone examination, concluded that his physiological age was likely over 18, although the report acknowledged that it couldn't be stated with certainty. As a result of these evaluations, the authorities terminated his access to the child protection services, and he was ejected from his lodgings on 9 March 2020. He was abandoned to his own devices, with no support or resources. Furthermore, the termination decision contained vague and incomplete information about appeal options and did not fully disclose the assessment findings.Subsequently, A.C. was left homeless during a national lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic, without food or shelter, until he was taken in by volunteers. While the applicant eventually obtained legal representation and brought a case before the domestic courts, including a request for interim measures, those did not result in an immediate reinstatement of care.
The European Court highlighted that the domestic authorities relied on a questionable assessment process that lacked proper consideration of A.C.’s vulnerability, and his version of the facts. It noted specifically that the first assessment report had made an error concerning his year of birth, yet he was never given an opportunity to rectify this matter. Also, key documentary evidence submitted was not subject to a thorough examination. The Court emphasized the importance of proper procedures in determining an individual's age, especially when the person concerned is a vulnerable minor migrant, with limited capacity to effectively defend his own interests.
The ECtHR found that the information given to the applicant was incomplete and imprecise. The applicant was not adequately informed of the evaluation process, the right to challenge it and the content of the medical report that had been deemed to determine the fact that he was not a minor. Ultimately the Court held that the authorities failed to provide sufficient procedural guarantees and protect his right to private life. The Court awarded the applicant €5,000 in non-pecuniary damages for the distress and anxiety caused by his abandonment and found no violation of article 13 taken together with article 8, on the right to effective recourse, finding that the appeal system did provide a possibility of redressal, although belated.
TÜRKIYE FAILED TO ADEQUATELY ASSESS RISK OF ILL-TREATMENT IN EXTRADITION TO KAZAKHSTAN, RULES ECtHR (14 Jan 2025)
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), in the case of Kunshugarov v. Türkiye (Applications nos. 60811/15 and 54512/17), ruled that Türkiye violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of torture and ill-treatment) by extraditing a Kazakhstani national to Kazakhstan despite the real risk of ill-treatment. The Court also found a violation of Article 3 due to inadequate detention conditions and Article 5(4) due to a lack of a speedy and effective review of the applicant’s detention.
Mr. Yeldos Kunshugarov, a Kazakhstani national, had been the subject of extradition proceedings initiated by Kazakhstan in 2012 on charges of mercenary activities and terrorism-related offenses. He was also subject to separate deportation proceedings in Türkiye, having been arrested in 2015 for possession of a forged passport. While Turkish courts initially refused extradition based on the potential imposition of the death penalty in Kazakhstan, this decision was overturned, and the applicant was ultimately extradited in 2018 after assurances were obtained from the Kazakh authorities. These assurances included promises against torture and ill-treatment and guarantees of a fair trial.
The ECtHR found that the domestic authorities relied too heavily on the assurances given by Kazakhstan, without conducting a sufficiently rigorous and independent examination of the risk of ill-treatment to which Mr. Kunshugarov would be exposed. The Court noted concerns regarding the human rights situation in Kazakhstan, particularly for individuals accused of terrorism-related offenses, coupled with the lack of evidence demonstrating the binding nature and specificity of those assurances. The Court found the assurances too general and insufficiently tailored to the applicant’s specific circumstances, also noting allegations of subsequent ill-treatment of the applicant in Kazakhstan after his extradition.
The Court also ruled that Turkey had violated Article 3 (prohibition of torture and ill-treatment) due to the inadequate material conditions in the Kumkapı Removal Centre where Mr. Kunshugarov was detained between November 2015 and July 2016, finding them overcrowded and unsanitary.
The Court further determined that Turkey had violated Article 5(4) because the Turkish Constitutional Court took an unreasonable amount of time to review the lawfulness of his detention and the remedies available to Mr. Kunshugarov were not effective for his circumstances. While the Court acknowledged that Mr. Kunshugarov was subject to multiple legal proceedings simultaneously (extradition, deportation and criminal), it concentrated its assessment of Article 5 on the periods where he was held in administrative detention for deportation purposes.
While the Court did not find a violation of Article 2 concerning the risk of the death penalty, or Article 5(1) concerning the lawfulness of the initial administrative detention, it did award Mr. Kunshugarov €8,450 in non-pecuniary damages and €4,250 for costs and expenses related to the case.
ECtHR ORDERS CROATIA TO ADDRESS "MISSING BABIES" CASES (14 Jan 2025)
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), in the case of Petrović and Others v. Croatia (Applications nos. 32514/22, 33284/22 and 15910/23), found Croatia in violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). The judgment concerns three women who suspect their newborn children, born between 1986 and 1994, were abducted in State-run hospitals.
Ms. Slađana Petrović, Ms. Janja Šarčević and Ms. Marica Šesto all gave birth in State-run hospitals. They were informed by hospital personnel that their babies had died shortly after birth. However, following news reports about similar cases of women in Serbia who were searching for their babies, they started to suspect that their children might not have died, but had been abducted and given up for illegal adoptions. They sought information from hospitals and authorities, however the authorities failed to provide satisfactory answers about what happened to their children. The authorities also failed to properly investigate and address the matter.
The ECtHR found that Croatia had violated its positive obligations under Article 8 by failing to take adequate measures to ascertain the fate of the applicants’ children. The Court noted that when faced with reports of “missing babies”, the Croatian authorities had not undertaken any thorough and effective investigation to ascertain the veracity of these reports and to provide conclusive and credible information. Furthermore, the applicants were denied effective access to information regarding the circumstances of the alleged deaths and were prevented from challenging the official versions of the events. The Court also noted a lack of any possibility to exhume the alleged bodies of their babies in order to carry out DNA tests which might clarify the matter.
In addition, the ECtHR held that there had been a violation of Article 13, because there was no mechanism available in Croatia to provide redress to the applicants and others similarly affected by the “missing babies” phenomenon. The domestic authorities had denied their right to redress by simply stating that criminal prosecution for the alleged offences was time-barred.
The Court ordered Croatia, within one year, to establish a mechanism, preferably by means of a special law, that would provide individual redress to all parents in a similar situation and ensure that mechanism is supervised by an independent body with powers to clarify the fate of “missing babies” and to offer adequate redress to the affected parents. The Court did not award the applicants compensation for non-pecuniary damages, due to their primary aim of finding the truth about their missing children.
TURKISH COURTS FAILED TO ADEQUATELY INVESTIGATE SEXUAL ASSAULT ALLEGATIONS AT WORKPLACE, RULES ECtHR (14 Jan 2025)
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), in the case of N.Ö. v. Türkiye (Application no. 24733/15), found Türkiye in violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for private and family life). The ruling concerns the failure of domestic courts to adequately investigate a woman’s allegations of sexual assault by her supervisor, and their reliance on her delay in reporting the incident.
The applicant, N.Ö., a dentist working at a hospital, had reported that her Chief Medical Officer had sexually assaulted her in her apartment, after having engaged in a pattern of inappropriate conduct. She had feared retaliation and felt vulnerable given societal and cultural stigmas associated with women reporting sexual harassment. Domestic courts dismissed her claim because she had reported it to the authorities two years after the event and it was deemed that she could not have been forcibly sexually assaulted.
The ECtHR found that the domestic courts did not fulfil their positive obligations under Article 8 to take effective measures to investigate the allegations. The Court noted that the domestic courts relied heavily on the applicant’s delay in reporting the assault, a conclusion that reflects stereotypical assumptions about how a victim of sexual violence would behave and failed to conduct a thorough analysis of the circumstances of the case.
The Court highlighted that the investigation of sexual offences might require a context-sensitive approach and stressed that an individual’s delay in reporting a sexual assault should not automatically discount their claims. They should have considered whether the power imbalances, in the situation, as well as psychological factors might have played a part in the delayed reporting of the sexual assault.
The ECtHR determined that the courts had failed to assess properly the credibility of the differing versions of events and that they had not drawn any meaningful conclusions from the witness testimony. Moreover, they had failed to account for the medical reports provided by the applicant which corroborated her account of events. The Court awarded the applicant €2,600 for non-pecuniary damage and €2,000 for costs and expenses.
ECtHR RULES ROMANIAN HUMAN TRAFFICKING CONVICTIONS FAIR DESPITE UNTESTED WITNESS STATEMENTS (14 Jan 2025)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), in the case of Vasile Pruteanu and Others v. Romania (Application no. 9308/18), ruled that Romania did not violate Articles 6.1 and 6.3(d) of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair hearing) despite the fact that the applicants were convicted based partly on witness statements they could not directly challenge. The case concerned three Romanian nationals, Vasile Pruteanu, Tatiana Pruteanu and Vasile Pruteanu, who were convicted of human trafficking and pimping offences.
The applicants operated massage parlors and recruited several women from Moldova with promises of legitimate employment. Some of these women later testified that they were forced into prostitution, which led to the applicants' conviction for human trafficking and pimping. Critically, some witness statements from these women, collected via letters of request to Moldova, and those of a protected witness who did not appear in court, were used as evidence against the applicants. The applicants argued that they were unable to effectively challenge these witness statements, leading to a breach of their right to a fair trial.
The ECtHR acknowledged that the inability to cross-examine witnesses can raise concerns under Article 6, especially in criminal cases. However, the Court emphasized that the right to a fair trial must be balanced against other legitimate interests, including the protection of victims of human trafficking and sexual exploitation. The Court also noted that the domestic courts had good reasons for the non-attendance of the witnesses, including the fact that some were located outside Romania, had concerns for their safety and wellbeing, or suffered from mental health issues due to the events in question.
The Court found that while the absent witness statements were important, they were not the sole or decisive basis for the convictions, given the volume of corroborating evidence. This evidence included the statements made by other witnesses who testified in court and were examined in the applicant's presence, intercepted telephone conversations, reports from undercover police officers, as well as documentary and material evidence gathered from the applicants' massage parlors. The ECtHR also found that the domestic courts had approached the statements with due caution, given their untested nature, and afforded the applicants various counterbalancing measures that ensured that their defense rights were not unduly restricted. The applicants were able to participate actively during the court proceedings, had access to legal representation, could propose and challenge evidence, and could also provide their own version of the facts. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal sent letters of request to Moldova to enable the applicants to pose questions to one absent witness and had taken great care to guarantee the fairness of the proceedings while taking account of the rights of the alleged victims.
The Court ultimately concluded that sufficient counterbalancing measures had been taken to ensure the overall fairness of the proceedings, and that no violation had occurred. The Court also rejected a separate complaint concerning the alleged lack of impartiality of certain judges due to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
SAN MARINO LEGISLATIVE INTERVENTION IN PENDING PROCEEDINGS VIOLATED RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING, RULES ECtHR (09 Jan 2025)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), in the case of Zafferani and Others v. San Marino (Applications nos. 38127/22, 38131/22, 38138/22, 38144/22, 38147/22, 38238/22, and 38660/22), found that San Marino violated Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair hearing) by enacting and retroactively applying a new law that negatively impacted the applicants’ pending claims regarding career reconstruction within the military. The seven applicants, all officers in the Uniformed Unit of the Fortress Guard, had their career adjustments recalculated following this legislative intervention, resulting in a loss of expected pay and benefits.
The applicants, initially employed on a temporary basis between 2006 and 2008, were permanently recruited in 2016 following a decision by the Parliament. After that, they applied for a career reconstruction, which would have an impact on their salaries and entitlements. However, while those requests were pending with the Public Administration Personnel Management Office (PAPMO) and before any decision had been taken, the parliament enacted Delegated Decree no. 88 of 2016 which retroactively limited their salary adjustments, starting from a date and without the payment of arrears and withholding taxes that were otherwise due. This action effectively reduced the sums owed to the applicants and was directly applied to their situation.
The ECtHR emphasized that while legislatures can enact new laws, they must not interfere with the administration of justice designed to influence the judicial determination of a dispute, especially when the State is a party to the proceedings, except in cases of compelling public interest. In the present case, the Court found that the legislative intervention through law no. 88/2016 had precisely this effect, intervening whilst the applicants' claims for career reconstruction were pending and specifically targeting them, resulting in an immediate loss of payments and benefits they would have otherwise been due. The Court considered that the proceedings, which started when the applicants lodged their claim with the authorities, were still pending at the moment when the new law was passed.
While the government argued that law no. 88/2016 was necessary to clarify that different rules had to apply to people recruited through special procedures, and was aimed at promoting equal treatment among different categories of public employees, the Court was not convinced that there were sufficient compelling grounds of general interest to justify such a retro-active intervention. The Court observed that, contrary to what was argued by the Government, there was no legislative gap which needed to be addressed by law no. 88/2016.
The ECtHR concluded that the use of retrospective legislation, which was specifically applied to these applicants, constituted a violation of their right to a fair hearing under Article 6.1. The Court also rejected their complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 finding that, although their claims were a legitimate expectation, the State had not imposed an excessive burden by adjusting their career progression and did pursue a legitimate aim.
The Court awarded each applicant EUR 3,000 in non-pecuniary damages, as well as specific sums in pecuniary damages based on calculations presented by the Government, and EUR 3,000 in costs and expenses.
ARMENIA FAILED TO INVESTIGATE DEATH OF DETAINEE WITH MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES, RULES ECtHR (09 Jan 2025)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), in the case of Petrosyan v. Armenia (Application no. 51448/15), found Armenia in violation of Article 2 (right to life) under both its procedural and substantive aspects, as well as a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerns the death of the applicant’s son H. Movsisyan, while in custody and the ensuing investigations. H. Movsisyan had a history of mental health issues, had previously attempted suicide and was still found fit for military service. After several instances of misconduct and another suicide attempt, the army declared him unfit for peacetime service. Despite this, criminal proceedings were initiated against him for military evasion. He was eventually sentenced to imprisonment and later found dead in his cell of a detention facility in the Nagorno-Karabakh region, due to apparent suicide by hanging.
The ECtHR held that Armenia failed to conduct an adequate and thorough investigation into the circumstances of H. Movsisyan’s death. The initial investigations by the authorities were rushed, lacked sufficient detail, and did not properly address key issues, such as how H. Movsisyan’s death occurred, the possible role of authorities in his death, the exact nature of his health condition, and the presence of an injury not related to the suicide itself. The Court emphasized that the authorities failed to provide any explanation for these omissions.
The Court also found that subsequent investigations by the Armenian authorities also failed to meet the standards required by Article 2. The Court was particularly critical of the lack of access to the case files and the lack of opportunity for the applicant to present her arguments and evidence.
The Court further concluded that the applicant was deprived of a domestic remedy capable of providing redress for the violations of her son's right to life, which breached Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2. Even if such a procedure existed, the amount of potential compensation was limited by domestic law and could not provide adequate redress for the violation of a right to life. The Court also took issue with the lack of a guarantee that State institutions could be held liable even if the relevant domestic proceedings did not end in criminal conviction.
The Court ultimately awarded the applicant €50,000 for non-pecuniary damages, recognizing the severe distress caused by the inadequate investigation and by the authorities’ failure to account for her son’s death.
MOLDOVA VIOLATED FAIR TRIAL RIGHTS OF DISMISSED PUBLIC OFFICIAL, CONCLUDES ECtHR (09 Jan 2025)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), in Cavca v. the Republic of Moldova (Application no. 21766/22), ruled that Moldova violated Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair hearing) in the context of disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, Mr. Ivan Cavca, a public official. The case concerned the applicant’s dismissal following a professional integrity test, in which he was allegedly incited by an undercover agent to accept a bribe.Mr. Cavca, the head of a territorial subdivision of the Environmental Protection Inspectorate (EPI), was subjected to a professional integrity test by the National Anticorruption Centre (NAC). An undercover agent posing as a citizen offered him bribes in exchange for not reporting illegal tree felling. Initially, Mr. Cavca refused, and fined the agent for the offense. Later, when the agent came back, Mr. Cavca accepted the offer of a chainsaw as a bribe. This was secretly recorded. Based on this recording, the EPI dismissed Mr. Cavca for failing the integrity test.The ECtHR found that while professional integrity tests are not inherently incompatible with Article 6, they require strong procedural safeguards due to their potential impact on disciplinary proceedings. The Court emphasized that even though the proceedings against the applicant were civil in nature, the principles of fair trial developed in criminal proceedings were applicable due to the nature of the allegations. The Court noted that the Moldovan authorities failed to provide a fair procedure in the applicant’s case. Specifically, he was not given the opportunity to make submissions before the court that confirmed that he had failed the integrity test and that had the power of res judicata, and he could not appeal that decision. While subsequent domestic courts reviewed the disciplinary sanction based on the evidence obtained from the test, they failed to address Mr. Cavca’s arguable claim of entrapment, or to fully observe the principle of adversarial proceedings. The Court highlighted that the domestic court that confirmed the test’s results did so based on the file only, without hearing the applicant, while the legislation granted an appeal right only to the authorities.The ECtHR concluded that the Moldovan courts had failed to ensure a fair trial by neglecting to examine the applicant's plea of entrapment and by not allowing him to participate effectively in the proceedings, particularly in the decision confirming the results of the integrity test.The Court awarded Mr. Cavca €1,375 for costs and expenses but made no award for pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage, considering the finding of a violation to be sufficient satisfaction in this case.
ARMENIA FAILED TO PROTECT LGBT ACTIVISTS FROM HATE SPEECH, ECtHR FINDS (07 Jan 2025)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), in Minasyan and Others v. Armenia (Application no. 59180/15), ruled that Armenia violated Article 8 (right to respect for private life) taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned a discriminatory online newspaper article targeting fourteen LGBT rights activists following their comments criticizing Armenian Eurovision jury members.The applicants, LGBT activists and human rights defenders, responded to comments made by Armenian Eurovision jury members who expressed “internal revulsion” at a gay cross-dressing man’s victory in the 2014 competition. In response, an article was published on the website of the Iravunk newspaper, labeling the applicants as “enemies of the Nation and the State” and inciting the public to discriminate against them, including by refusing them jobs, services or other contact.The ECtHR found that the article targeted the applicants because of their LGBT rights activism and their perceived sexual orientation. The Court considered the article as an attack on the applicants’ psychological well-being, dignity and reputation, all falling within the scope of Article 8. The Court also found that the domestic courts had failed to address the discriminatory nature of the article or to properly balance the applicants' right to respect for private life with the newspaper's right to freedom of expression, thus also violating Article 14.The Court held that the domestic courts had failed to recognize the article’s hostile tone and intentions, and its impact on the applicants’ Article 8 rights, or the author’s discriminatory motives for targeting them because of their association with and/or support for the LGBT community. Furthermore, by downplaying the impact of such harmful and discriminatory speech on the applicants, the courts had failed to comply with their positive obligation to protect them from hate speech and discrimination. The Court found that while civil remedies were available in theory, the way they were applied and interpreted by domestic courts was not effective in protecting the applicants.The ECtHR awarded each applicant €2,000 in non-pecuniary damages and €1,067 jointly for costs and expenses. The Court also called on the government to take steps to ensure effective legal protection against hate speech and discrimination.
PORTUGAL FAILED TO PROTECT FAMILY LIFE IN CHILD RETURN CASE, RULES ECtHR (07 Jan 2025)
he European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), in F.D. and H.C. v. Portugal (Application no. 18737/18), ruled that the State violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for private and family life).
The case concerned the enforcement of a French seek and find order for a minor, H.C., and his automatic return to his mother in France, following an international abduction by his father, F.D.The applicants, father and son, complained that the Portuguese authorities had failed to properly assess the child’s best interests and the father’s rights, and that they did not have any procedural safeguards in the proceedings that led to the child’s return to his mother.
The Court noted that the French authorities had ordered the child's return to the mother and also issued a European arrest warrant for the father. The Portuguese authorities then found the child, took him from school, and brought him to a police station and then to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, before finally handing him over to his mother. This occurred without a court hearing or any assessment of whether the child faced a risk of harm.The ECtHR found that the Portuguese authorities had failed to fulfil their obligations under the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, had not provided the applicants with any procedural safeguards or any opportunity to be heard in the decision-making process. The Portuguese authorities did not conduct any assessment of the child’s best interests or of the father’s rights and therefore failed to consider whether the return of the child was consistent with the Convention.
Moreover, the Court noted that the child was improperly held at a police station without adequate care and assistance, which was not necessary. The Court held that this constituted an interference with the applicants’ family life and was not necessary in a democratic society.The Court awarded the father, F.D., and the son, H.C., €10,000 each in non-pecuniary damages, as well as a joint sum of €6,000 for costs and expenses.
LITHUANIA DID NOT VIOLATE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF COMPANIES IN COVID-19 TEST CONTRACTS, CONCLUDES ECtHR (07 Jan 2025)
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), in UAB Profarma and UAB Bona Diagnosis v. Lithuania (Applications nos. 46264/22 and 50184/22), ruled that Lithuania did not violate Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The cases concerned the annulment of contracts between the applicant companies and the Lithuanian State for the purchase of COVID-19 rapid tests.
[Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention refers to the property rights of both natural and legal persons (this is in contrast with, e.g., the right to property in article 21 of the American Convention of Human Rights.]
The first applicant company, UAB Profarma, and the second applicant company, UAB Bona Diagnosis, were ordered to return to the State a substantial part of the money they had received, after domestic courts found the public procurement procedure to be unlawful and determined the companies had acted in bad faith. These findings were based on factors like an absence of clear public bidding documents, and the fact that the companies, while selling the tests for a high price, purchased them from another company for a much lower one, and the first applicant company provided inaccurate information about the manufacturer of the tests, and sought to make an excessive profit.The ECtHR recognized that the domestic courts’ decisions to annul the contracts interfered with the companies’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, but deemed the interference proportionate and within the wide margin of appreciation afforded to States in this area. The Court noted that the national authorities had acted in the public interest, seeking to ensure transparency and a rational use of public funds and to correct their mistakes. The Court held that the findings of bad faith on the part of the companies were made after a thorough assessment of all the relevant circumstances and that they were based on the national legal provisions governing public procurement and the contractual relationship between public authorities and private parties.The ECtHR emphasized that the authorities’ non-compliance with public procurement law did not justify exonerating the applicant companies from the breach of obligations imposed on them by the applicable civil law or entitle them to retain the excessive profit made at the expense of the public purse. It concluded that the interference with the applicant companies' property rights was proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued.
BULGARIAN PROSECUTOR VIOLATED PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE OF JOURNALIST AND POLITICIAN, RULES ECtHR (07 Jan 2025)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), in Yoncheva v. Bulgaria (Application no. 39127/19), ruled that Bulgaria violated Article 6.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to presumption of innocence) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) taken in conjunction with Article 6.2. The case concerned a Bulgarian journalist and politician, Ms. Elena Nikolova Yoncheva, who was subjected to a prejudicial press release by the Specialized Prosecutor's Office while under investigation for money laundering.
Ms. Yoncheva, a well-known journalist and former member of the Bulgarian National Assembly and the European Parliament, was accused of money laundering in connection to her role as manager of a production company that allegedly received and spent funds illegally diverted from a now-bankrupt bank. On 23 January 2019, the Specialized Prosecutor's Office published a press release detailing the allegations against her. The press release, which was widely disseminated by the media, asserted that Ms. Yoncheva knowingly participated in a large-scale money laundering operation, using strong language such as "accomplice," "criminal origin of the funds," and "organized criminal group."
The ECtHR found that the prosecutor's press release went beyond merely providing information. The court emphasized that the way in which the preliminary findings of the investigation were described, particularly the categorical assertions about the illegal origin of the funds and Ms. Yoncheva's knowledge of this, conveyed the impression that she was guilty before the case had been considered by a court. The court also noted that the wide dissemination of the press release by the media, exacerbated by Ms. Yoncheva’s notoriety as a journalist and politician, amplified the prejudicial impact on her right to be presumed innocent.
The Court rejected the Bulgarian government's argument that Ms. Yoncheva had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. It found that at the time of the application there was no clear precedent of available and effective remedies that could have addressed the violation of her right to presumption of innocence in a similar case. Specifically, the Court found that using general legal provisions on damages was not an effective domestic remedy as the domestic courts had not been proven to apply them when a criminal procedure was ongoing.
The ECtHR concluded that the Bulgarian authorities violated Ms. Yoncheva's right to presumption of innocence under Article 6.2 and further ruled that Bulgaria failed to provide her with effective remedies in relation to this violation, under Article 13, taken in conjunction with Article 6.2. The Court awarded Ms. Yoncheva €4,700 in damages for moral harm and €3,000 for costs and expenses. The Court also decided it was not necessary to examine the allegation of a violation of Article 18 of the Convention, which prohibits the abuse of restrictions on rights, since the case had already been resolved with respect to Article 6.2.
ECtHR ORDERS ROMANIA TO ENFORCE PROPERTY RESTITUTION JUDGMENTS OR PAY COMPENSATION (07 Jan 2025)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), in Văleanu and Others v. Romania (Applications nos. 59012/17 and 27 others), ruled on the issue of just satisfaction following its earlier finding of violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) in relation to Romania's handling of restitution claims for properties confiscated or nationalized by the communist regime.
The Court's 2022 principal judgment had found that Romania had violated applicants' property rights by failing to finalize restitution proceedings within a reasonable time. This included non-enforcement of final judgments in the applicants' favor, annulment of titles without compensation, and inadequate compensation amounts that did not reflect the current value of the properties.
In this judgment, the ECtHR addressed the issue of pecuniary damage. It ordered Romania to ensure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of outstanding domestic judgments in the applicants’ favor within twelve months, involving the return of the properties. It ruled that failing this, the Romanian State must pay the applicants compensation in respect of pecuniary damage, as calculated by the Court, within the same twelve-month period. For cases where final judgments ordering compensation already exist, the Court stipulated that these sums must be promptly paid and adjusted for inflation up to the time of payment.
The Court recognized the use of notarial grids, which are annually updated property valuations, as an acceptable tool for determining compensation, but stressed that these grids had to take into account the current condition of the property, rather than its condition at the time of deprivation, and be based on real-time data collected by specialized experts, ensuring that compensation is reasonably related to the current market value of the property. It emphasized that if full payment was to occur more than one year after the compensation decision, valuations should take into account more recent notarial grids.
The Court rejected applicants' claims for loss of profit or use of property (lucrum cessans), finding such claims speculative and more appropriate to be decided in domestic proceedings. An exception was made in the case of one applicant, where the Court awarded a specific sum for the loss of use based on a prior decision by a domestic court, adjusted for inflation.
The Court also ruled that any compensation already paid in domestic administrative or judicial proceedings was to be deducted from the sums the applicants would receive through this judgment, in order to prevent unjust enrichment.
The Court awarded differing amounts of compensation for pecuniary damage and costs and expenses to the individual applicants (as detailed in the appended table), based on the outlined principles and property valuations within the notarial grids. It also struck out several applications from its list as it found that the matters had been resolved through enforcement of the outstanding judgements. It reiterated that these payments should be made within three months (where no restitution was ordered) or twelve months (where restitution was ordered) from the date on which the judgment becomes final. Simple interest would also apply from the date of expiry of the stipulated timeframe.
ROMANIAN OPERA ENTHUSIAST'S FREE SPEECH VIOLATED BY COURT RULING OVER FACEBOOK POSTS, SAYS ECtHR (07 Jan 2025)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), in Alexandru Pătraşcu v. Romania (Application no. 1847/21), ruled that Romania violated Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of expression). The case concerned the civil conviction of Mr. Alexandru Pătraşcu, a well-known opera enthusiast, for comments he and others published on his Facebook page regarding a conflict within the Bucharest National Opera.
Mr. Pătraşcu, an IT engineer, is also a respected opera critic who regularly publishes reviews and commentary on his Facebook page, blog, and various publications. In 2016, a scandal erupted at the Bucharest National Opera, involving protests by some staff against other employees. Mr. Pătraşcu covered these events on his social media platforms. Some of his posts criticized specific members of the protesting group. In response, other individuals left comments on his posts. The opera staff who were criticised in his posts sued him claiming damages for his posts and those of others on his pages.
The Romanian courts initially ruled that Mr. Pătraşcu was responsible for both his own posts and the comments made by third parties on his Facebook page, finding them to be insulting and damaging to the plaintiffs' reputation. While recognizing Mr. Pătraşcu’s activity as akin to that of a freelance journalist, the courts held him responsible for not removing comments made by third parties, even after being notified by the plaintiffs through their lawsuit.
The ECtHR found that the Romanian courts failed to properly balance the competing interests involved, specifically failing to demonstrate that Mr. Pătraşcu's conviction for his own comments was "necessary in a democratic society" and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. The ECtHR noted that while the domestic courts mentioned that the comments were not appropriate for the refined culture of opera, it failed to consider that Mr. Pătraşcu’s commentary was part of an ongoing and public debate about the management and staff of a national institution and should be viewed in this light, not only according to the tone of the words used.
The Court also found that Mr. Pătraşcu’s conviction for third-party comments violated Article 10 of the Convention as it was not "prescribed by law." The domestic courts did not offer a clear, predictable, and consistent legal basis for holding him responsible for the comments of others. The Court noted that the local courts did not cite any specific legislation, instead, applying by analogy rules for broadcasters to social media users and inferring an obligation to remove comments after a lawsuit was initiated based on “local custom”. Moreover, the Romanian courts’ reliance on general civil liability provisions did not provide sufficient guidance or clarity about his obligations, nor how far his responsibility extended as to comments left by others. The court noted a discrepancy between the three domestic courts in the basis of their rulings.
The ECtHR concluded that the Romanian courts failed to provide sufficient protection for Mr. Pătraşcu’s freedom of expression and ruled that there had been a violation of Article 10. It awarded Mr. Pătraşcu €2,853 for material damages, €7,800 for non-pecuniary damages, and €6,152.33 for costs and expenses. The Court found it unnecessary to rule on a separate complaint under Article 6 concerning the fairness of the proceedings.
GREECE VIOLATED RIGHTS BY REFOULEMENT OF TURKISH NATIONAL, RULES ECtHR (07 Jan 2025)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), in the case of A.R.E. v. Greece (Application no. 15783/21), found Greece in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) taken in conjunction with Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), and of Article 5 (right to liberty and security). The case concerned the alleged refoulement (pushback) of a Turkish national from Greece to Türkiye without due process.
The applicant, a Turkish national who had been imprisoned in Türkiye for 28 months on terrorism charges, crossed the Evros river into Greece in May 2019 seeking international protection. She and her companions contacted a lawyer, her brother, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), expressing fear of refoulement and the risk she would face in Türkiye. She was arrested after meeting the lawyer near a town and taken to a border guard station. Despite her repeated requests for asylum, she was held without any record or legal basis and subsequently taken to the Evros river and pushed back to Türkiye in a small boat, along with many others. She was arrested on the Turkish side and imprisoned for another five months.
The ECtHR found that Greece had violated the applicant’s rights under Article 3 by exposing her to the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in Türkiye without a proper assessment, and that she was denied an effective remedy for this violation, thereby breaching Article 13. Although the Court did not find sufficient evidence to establish that the applicant suffered a substantive violation of Articles 2 and 3, the Court found that the state failed to adequately protect the applicant’s fundamental rights.
Further, the Court determined that the applicant's detention before her refoulement was unlawful and arbitrary and therefore violated Article 5 of the Convention. It was made clear that her detention was not based on any legal ground, she was not informed of the reasons for her arrest, and she had no access to a judicial procedure to challenge it.
The ECtHR acknowledged that the applicant’s account of her experience largely corresponded with the operational mode detailed in various reports from national and international institutions concerning pushbacks from Greece to Türkiye. The Court noted that due to the clandestine nature of the forced return, it is often difficult for victims to collect substantial proof. The Court ordered Greece to pay the applicant €20,000 for non-pecuniary damages related to the violations of her rights.
Judge Georgios Serghides issued a partial dissenting opinion finding that there had been a violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (risk to life and ill-treatment upon refoulement).
SUBSCRIBE FOR FREE to receive the Newsletter in your preferred email: https://forms.gle/23zQLwe21pyGxpLq9
Academic & Professional Opportunities
CALL FOR PAPERS: SPECIAL SECTION OF TORTURE JOURNAL: ISRAEL & OCCUPIED PALESTINE
Torture Journal invites submissions for a special section on torture, ill-treatment, and associated human rights violations in Israel and Occupied Palestine, one year after the October 2023 attacks and subsequent military campaign. Interdisciplinary papers are encouraged, focusing on areas such as the definition of torture and its prevalence, impacts on specific groups (e.g., children, health workers, detainees), psychosocial and community interventions, forensic assessment, rehabilitation practices, and transitional justice. Opinion pieces without data or academic analysis will not be accepted. For questions, contact Editor-in-Chief Pau Pérez-Sales (pauperez@runbox.com) or Editorial Assistant Berta Soley (bso@irct.org). Submit by April 30, 2025.
BRAZILIAN INTERNATIONAL LAW CONGRESS ISSUES CALL FOR DRAFT ARTICLES
The Brazilian Academy of International Law (ABDI) has officially opened its call for draft article submissions for the 23rd Brazilian International Law Congress, slated to be held in Belém, Pará, from August 27th to 30th, 2025. The deadline for draft submissions is January 30th, 2025.
CALL FOR PAPERS: EXTRATIVISM, DEVELOPMENT AND HUMAN RIGHTS, LAW AND DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH NETWORK (LDRN) 7TH GENERAL CONFERENCE
The Law and Development Research Network (LDRN) and the UFMG Faculty of Law invite paper and panel proposals for their 7th General Conference, themed "Extractivism, Development and Human Rights." The conference will take place in Belo Horizonte, Brazil, from July 15-18, 2025. Submissions are encouraged on topics related to neo-extractive development, human rights, and law and development, including indigenism, access to justice, international law, and more. Abstracts (500 words for individual, 750 for co-authored) should be submitted in English, Spanish, or Portuguese by January 24, 2025.
CALL FOR PAPERS: GCSEL INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ‘SPORTS LAW IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH’
The GNLU Centre for Sports & Entertainment Law (GCSEL) invites submissions for its international conference on "Transnational Sports Law from the Periphery: A Global South Perspective." The online conference will take place on April 24-25, 2025. Topics include challenges and opportunities for the Global South regarding sports law. Submit a 300-word abstract and CV to gcsl@gnlu.ac.in and tsingh@gnlu.ac.in. Apply by February 15, 2025.
CALL FOR CHAPTERS: CROSSROADS OF LAW: POLICY, CASES AND MULTIDISCIPLINARY ISSUES
The International Journal of Legal Affairs and Exploration & Juris Cognita invite chapter submissions for a book exploring the intersection of law with economics, technology, public policy, sociology, and other disciplines. Submissions should be 3500-5000 words. Submit abstracts to jcpmultidisciplinaryissues@gmail.com. Apply by February 11, 2025.
SHORT COURSE: RESEARCH METHODS IN THE REFUGEE AND FORCED MIGRATION FIELD
The Refugee Law Initiative (RLI) at the School of Advanced Study, University of London, offers a 5-day short course on research methods in the refugee and forced migration field. The course covers qualitative and quantitative methods, ethical considerations, and forced migration contexts. It runs from March 3-7, 2025, 10am-5pm. Participants need a good standard of English and a laptop/tablet. Fees: £1,100 (standard), £950 (SAS/UoL PhD students/RLI affiliates/those with a displacement background). Submit CV and cover email to RLIMethods@sas.ac.uk. Apply by February 2, 2025.
STUDENT ASSISTANT, DIGNITY
DIGNITY, a human rights organization based in Copenhagen, seeks a part-time (15 hours/week) Student Assistant to support the Prevention and Accountability Department. Responsibilities include assisting the department head with national and international tasks, preparing for and conducting meetings, budget planning, and other administrative duties. The working language is primarily English. Applicants should be pursuing a university degree (e.g., law, social sciences) and have strong administrative and analytical skills. Fluency in English and Danish (written and spoken) is required. Contact Therese Rytter (TR@dignity.dk or +45 60 10 88 10) for inquiries. Submit a cover letter (in English), CV, transcripts, and other relevant documents (may be in Danish). Apply by: February 5, 2025.
SUMMER INTERNSHIPS (LAW STUDENTS), SABIN CENTER FOR CLIMATE CHANGE LAW
The Sabin Center seeks law student interns for Summer 2025 (8-10 weeks, full-time) to work on climate change, energy, and environmental law topics. While the internship is unpaid, CLS students may qualify for funding and pro bono credit. Non-CLS students may also apply. Submit a resume, cover letter, and transcript to vmn2106@columbia.edu and ong2107@columbia.edu with "law student" in the subject line. Apply by February 16, 2025.
SUMMER INTERNSHIPS (UNDERGRADUATE/MASTER'S STUDENTS), SABIN CENTER FOR CLIMATE CHANGE LAW
The Sabin Center seeks undergraduate and master's student interns for Summer 2025 (8-10 weeks, full-time) to work on climate change, energy, and environmental policy issues. The internship is unpaid. Preference is given to Columbia/Barnard students. Submit a resume, cover letter, and transcript to vmn2106@columbia.edu and ong2107@columbia.edu with "undergraduate/master's student" in the subject line. Apply by February 16, 2025.
HEALTH LAW INTERNSHIP PROGRAM, O'NEILL INSTITUTE
The O'Neill Institute offers eight-week, full-time paid summer internships for current J.D., LL.B., or equivalent law students interested in health law. Interns work with experts on topics such as health and human rights, noncommunicable and infectious diseases, and comparative health law and policy. Tasks include legal research, report preparation, and attending meetings and symposia. Strong research and communication skills, proficiency in English, and Microsoft Office/Google Suite skills are required. Applicants must submit a resume, cover letter, and writing sample (max 10 pages). Apply by January 31, 2025.
ARC LAUREATE RESEARCH FELLOW, UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE
The University of Melbourne's Law School and Melbourne Climate Futures seek multiple Research Fellows to contribute to an Australian Research Council Laureate Program focused on corporate climate accountability. Responsibilities include conducting research, publishing scholarly work, engaging in public activities, collaborating with team members, and assisting with student supervision. A completed or near-completed PhD in international law, corporate law, environmental law, or a related field is required. Demonstrated expertise in corporate climate accountability and excellent communication skills are essential. The positions are full-time, fixed-term for up to five years, based in Parkville. Salary ranges from $105,518 - $113,262 p.a. (Level A) or $119,231 - $141,581 p.a. (Level B) plus 17% superannuation. Australian work rights are required. Apply by February 2, 2025.
SUMMER INTERNSHIP PROGRAM, NATIONAL AIR AND SPACE MUSEUM, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
The National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, is offering a paid Summer Internship Program for undergraduate and graduate students passionate about aviation, space exploration, or museum work. This in-person internship in Washington, D.C., runs from June 10 to August 16, 2025, and provides a $7,500 stipend. Apply via the Smithsonian Online Academic Appointments system (SOLAA). Apply by January 31, 2025.
POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCHER, BIRKBECK, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON
Birkbeck, University of London, seeks a Postdoctoral Researcher to join a research project exploring the impact of immigration on Brazil's informal economy, focusing on Chinese immigrants in Belo Horizonte. Responsibilities include conducting qualitative research (including fieldwork and online ethnography), contributing to publications, and organizing a conference session. A PhD (or near completion) in Geography, Urban Studies, Development Studies, Anthropology, Sociology, or a related field is required, along with experience in qualitative research and proficiency in English and Mandarin. Experience with online methodologies and research experience in informal economies and/or migration studies are desirable. The position is full-time, fixed-term for eight months (part-time considered), with a salary of £43,636-£49,683 per annum. Travel to Brazil for fieldwork and a workshop is required. Contact Dr. Mara Nogueira (m.nogueira@bbk.ac.uk) for inquiries. Apply by February 2, 2025.
CALL FOR PROPOSALS: JUSTICE PROGRAMME (JUST) ACTION GRANTS FOR TRANSNATIONAL JUDICIAL TRAINING PROJECTS
The European Commission, DG Justice and Consumers (DG JUST), invites proposals for action grants under the Justice Programme (JUST) to support transnational projects focusing on training justice professionals in civil law, criminal law, or fundamental rights. The primary objective is to enhance the digital capacity of justice systems, addressing training needs arising from EU legislation on digitalization of judicial cooperation and access to justice, e-evidence, service of documents, and taking of evidence. Projects should target members of the judiciary, judicial staff, trainees, trainers, and/or facilitate cross-professional training, proposals addressing other training needs related to EU law application are also eligible. Apply by March 26, 2025 (17:00 CET, Brussels).
CALL FOR APPLICATIONS: 2-4 ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS IN POLITICAL SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF OSLO
The University of Oslo's Department of Political Science seeks 2-4 Associate Professors. Successful candidates will conduct research, teach at all levels (BA, MA, PhD), and perform administrative duties. The department is open to candidates from all political science subfields, with preferred specializations in political behavior/electoral politics, international organizations/political economy/security studies, normative political theory, data science, or qualitative research methods. Fluency in a Scandinavian language is preferred, but language training will be provided. Apply by February 3, 2025. Submit applications to the provided online portal (see full description for details).
INTERN - INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT, UNEP
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) seeks an Intern for International Environmental Law Knowledge Management in Nairobi (with work location in Geneva, Switzerland). The intern will assist with tagging key documents in the InforMEA and UNEP LEAP portals, support the Collective Intelligence Unit, aid in research and drafting for E-Learning, monitor platform usage, and contribute to communications efforts. Applicants must be enrolled in or have completed a graduate program or be in their final year of a bachelor's program. Preferred areas of study include Information Technology, Data Science, or Environmental Law. Fluency in English is required. This is a 6-month internship, with a desired start date of February 3, 2025. Interns are not financially remunerated by the United Nations. Apply by January 29, 2025.
LEGAL INTERN, ESCWA
The Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) seeks a Legal Intern in Beirut. The intern will conduct research on legal topics related to the building materials sector in Oman, draft legal documents and reports, review laws, support the Arab Business Legislative Framework (ABLF) and the Arab Legislations Portal (ALP), gather legal data, and assist with the 6th Arab Competition Forum. Applicants must be enrolled in or have completed a university degree program. Knowledge in legal analysis is required, and knowledge in conducting legal research is desirable. Fluency in English and Arabic is required, and fluency in French is desirable. This is a 2-month, full-time internship with possible extension to six months. Interns are not financially remunerated by the United Nations. Apply by February 3, 2025.
LEGAL INTERN - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TEAM, UNDP
UNDP's Office of Legal Services seeks a Legal Intern for its Administrative Law Team in New York. The intern will support the team by conducting legal research, analyzing investigation reports, drafting legal documents, and contributing to policy reviews. Applicants must be enrolled in a law degree program (final year undergraduate, postgraduate, or professional traineeship) or have recently graduated (within one year). Fluency in English is required; French is desirable. This is a three-month, full-time internship with a monthly stipend. Submit a cover letter and CV as a single PDF document. Apply by: February 1, 2025.
LEGAL INTERN - PROGRAMMES & PROJECTS TEAM, UNDP
UNDP's Office of Legal Services seeks a Legal Intern for its Programmes & Projects Team in New York. The intern will assist with drafting and reviewing legal instruments, financing agreements, and contracts; conducting legal research; and supporting training and knowledge-sharing initiatives. Applicants should be enrolled in a law degree program (final year undergraduate, postgraduate, or professional traineeship) or have recently graduated (within one year). Fluency in English is required; French and/or Spanish is desirable. This is a three-month, full-time internship with a monthly stipend. Submit a cover letter and CV as a single PDF. Apply by: February 1, 2025.
LEGAL INTERN - CORPORATE AND INSTITUTIONAL LAW TEAM, UNDP
UNDP's Office of Legal Services seeks a Legal Intern for its Corporate and Institutional Law Team in New York. The intern will review legal instruments and contracts, support dispute and claim reviews, conduct legal research, and assist with training and knowledge management. Applicants must be enrolled in a law degree program (final year undergraduate, postgraduate, or professional traineeship) or have recently graduated (within one year). Fluency in English is required, and French is desirable. This is a three-month, full-time internship with a monthly stipend. Submit a cover letter and CV as a single PDF. Apply by: February 1, 2025.
INTERNSHIP: NUCLEAR FUSION, IAEA
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is offering a 12-month internship in Nuclear Fusion in Vienna, Austria. The intern will support activities related to fusion science and plasma physics, including organizing events and preparing technical reports. Candidates must have a degree in Nuclear Physics, Plasma Physics, Nuclear Fusion, or related fields, and have an interest in fusion research. Apply by February 2, 2025.
INTERN - WEBSITE & PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT, ESCAP
The Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) is offering a 3-6 month internship in Bangkok, focusing on website and programme management. Responsibilities include website content creation, SharePoint management, and project support. Applicants must be enrolled in or have completed a relevant university degree. Fluency in English is required. Apply by February 23, 2025.
COMMUNICATION AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT INTERN, UNDP
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is seeking a Communication and Knowledge Management Intern to support its work on rule of law, human rights, and justice in the Asia-Pacific region, based in Bangkok, Thailand. Responsibilities include creating communication materials, managing digital platforms, coordinating events, and supporting knowledge management. Applicants should have a background in communication, journalism, international development, or a related field. This is a full-time, 6-month internship with a monthly stipend. Apply by January 30, 2025.
PROJECT CLERK, UNDP
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is seeking a Project Clerk to provide administrative and financial support for project implementation in Jakarta Pusat, Indonesia. Responsibilities include data management, project planning assistance, financial documentation support, and office administration. Candidates should have a Bachelor's degree with 1 year of experience OR a high school certificate with 4 years of experience. Fluency in English and Indonesian is required. This is a full-time, 1-year National Personnel Service Agreement. Apply by January 30, 2025.
UNODC PROJECT ASSISTANT
The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) is seeking a Project Assistant to support the implementation of drug prevention and treatment programs in Belgrade, Serbia. Responsibilities include project management, budget administration, event coordination, and administrative support. Candidates should have a Bachelor's degree with 3 years of experience OR a high school certificate with 6 years of experience. Fluency in English and Serbian is required. This is a full-time, 6-month Service Contract. Apply by January 30, 2025.
LEGAL SERVICES CONSULTANT, OAJ
The Office of Staff Legal Assistance (OSLA) is seeking a Legal Services Consultant in New York (Remote work location). The consultant will provide legal advice, represent clients before the UNDT and UNAT, prepare legal submissions, assist in resolving cases, and conduct legal research. Candidates must have an advanced degree in international law and five years of progressive experience in law, including legal analysis, research and writing, with experience as an advocate/litigator. Fluency in English is required; knowledge of French is desirable. This is a 9-month consultancy. Apply by January 31, 2025.
LEGAL ASSISTANT, CTED
The Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED) is seeking a Legal Assistant (G-5) in New York. The assistant will research and compile legal materials, respond to inquiries, review legal instruments, assist with meeting organization and document preparation, and manage databases. Applicants need a high school diploma and five years of experience in paralegal work, conference servicing, or related fields. Experience in conducting legal research is desirable. Fluency in English is required, and knowledge of another UN official language is an advantage. Apply by February 13, 2025.
PROGRAMME ASSISTANT (CLIMATE CHANGE/GOVERNANCE), UNDP
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is seeking two Programme Assistants to support its climate change and governance programs in Male, Maldives. Responsibilities include project planning, implementation, monitoring, financial management, and operational support. Candidates should have a Bachelor's degree with 2 years of experience OR a high school certificate with 5 years of experience. Fluency in English and Dhivehi is required. This is a full-time, 1-year Fixed-Term appointment with possibility of extension. Apply by January 31, 2025.
LEGAL TRANSLATOR - INTERN OPPORTUNITY, UNRWA
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) is offering a legal translator internship in Amman, Jordan. The intern will translate legal documents between Arabic and English, maintain confidentiality, revise documents, and provide interpretation services. Applicants must be enrolled in or recently graduated from a graduate program in translation, interpretation, linguistics, languages, law, or a related field. Fluency in both Arabic and English is essential. The internship is for 3 to 11 months. Interns are not financially remunerated by the United Nations. Apply by January 28, 2025.
CLAIMS ASSISTANT, UNIFIL
The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) seeks a Claims Assistant (G-5) in Naqoura, Lebanon. The assistant will support claims management, prepare cases for review boards, analyze claims documentation, manage reports, and maintain databases. A high school diploma is required along with five years of experience in claims and property survey, legal, or paralegal fields, preferably in an international organization. Experience with Write-Off transactions using an ERP system is required, with experience in disposal also being desirable. Fluency in English and Arabic is required. Apply by January 31, 2025.
HUMAN RESOURCES ASSOCIATE, UNDP
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is seeking a Human Resources Associate to manage benefits and entitlements for staff in New York, USA. Responsibilities include advising on HR policies, processing entitlements, ensuring compliance, and contributing to knowledge management. Candidates should have a Bachelor's degree with 3 years of experience OR a high school certificate with 6 years of experience. Fluency in English is required, with French, Spanish, or Arabic desired. This is a full-time, 2-year Fixed-Term appointment with possibility of extension. Apply by January 31, 2025.
POLICY ANALYST, UNDP
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is seeking a Policy Analyst to provide analytical and policy support in Rome, Italy. Responsibilities include policy research and analysis, stakeholder coordination, and contributing to strategic initiatives related to sustainable development, infrastructure, and investments. Candidates should have a Master's degree with 2 years of experience or a Bachelor's degree with 4 years of experience in a relevant field. Fluency in English and Italian is required. This is a full-time, 1-year International Personnel Service Agreement. Apply by January 31, 2025.
ASSOCIATE PROGRAMME OFFICER, UN CLIMATE SECRETARIAT
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is seeking an Associate Programme Officer (P-2) to work in the Adaptation Division, supporting developing countries in addressing climate change. The one-year position, based in Bonn, Germany, requires an advanced degree in a related field and two years of experience. Fluency in English is essential. Annual salary: USD 50,377 (plus post adjustment). Apply by January 26, 2025.
ADVISER ON ANTI-CORRUPTION, OSCE
The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is seeking an Adviser on Anti-Corruption for its office in Skopje, North Macedonia. The position requires a first-level university degree in law or related field and six years of experience, with a focus on anti-corruption. Fluency in English is essential. Apply by February 12, 2025.
CONSULTANT – CORRUPTION RISK IN PRISONS, UNODC
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) is looking for a consultant to draft a guide on corruption risk management in prisons. The consultant will conduct research, lead expert consultations, and develop the publication. Candidates need an advanced degree in a relevant field and ten years of experience in criminal justice, anti-corruption, or related areas. Fluency in English is required. Apply by February 23, 2025.
PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT OFFICER, UNJSPF
The United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund (UNJSPF) is hiring a Programme Management Officer in New York to coordinate secretariat conference management for the Pension Board. Candidates need an advanced degree and seven years of experience in program management or related areas. Fluency in English is required. Apply by February 26, 2025.
DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION SPECIALIST (HOME-BASED), UNDP
UNDP seeks a Digital Transformation Specialist (IPSA-10) to support its work on Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) in developing countries. This six-month, home-based position involves providing technical advice to governments, advocating for digital transformation, leading strategic partnerships, and supporting resource mobilization. A Master's degree with five years of experience or a Bachelor's degree with seven years of experience in digital projects is required. Experience in project management, technical assistance, and drafting concept notes is essential. Fluency in English is required. Apply by February 12, 2025.
LEGAL SPECIALIST- COMPENSATION, UN HABITAT
The United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) is seeking a Legal Specialist - Compensation in Baghdad, Iraq. The specialist will analyze the legal landscape governing compensation, conduct needs assessments, organize workshops, provide technical assistance, and advocate for improved access to compensation. A bachelor's degree in a related field is required, as well as at least 2 years of relevant international experience in law, public policies, urban development, or related fields. Fluency in English and Arabic is required. This is a 6-month consultancy. Apply by January 24, 2025.
ASSISTANT HUMAN RIGHTS OFFICER (NO-A), OHCHR
The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is hiring an Assistant Human Rights Officer (NO-A) in Mexico City to support the Civic Space Unit. Responsibilities include researching human rights matters, drafting reports, monitoring violations, and assisting with training programs for law enforcement and civil society organizations. Candidates need an advanced degree in law, political science, international relations, social sciences, or a related field, or a first-level degree with two years of relevant experience. Fluency in Spanish and English is required. Apply by January 29, 2025.
LEGAL OFFICER, UNJSPF
The United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund (UNJSPF) is hiring a Legal Officer for its Office of Investment Management in New York. The position involves handling legal issues related to investments. Candidates must have an advanced law degree, admission to practice law in a UN Member State, and seven years of experience in transactional law. Fluency in English is required. Apply by March 1, 2025.
HUMAN RIGHTS OFFICER, OHCHR
The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is seeking a Human Rights Officer in Amman, Jordan, to monitor human rights implementation and support treaty bodies. Candidates need an advanced degree and seven years of experience in human rights, political affairs, or related areas. Fluency in English is required. Apply by February 27, 2025.
HATE CRIME OFFICER (SECONDMENT), OSCE OFFICE FOR DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS (ODIHR)
The OSCE ODIHR seeks a Hate Crime Officer (seconded position) based in Warsaw. The Officer will implement tasks related to hate crimes, including preparing the annual ODIHR Hate Crime Report, providing legislative assistance to states, conducting monitoring and analysis, and developing capacity-building activities. A first-level university degree in a relevant field and six years of experience in human rights are required, along with an understanding of hate crime issues, excellent drafting skills, and knowledge of international human rights standards. Fluency in English is essential. This is a full-time, fixed-term secondment. (Note: This is a secondment opportunity; applicants must be nominated by an OSCE participating State.) Apply by February 5, 2025.
COORDINATION SPECIALIST, UNDP
UNDP seeks a Coordination Specialist (P3 level) based in Gaza to support the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process (UNSCO). This temporary position (six months) involves monitoring and analyzing the humanitarian and development situation in Gaza, supporting UN coordination mechanisms, drafting reports, and building partnerships. A Master's degree with five years of experience or a Bachelor's degree with seven years of experience in coordinating development or humanitarian activities is required. Experience working in UN field operations and the Middle East is desirable. Fluency in English is required; working knowledge of Arabic is desirable. Apply by: February 7, 2025.
HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER, UN OHR
The UN Office of Human Resources (OHR) is seeking a Human Resources Officer in New York to provide advice on HR matters, particularly in staff selection. Candidates need an advanced degree and five years of experience in human resources management. Fluency in English is required. Apply by February 28, 2025.
LEGAL OFFICER, OHCHR
The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is seeking a Legal Officer (P-3) in Geneva. The officer will provide legal advice on administrative law, policy, and legal contracts. The officer will also conduct legal research, prepare studies and reports, and represent the organization in legal proceedings. An advanced degree in international law is required, as well as at least five years of progressively responsible experience in law, including legal analysis, research, and writing. Fluency in English is required, and knowledge of French or another UN official language is desirable. Apply by January 23, 2025.
INVESTIGATOR (P-3), INTERNATIONAL, IMPARTIAL AND INDEPENDENT MECHANISM FOR SYRIA (IIIM)
The IIIM seeks two Investigators (P-3 level) for its Collection and Analysis Section in Geneva. Responsibilities include drafting investigative plans, conducting investigations (including field missions and witness interviews), identifying investigative leads, evaluating evidence, and representing the IIIM in briefings and meetings. A Master's degree or equivalent in law, police studies, human rights, journalism, or a related field is required, along with five years of progressively responsible experience in criminal or human rights investigations relating to international crimes. Fluency in English is required; fluency in Arabic is desirable. This is a one-year appointment, with the possibility of renewal. Apply by February 6, 2025.
LEGAL OFFICER, UNEP
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is seeking a Legal Officer (P-3) in Nairobi, Kenya. The officer will handle legal issues related to environmental law, conduct legal research, prepare legal documents, and provide legal advice on matters of international environmental law. An advanced university degree in international law, environmental law, or related fields is required. At least five years of progressively responsible experience in environmental law, project or programme management, administration or related area in the environmental field is required. Fluency in English is required, and knowledge of another UN official language is desirable. This is a one-year fixed-term position. Apply by January 24, 2025.
HUMAN RIGHTS OFFICER (Multiple Posts, P-3), OHCHR
The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is hiring multiple Human Rights Officers (P-3) in Geneva to support the Human Rights Council and Treaty Mechanisms Division. Candidates need an advanced degree in law, political science, international relations, social sciences, or a related field, and five years of experience in human rights or related areas. Fluency in English or French is required. Apply by January 25, 2025.
LEGAL OFFICER, UNJSPF
The United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund (UNJSPF) is hiring a Legal Officer (P-4) for its Office of Investment Management in New York. The position involves handling a range of legal issues related to investments. Candidates need an advanced degree in law and admission to practice law in a UN Member State. A minimum of seven years of progressively responsible experience in transactional law, including legal analysis, research and writing, is required. Fluency in English is required, knowledge of another UN official language is an advantage. Apply by March 1, 2025.
LEGAL OFFICER, OAJ
The Office of Administration of Justice (OAJ) is seeking a Legal Officer (P-4) in Geneva. The officer will provide support to the UNDT judges, review submissions, draft legal documents, and conduct legal research. An advanced degree in law is required and a minimum of seven years of experience in law, including legal analysis, research, and writing is required. At least two years of experience in administrative or employment/labor law, preferably in an international organization or tribunal, is required. Fluency in English is required, and another UN official language is desirable. Apply by January 24, 2025.
LEGAL OFFICER, OLA
The United Nations Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) seeks a Legal Officer (P-4) in New York. The officer will provide legal advice on matters related to contracts, procurement, administrative law, and claims against the UN, among other tasks. An advanced degree in international law is required, as well as at least seven years of experience. Fluency in English is required, and knowledge of French is desirable. Apply by February 8, 2025.
HUMAN RIGHTS OFFICER (TJO, P-4), OHCHR
The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is seeking a Human Rights Officer (TJO, P-4) in Geneva to join the Anti-Racial Discrimination Section within the Rule of Law Equality and Non-Discrimination Branch. The officer will support activities combating racism and discrimination, prepare reports, coordinate country engagements, and integrate human rights into UN programs. Candidates need an advanced degree in law, political science, international relations, social sciences, or a related field, and seven years of experience in human rights or related areas. Fluency in English is required; knowledge of another UN official language is an advantage. Apply by January 27, 2025.
SENIOR LEGAL OFFICER, OLA
The Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) is seeking a Senior Legal Officer (P-5) in New York. The officer will provide expert legal advice on public international law, coordinate legal teams, supervise junior officers, and negotiate agreements. An advanced degree in public international law is required, as well as at least ten years of professional experience. Fluency in English is required, and knowledge of French is desirable. Apply by January 22, 2025.
CHIEF OF SECTION, LEGAL AFFAIRS, UNEP
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) seeks a Chief of Section, Legal Affairs (P-5) in Geneva. The chief will plan and oversee the work of the Legal Unit, providing legal advice on CITES, monitoring compliance, and managing unit resources. An advanced degree in general, international, or environmental law is required, along with a minimum of ten years of progressive legal experience at both national and international levels, five of which must be at the international level dealing with legal issues related to the implementation of treaties. Fluency in English is required, and knowledge of French or Spanish is desirable. Apply by February 12, 2025.
SENIOR HUMAN RIGHTS OFFICER (P-5), OHCHR
The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is seeking a Senior Human Rights Officer (P-5) in Addis Ababa to lead the Ethiopia programme within the Regional Office for East Africa. The role involves formulating human rights strategies, developing policies, managing programmes and budgets, and maintaining relations with government officials. Candidates need an advanced degree in law, political science, international relations, social sciences, or a related field, and ten years of experience in human rights or related areas. Fluency in English is required; knowledge of French is desirable. Apply by February 4, 2025.
SENIOR LEGAL OFFICER, ISA
The International Seabed Authority (ISA) is seeking a Senior Legal Officer (P-5) in Kingston, Jamaica. The officer will provide substantive legal advice on international law, draft regulations, and supervise junior legal staff. A Master's degree in law is required. A minimum of 10 years of progressively responsible experience in law is required. Fluency in English is required, and knowledge of another UN official language is desirable. This is a two-year fixed-term position. Apply by February 4, 2025.
CHIEF OF SECTION, HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, OHCHR
The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is seeking a Chief of Section for Human Resources Management in Geneva. The role involves overseeing HR activities, talent acquisition, and policy implementation. Candidates need an advanced degree and ten years of experience, including five within the UN. Fluency in English is required, and another UN language is also required. Apply by February 23, 2025.
SUBSCRIBE FOR FREE to receive the Newsletter in your preferred email: https://forms.gle/23zQLwe21pyGxpLq9
News from the Facts and Norms Institute
2ND WINTER COURSE IN LISBON: INCREDIBLE IMMERSION MARKED THE START OF 2025
LISBON, Jan. 2025 — The Facts and Norms Institute (FNI) and the IURIS Institute of the University of Lisbon successfully held the 2nd Winter Course: Legal Theory, International Law, and Human Rights from January 7th to 10th, 2025, replicating the success of the first edition held in Coimbra.
Hosted by the University of Lisbon, with sessions at the Academy of Sciences and the Portuguese Supreme Court, the event brought together specialists and scholars for an intensive journey of learning and debate.
Opening and Visit to the Academy of Sciences of Lisbon
The event commenced on the morning of Tuesday, January 7th, with a special visit to the Lisbon Academy of Sciences, where the group was welcomed by representatives of this centuries-old institution.

Among historic corridors and rooms filled with valuable works, participants learned about the essential role the Academy has played in Portugal's intellectual life, reinforcing the interdisciplinary spirit of the course.
After lunch, all attendees gathered at the University of Lisbon's Faculty of Law for the introductory session, led by the organizers. The session featured remarks by Professor António Pedro Barbas Homem, co-organizer of the 2nd Winter Course alongside Professor Henrique Napoleão Alves.
Professor Barbas Homem welcomed participants to the course and provided information about the University of Lisbon and its Master's, Doctoral, and Post-Doctoral programs.

Following this, Professor Henrique Napoleão Alves, director of the FNI and lawyer with the Organization of American States, delivered the lecture "Research and International Advocacy: A Journey at the OAS and the UN (Part 1)," describing his work in legal practice and academia leading up to his incorporation into the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the forthcoming creation of his own institute.

The first day concluded with participant presentations addressing the role of the Public Prosecutor's Office in the Inter-American Human Rights System (Prosecutor Rogério Sanches da Cunha), the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court on decent work (lawyer Verônica Fonseca de Resende), and the relationship between parliamentary action and fundamental rights (Congressman Carlos Henrique Alves da Silva).



International Law, Technology, and Philosophy of Human Rights
On Wednesday, January 8th, Professor Pedro Caridade de Freitas delivered a lecture on “International Law and Human Rights: in particular, the problem of foreigners”, stimulating reflections on migration issues and the universal protection of fundamental rights.

Between lectures, Professor Barbas Homem led participants to the historic Scientific Council Room, which honors the institution's professors and directors, featuring works by prominent European artists.

Later, Professor Paulo de Sousa Mendes provided a current analysis on "Law in the Face of New Technologies and Artificial Intelligence," exploring the ethical and regulatory challenges posed by technological innovations.


Resuming activities in the afternoon, Professor Susana Videira addressed the topic “Liberalism and Social Orientations in the History and Philosophy of Human Rights”, offering a historical-philosophical perspective on modern rights protection.

The day concluded with a round of participant presentations covering topics such as accountability in International Humanitarian Law regarding autonomous weapons (Professor Nathalia Penha Cardoso de França); ethics and freedom in Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights (researcher Yago Ferreira Freire); and connectivity and social inclusion (lawyer and entrepreneur Dane Marcos Avanzi).



History, Human Rights and the Environment
On Thursday, January 9th, Professor Susana Mourato Alves-Jesus (FDUL) led two continuous lectures entitled "History of Human Rights", ranging from the earliest philosophical formulations to the most contemporary instruments of protection.

Professors Viriato Soromenho Marques and Paulo Magalhães offered a joint lecture on “The Environment and Climate Change”, emphasizing the history of international environmentalism and the legal, ethical, and social implications surrounding global climate change.
Subsequently, lawyer Fernanda Yumi Masuki addressed the Precautionary Principle as a guarantee of human rights in contexts of environmental disasters; lawyer Vitória Vilas Boas evaluated the bottlenecks of the carbon market in Brazil; and researcher Eduardo Soares Marques presented a historical-legal study on Father Antônio Vieira’s thinking with regards to the Law of Nations.





Supreme Court and Solemn Closing
Friday, January 10th, began with a visit to the Supreme Court of Justice (STJ) in Lisbon. There were no trials or other activities; the Supreme Court opened its doors exclusively for the 2nd Winter Course. Participants had the opportunity to visit the facilities and attend a keynote lecture in the main hall of the STJ, delivered by Professor Barbas Homem, on the history of constitutionalism and the judiciary.


After lunch break, Professor Henrique Napoleão Alves continued his presentation begun on the first day, addressing "Research and International Advocacy: a journey at the OAS and the UN (part 2)” and sharing experiences in multilateral organizations, including 20 different UN mechanisms and the Inter-American Human Rights system, as well as studies conducted in the Americas, Europe, Africa, and Asia.

Following this, the program had its last cycle of presentations of participants' research with a focus on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law.
Topics discussed included the International Protocol for Documentation and Investigation of Sexual Violence in Conflict (Professor Sami A. R. J. El Jundi); and the construction of a new legal paradigm for the exploration of outer space (Professor Sheila Humphreys), with a discussion involving both Space Law and International Humanitarian Law.


The closing session and certificate ceremony was led by Professor Eduardo Vera-Cruz (Director of the Faculty of Law at the University of Lisbon). In their closing remarks, the organizers highlighted the inclusive and collaborative atmosphere that characterized the course, thanking the professors, students, and technical staff who worked to make the event a reality.
As a final gesture, the course hosts honored the participants with a Port Wine toast. This traditional toast, named the “Port of Honor”, symbolizes the University's hospitality and celebrates the new friendships formed.
Conclusion and Next Steps
The 2nd Winter Course reaffirmed the Institute’s aim of integrating academic content, cultural experience, and professional networking, similar to what occurred in the first edition held in Coimbra in early 2024.
From the Academy of Sciences to the Supreme Court of Justice, from debates about artificial intelligence to the challenges of climate change, the course unfolded with a commitment to broaden horizons, encourage research, and bring together the experiences of professionals and scholars from different places in Brazil, Portugal, and the world.
At the end of four intense days, the outcome was multiple exchanges, new bonds, and a solid expectation of new initiatives and partnerships.
The FNI and its partners reinforce their gratitude to all who participated and are already signaling future events dedicated to strengthening human rights, international law, and the theory of law.
The Director of the FNI, Professor Henrique Napoleão Alves, further thanked the tireless co-members of the organizing team, Ms. Sarah Ebram Alvarenga and Mr. Thiago Fernandes Carneiro de Castro.

SUBSCRIBE FOR FREE to receive the Newsletter in your preferred email: https://forms.gle/23zQLwe21pyGxpLq9
Yorumlar