Secondary menu
IHRP external news feeds
For Immediate Release Mexico City: Flaws in Proposed Care System Law
(Mexico City, March 30, 2026) – A draft bill to establish a care system in Mexico City risks undermining the rights of people with disabilities and older people due to structural shortcomings and a restrictive budget provision, Human Rights Watch said today.
The bill has been framed as an effort to align Mexico City with international human rights law, including the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. While the current proposal recognizes care as a human right and includes key principles such as autonomy, inclusion, and deinstitutionalization, it falls short on support for independent living and has significant gaps that may limit its alignment with human rights in practice. It relies on care centers and service-driven models, and lacks safeguards to ensure autonomy, informed choice, and control by people with disabilities and older people over their support systems.
“The bill has important positive elements, but its structure and financing restrictions risk limiting people’s ability to exercise their rights in practice,” said Carlos Ríos Espinosa, associate disability rights director at Human Rights Watch. “Without adequate funding, the system cannot move beyond formal recognition of rights to ensuring real support in people’s daily lives.”
The bill’s funding provisions are a particular concern, Human Rights Watch said. While article 78 requires a progressive budget that does not decrease in real terms, an interim provision that bars any spending increases means that the budget to carry out this law’s provisions can only increase if those allocations are taken away from other spending priorities.
This could make increases practically impossible, eviscerating the intent of article 78 and undermining a crucial pillar of the bill’s attempt to align with international human rights law. Adequate funding support will be essential to any serious effort to ensure respect for the right to live independently and be included in the community under article 19 of the international treaty, for example.
The bill includes provisions for services for people with disabilities and older people, as well as the creation of care centers and certain social assistance programs, such as day care centers for older people. However, its overall design remains focused on providing services, and it does not do enough to establish a comprehensive system of individualized support that would enable people to live independently and participate in the community.
The budget restriction seems incompatible with any meaningful effort to realize key components of the right to independent living, including personal assistance, community-based support, and efforts to transition away from institutional care. Without sustained investment, these elements are unlikely to be developed at the scale required, limiting people’s ability to choose where and with whom they live.
The bill’s approach to the critical issue of financial support for people with disabilities also raises substantive concerns. While it would provide cash transfers to caregivers, it does not clearly allocate direct resources for people with disabilities to secure personal assistance or ensure social security coverage for those workers, as proposed by the Care Yes, Supports Too coalition of organizations of people with disabilities. This risks reinforcing dependence on families, contrary to the goal of autonomy.
Human Rights Watch has documented cases in Mexico City in which a lack of independent living support exposes people with disabilities to domestic violence and entrenches dependency, increasing the risks of neglect and abandonment. These situations often arise when people must rely on unstable, insufficient, or abusive family or informal arrangements.
“A provision that bars budget expansion in future fiscal years raises serious concerns about whether the government can meet its obligation to take steps commensurate with maximum available resources to realize economic, social, and cultural rights,” Ríos Espinosa said. “It also creates a real risk that the system will be implemented in a limited or fragmented way, leaving many people without the support they are entitled to.”
There are also concerns about other aspects of the bill, Human Rights Watch said, including the lack of a clear strategy for deinstitutionalization and the use of eligibility criteria that may exclude people who need support but do not meet the threshold of “intensive” needs, as described in the bill.
Lawmakers should remove the budget cap to ensure that funding can expand in line with needs and prioritize investment in community-based support and personal assistance consistent with article 19 of the international treaty, Human Rights Watch said.
“This law could be transformative but only if it is backed by adequate resources and a rights-aligned framework,” Ríos Espinosa said. “A care system without adequate funding risks becoming an empty promise rather than a tool for advancing rights and independence.”
US: Rights-Respecting Approaches to Mental Health Crisis
(New York) – Communities throughout the country are developing alternative models of mental health crisis response Human Rights Watch, New York Lawyers for the Public Interest, and the Center for Racial and Disability Justice at UCLA Law School said in a report released today. These approaches are desperately needed as US police kill hundreds of people each year, many of whom had documented mental health conditions, and as federal, state, and local jurisdictions seek to implement increasingly coercive approaches to mental health crisis response and treatment.
The 66-page report, “‘Self-Determination is the Pathway to Liberation’: Alternative Mental Health Crisis Response in the United States,” identifies key elements of rights-respecting responses to mental health crises and explores how alternative mental health crisis response programs have carried out these approaches in practice. Many of these models share core elements, including promoting individual autonomy, providing voluntary support rather than mandating compliance, and avoiding unnecessary law enforcement involvement.
“Having police as the primary or default responders to people experiencing mental health crises is ineffective and sometimes lethal, given their orientation toward force and compliance,” said Tanya Greene, US program director at Human Rights Watch. “Fortunately, there are alternate approaches that emphasize personal autonomy and consent to treatment.”
Researchers studied over 150 crisis response programs from across the United States and feature eight that have committed to implement key aspects of supportive, rights-based mental health crisis response without police as primary or default responders. The researchers interviewed program administrators and, where possible, community members and advocates for unaffiliated perspectives on the programs. Researchers used international human rights law and standards as a tool for identifying key elements of rights-respecting programs.
In many cases, police presence escalates mental health crises and results in coercion and violence. People with mental health conditions are particularly at risk to police violence and are much more likely to be killed during police encounters than people without a disability. This risk is especially true for Black people and other people of color with mental health conditions. Police often tend to approach people in crisis with commands and calls for compliance in situations when a more nuanced and supportive interaction that peers—those with lived mental health experience—and mental health workers can provide is needed.
The eight programs featured in the report are based in communities around the United States. Some are connected to local government, while others operate independently. Their response teams differ in composition, though most include peers, social workers, emergency medical technicians or paramedics, and crisis intervention specialists. They typically respond on-site to the person experiencing a crisis, and provide a variety of services, including assessments, de-escalation, safety planning, crisis counseling, education, transportation, referrals to community resources, and follow-ups.
The programs were developed with the recognition that police-centered mental health crisis responses have often led to violence and harm to the person in need of support. Black people and other people of color have been especially exposed to that violence and harm, due in part to existing structural racism in policing, mental health care, and more generally throughout society.
Programs that emphasize non-coercive models and non-police responses seek to avoid that violence and provide more effective support for people experiencing crises by mobilizing and training peers and other professionals, steeped in the culture and communities they serve.
The metrics by which the programs were evaluated include eliminating police as primary or default responders, avoiding involuntary treatment, implementing a consent-centered approach to treatment, promoting participation of peers, providing trauma-informed and culturally responsive training, and maintaining a deep connection to the communities they serve. Researchers evaluated the programs’ commitment to providing accessible services, response times comparable with other emergency services, follow-up care, and minimization of power imbalances between service providers and those they support.
“These programs serve as examples for how we can truly serve individuals and communities to make their own decisions through support and care,” said William Juhn, senior staff attorney of the Disability Justice Program at New York Lawyers for the Public Interest.
While no one program purports to embrace or implement all these rights-respecting criteria, each program is oriented around at least some of them. Researchers did not evaluate outcomes and did not endorse any program’s particular model or approach to crisis response.
“As federal, state, and local governments move toward more coercive approaches to mental health crisis response, like involuntary commitments, hospitalizations, and forced medication, it is important to understand that programs honoring human rights do exist,” said Jordyn Jensen, community engagement and communications manager at the Center for Racial and Disability Justice.
African Court Should Protect People Displaced by Climate Change
The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights is poised to issue an advisory opinion on states’ human rights obligations in the climate crisis. This is an opportunity to strengthen protections for people displaced by climate change and to call for a rights-respecting approach.
A petition filed in May 2025 by the Pan African Lawyers Union and the African Climate Platform asked the court to interpret states’ obligations under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights in light of climate change. This comes amid a surge in such legal clarifications by international and regional tribunals.
Human Rights Watch Submission for the African Court Advisory Opinion on State Obligations Related to the Climate Crisis August 18, 2025 “Waiting for God”Human Rights Watch submitted an amicus brief to the court drawing on our August 2025 report, “‘Waiting for God’: Flood Displacement and Planned Relocation of Fisherfolk in Saint-Louis, Senegal.” Coastal flooding in 2015 and 2016 displaced fishing families from the Langue de Barbarie peninsula in Saint-Louis to Khar Yalla, a site that government and World Bank officials acknowledge is unsuitable for permanent habitation.
We found that nearly a decade after the floods, families experienced severe overcrowding, most houses lacked electricity, there was no waste collection, and seasonal flooding sent septic water into homes. These families are excluded from a World Bank-funded planned relocation of others displaced by coastal floods, and are desperate for the kind of protections this advisory opinion could make clear are state obligations.
Based on data from the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center, the number of people internally displaced by floods and other natural hazards has risen nearly sixfold across African continent in the last 15 years, to 6.3 million in 2023. Planned relocations are already happening across Africa with 39 cases identified in a global mapping.
The 2025 decisions by the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights cemented the notion that climate policy must respect human rights, be guided by the best available science, and reflect a state’s highest level of ambition. But no international tribunal has comprehensively clarified how national policies can protect the rights of climate displaced communities awaiting planned relocations.
The court should address this critical gap for communities like Khar Yalla by clarifying that states parties to the African Charter have binding obligations to protect people displaced by climate change including through rights-respecting planned relocation as a last resort.
Iran: Unlawful Cluster Munition Strikes on Israel
(Beirut, March 30, 2026) – The Iranian government has repeatedly used inherently indiscriminate cluster munitions delivered by ballistic missiles in attacks on Israel since February 28, 2026, Human Rights Watch said today. At least four civilians have been killed in the strikes, which violate the laws of war and may amount to war crimes.
Human Rights Watch confirmed three separate Iranian attacks involving cluster munitions that affected population centers in Israel, including two separate incidents that resulted in civilian deaths near Tel Aviv, two men in Yehud on March 9 and an older man and woman in Ramat Gan on March 18.
“Iran’s use of cluster munitions in populated areas in Israel pose a foreseeable and long-lasting danger to civilians,” said Patrick Thompson, crisis, conflict and arms researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Cluster munition bomblets are dispersed over a wide area, making them unlawfully indiscriminate in violation of the laws of war.”
Cluster munitions are fired in rockets, missiles, and projectiles or dropped from aircraft. They typically disperse in the air, spreading dozens of explosive submunitions, or bomblets, indiscriminately over a large area. Many fail to explode on initial impact, leaving duds that can kill and maim, like landmines, for years or even decades, unless cleared and destroyed.
Human Rights Watch analyzed 50 videos and 5 photographs posted online of suspected cluster munition use by Iran between March 1 and 20, as well as 6 photographs of unexploded submunitions apparently located in Israel and the West Bank. Human Rights Watch also interviewed witnesses to suspected cluster munition attacks. Human Rights Watch wrote to the Iranian government on March 25 concerning the use of cluster munitions. No response had been received at the time of publication.
Israel: Confirmed Submonition Imapcts Apologies, if you see this message instead of an interactive map, then your browser does not support WebGL - a technology used by this mapping tool. Try loading this page in a supported browser like Chrome or contact webteam@hrw.org Confirmed Submonition ImpactsFor privacy and security reasons, Human Rights Watch has anonymized the locations by rounding the coordinates and restricting the zoom level for readers.
Graphics © 2026 Human Rights Watch.
Since the United States and Israel launched their assault on Iran on February 28, Iranian forces have responded with drone and missile attacks against Israel, as well as other countries in the region, particularly in the Gulf. Media reports and the Israeli government said at least 16 civilians have been killed in Israel and 4 in the West Bank as a result of missile fire. Nine of the victims in Israel were killed in a single ballistic missile strike on the town of Beit Shemesh on March 1, including 3 children. As of March 27, the Iranian Red Crescent had reported 1,900 deaths in Iran since the start of the conflict.
Although Iran has not joined the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions, which comprehensively bans all production and use of these weapons, international humanitarian law prohibits indiscriminate attacks. The widespread impact of submunitions across a populated area is indicative of attacks that cannot discriminate between civilians and combatants and may amount to war crimes. Unexploded submunitions pose continued danger to civilians long after attacks.
Iran is known to possess ballistic missiles capable of delivering submunitions. The Israeli military spokesperson accused Iran of using cluster munitions in a post on X on February 28, the first reported use of these weapons during the current hostilities. Human Rights Watch was unable to verify this claim, but on March 1, multiple sources began posting videos and photographs on social media of what appear to be cluster munitions dispersed by an Iranian ballistic missile. It is unclear if these images are from the same or separate attacks.
Human Rights Watch reviewed 30 similar videos showing descending ballistic missiles surrounded by numerous suspected submunitions falling toward the ground. These most likely show eight separate incidents between March 1 and 20. Most show ballistic missiles with between 21 and 25 objects falling along their paths. Two of the videos show at least 65 objects. Human Rights Watch could not corroborate where these videos were taken, but researchers could not find them posted online before March. There is no visible evidence in videos reviewed that suggest these missiles were intercepted. The Israeli military has reportedly said that it does not attempt to intercept cluster munitions to conserve interceptors.
Click to expand Image Two images of unexploded submunitions posted by South Sharon Regional Council in central Israel on March 5, 2026. © 2026 Human Rights WatchThe first incident involving cluster munitions that Human Rights Watch confirmed occurred in the city of Or Yehuda, in central Israel. On March 6, Emanuel Fabian, a military correspondent for the Times of Israel, posted CCTV footage on X showing a clearly identifiable submunition affecting a civilian area that Human Rights Watch geolocated to a commercial area in Or Yehuda. The video, timestamped March 4 at 2:38 p.m., shows a submunition hitting the middle of a wide, empty street, causing an explosion.
The second attack took place on March 9, killing the two men and injuring at least one other person. Human Rights Watch verified near simultaneous impacts in Or Yehuda, Yehud, Bat Yam and Holon, all nearby cities in the broader metropolitan area of Tel Aviv. This area is Israel’s most densely populated, accounting for up to 45 percent of its population. The apparent submunitions were likely from one ballistic missile, affecting sites up to 13 kilometers apart, demonstrating the inherently indiscriminate nature of these weapons.
The attack in Yehud killed two construction workers at a building site. A video posted to Telegram on March 9 just before midday and verified by Human Rights Watch, shows two bodies several meters apart, one in a pool of blood, at a construction site. A witness to the attack said: “I work here on the construction site where the men were killed. I was pulling [my car] onto the street, on my way to work, and the sirens came on, and I heard the explosion.”
An apparent submunition impact approximately five kilometers away, in Or Yehuda, severely injured a man at the same time. Human Rights Watch verified CCTV footage posted to Telegram and geolocated it to Or Yehuda that shows a suspected submunition detonating on a road between newly constructed apartment complexes and a pedestrian falling injured to the ground a few meters away.
At 11:30 a.m. on March 9, Magen David Adom, Israel’s national emergency medical service, posted on Telegram that it was responding to multiple incidents in central Israel that had caused serious casualties. Fabian, the reporter for The Times of Israel, reported that the impacts were caused by submunitions, quoting first responders.
Human Rights Watch analysis of the detonations and the damage to residential areas in Yehud, Or Yehuda, Bat Yam, and Holon also suggests the use of submunitions, which have a relatively small explosive payload and cause significantly less damage than medium and intermediate-range ballistic missiles, which have high explosive payloads many times larger than a single submunition. The damage was also inconsistent with kinetic damage caused by falling debris.
In the third incident Human Rights Watch verified, suspected submunitions struck multiple locations between midnight and 1 a.m. on March 18. At 12:12 a.m., the Israeli military announced the detection of ballistic missile launches from Iran and at around 12:20 a.m., sirens began sounding throughout central Israel. From 12:22 a.m., multiple sources began posting videos on Telegram of suspected cluster munitions, with the captions saying they were falling over central Israel. Researchers could not determine the locations of these videos, as they were taken at night, but it appears that they were not posted online before March 18.
These videos were followed by reports on social media of impacts in Bnei Brak, Petah Tikva, and Ramat Gan, all within the Tel Aviv metropolitan area.
Shortly after reports of strikes surfaced, Magen David Adom reported that a man and a woman had died of severe fragmentation injuries in Ramat Gan. Videos and photographs of the impact site verified by Human Rights Watch show damage to a three-story residential building. A top-floor apartment where the couple were killed sustained damage to at least one interior room and its façade, with only light structural damage to the rest of the building, including a collapsed awning. The apartment damage is consistent with a submunition, as a large unitary warhead from a ballistic missile would most likely have caused significantly more damage.
A witness in Ramat Gan said: “We were huddled inside our shelter––me, my mother, father, and brother––when suddenly, after the alarm, we heard an explosion. It sounded close. We opened the window, looked outside, and saw that the apartment across the street from us was hit. A [munition] went through the roof and hit two older people, in their 70s, before they had reached the shelter.”
Human Rights Watch confirmed near simultaneous impacts in Petah Tikva on March 18 that were also most likely caused by submunitions. A photograph geolocated by Human Rights Watch shows an impact crater next to an upturned vehicle consistent with the size and depth of craters in other videos of submunition impacts. A video verified by Human Rights Watch and time-stamped 12:21 a.m. on March 18, shows an explosion consistent with a submunition impact approximately 815 meters to the northeast.
On March 19, four Palestinian women were killed in the West Bank town of Beit Awa. The Israeli military asserted they were killed by a submunition, while the Palestinian Red Crescent Society reported that they were killed by shrapnel falling from a missile. Human Rights Watch has not been able to independently verify the type of munition that killed them. Palestinians in the West Bank are more vulnerable to missiles and falling interception fragments due to a lack of protective infrastructure such as warning sirens and bomb shelters.
Human Rights Watch also reviewed six photographs showing unexploded submunitions posted online between March 1 and 15, that reportedly struck Israel and the West Bank. Human Rights Watch could not establish the locations of these submunitions due to the lack of geographic detail in the photographs, but researchers could not find them online before March. These submunitions are consistent with munitions used by Iran during the 12-Day War in June 2025, and their use has not been documented in other conflicts.
Publicly available technical information on the exact weapons used in these strikes is limited. Iran has, however, previously published information on ballistic missiles that have the capability to dispense submunitions. Iranian media published information on the “Zelzal” ballistic missile, which can carry up to 30 unguided submunitions weighing 17 kilograms that resemble those identified by Human Rights Watch. The number of submunitions is also consistent with most videos of suspected submunition use reviewed by Human Rights Watch.
Following an apparent failed missile test in Iran in 2023, submunitions resembling those Human Rights Watch identified in Israel struck the city of Gorgan in northeastern Iran. These submunitions are equipped with a heat shield that protects them as they descend through the atmosphere, causing a glow visible in videos of their descent. Additionally, Iran is also known to possess multiple other ballistic missiles reportedly capable of delivering submunitions, including variants of the “Ghadr,” “Khorramshar,” and “Fateh” missiles.
“The Iranian government should immediately stop firing cluster munitions,” Thompson said. “These munitions are not only inherently indiscriminate at the time of use, but unexploded submunitions pose a risk long afterwards, until cleared or destroyed.”
Iran: Unlawful Cluster Munition Strikes on Israel
(Beirut, March 30, 2026) – The Iranian government has repeatedly used inherently indiscriminate cluster munitions delivered by ballistic missiles in attacks on Israel since February 28, 2026, Human Rights Watch said today. At least four civilians have been killed in the strikes, which violate the laws of war and may amount to war crimes.
Human Rights Watch confirmed three separate Iranian attacks involving cluster munitions that affected population centers in Israel, including two separate incidents that resulted in civilian deaths near Tel Aviv, two men in Yehud on March 9 and an older man and woman in Ramat Gan on March 18.
“Iran’s use of cluster munitions in populated areas in Israel pose a foreseeable and long-lasting danger to civilians,” said Patrick Thompson, crisis, conflict and arms researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Cluster munition bomblets are dispersed over a wide area, making them unlawfully indiscriminate in violation of the laws of war.”
Cluster munitions are fired in rockets, missiles, and projectiles or dropped from aircraft. They typically disperse in the air, spreading dozens of explosive submunitions, or bomblets, indiscriminately over a large area. Many fail to explode on initial impact, leaving duds that can kill and maim, like landmines, for years or even decades, unless cleared and destroyed.
Human Rights Watch analyzed 50 videos and 5 photographs posted online of suspected cluster munition use by Iran between March 1 and 20, as well as 6 photographs of unexploded submunitions apparently located in Israel and the West Bank. Human Rights Watch also interviewed witnesses to suspected cluster munition attacks. Human Rights Watch wrote to the Iranian government on March 25 concerning the use of cluster munitions. No response had been received at the time of publication.
Israel: Confirmed Submonition Imapcts Confirmed Submonition ImpactsFor privacy and security reasons, Human Rights Watch has anonymized the locations by rounding the coordinates and restricting the zoom level for readers.
Graphics © 2026 Human Rights Watch.
Since the United States and Israel launched their assault on Iran on February 28, Iranian forces have responded with drone and missile attacks against Israel, as well as other countries in the region, particularly in the Gulf. Media reports and the Israeli government said at least 16 civilians have been killed in Israel and 4 in the West Bank as a result of missile fire. Nine of the victims in Israel were killed in a single ballistic missile strike on the town of Beit Shemesh on March 1, including 3 children. As of March 27, the Iranian Red Crescent had reported 1,900 deaths in Iran since the start of the conflict.
Although Iran has not joined the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions, which comprehensively bans all production and use of these weapons, international humanitarian law prohibits indiscriminate attacks. The widespread impact of submunitions across a populated area is indicative of attacks that cannot discriminate between civilians and combatants and may amount to war crimes. Unexploded submunitions pose continued danger to civilians long after attacks.
Iran is known to possess ballistic missiles capable of delivering submunitions. The Israeli military spokesperson accused Iran of using cluster munitions in a post on X on February 28, the first reported use of these weapons during the current hostilities. Human Rights Watch was unable to verify this claim, but on March 1, multiple sources began posting videos and photographs on social media of what appear to be cluster munitions dispersed by an Iranian ballistic missile. It is unclear if these images are from the same or separate attacks.
Human Rights Watch reviewed 30 similar videos showing descending ballistic missiles surrounded by numerous suspected submunitions falling toward the ground. These most likely show eight separate incidents between March 1 and 20. Most show ballistic missiles with between 21 and 25 objects falling along their paths. Two of the videos show at least 65 objects. Human Rights Watch could not corroborate where these videos were taken, but researchers could not find them posted online before March. There is no visible evidence in videos reviewed that suggest these missiles were intercepted. The Israeli military has reportedly said that it does not attempt to intercept cluster munitions to conserve interceptors.
Click to expand Image Two images of unexploded submunitions posted by South Sharon Regional Council in central Israel on March 5, 2026. © 2026 Human Rights WatchThe first incident involving cluster munitions that Human Rights Watch confirmed occurred in the city of Or Yehuda, in central Israel. On March 6, Emanuel Fabian, a military correspondent for the Times of Israel, posted CCTV footage on X showing a clearly identifiable submunition affecting a civilian area that Human Rights Watch geolocated to a commercial area in Or Yehuda. The video, timestamped March 4 at 2:38 p.m., shows a submunition hitting the middle of a wide, empty street, causing an explosion.
The second attack took place on March 9, killing the two men and injuring at least one other person. Human Rights Watch verified near simultaneous impacts in Or Yehuda, Yehud, Bat Yam and Holon, all nearby cities in the broader metropolitan area of Tel Aviv. This area is Israel’s most densely populated, accounting for up to 45 percent of its population. The apparent submunitions were likely from one ballistic missile, affecting sites up to 13 kilometers apart, demonstrating the inherently indiscriminate nature of these weapons.
The attack in Yehud killed two construction workers at a building site. A video posted to Telegram on March 9 just before midday and verified by Human Rights Watch, shows two bodies several meters apart, one in a pool of blood, at a construction site. A witness to the attack said: “I work here on the construction site where the men were killed. I was pulling [my car] onto the street, on my way to work, and the sirens came on, and I heard the explosion.”
An apparent submunition impact approximately five kilometers away, in Or Yehuda, severely injured a man at the same time. Human Rights Watch verified CCTV footage posted to Telegram and geolocated it to Or Yehuda that shows a suspected submunition detonating on a road between newly constructed apartment complexes and a pedestrian falling injured to the ground a few meters away.
At 11:30 a.m. on March 9, Magen David Adom, Israel’s national emergency medical service, posted on Telegram that it was responding to multiple incidents in central Israel that had caused serious casualties. Fabian, the reporter for The Times of Israel, reported that the impacts were caused by submunitions, quoting first responders.
Human Rights Watch analysis of the detonations and the damage to residential areas in Yehud, Or Yehuda, Bat Yam, and Holon also suggests the use of submunitions, which have a relatively small explosive payload and cause significantly less damage than medium and intermediate-range ballistic missiles, which have high explosive payloads many times larger than a single submunition. The damage was also inconsistent with kinetic damage caused by falling debris.
In the third incident Human Rights Watch verified, suspected submunitions struck multiple locations between midnight and 1 a.m. on March 18. At 12:12 a.m., the Israeli military announced the detection of ballistic missile launches from Iran and at around 12:20 a.m., sirens began sounding throughout central Israel. From 12:22 a.m., multiple sources began posting videos on Telegram of suspected cluster munitions, with the captions saying they were falling over central Israel. Researchers could not determine the locations of these videos, as they were taken at night, but it appears that they were not posted online before March 18.
These videos were followed by reports on social media of impacts in Bnei Brak, Petah Tikva, and Ramat Gan, all within the Tel Aviv metropolitan area.
Shortly after reports of strikes surfaced, Magen David Adom reported that a man and a woman had died of severe fragmentation injuries in Ramat Gan. Videos and photographs of the impact site verified by Human Rights Watch show damage to a three-story residential building. A top-floor apartment where the couple were killed sustained damage to at least one interior room and its façade, with only light structural damage to the rest of the building, including a collapsed awning. The apartment damage is consistent with a submunition, as a large unitary warhead from a ballistic missile would most likely have caused significantly more damage.
A witness in Ramat Gan said: “We were huddled inside our shelter––me, my mother, father, and brother––when suddenly, after the alarm, we heard an explosion. It sounded close. We opened the window, looked outside, and saw that the apartment across the street from us was hit. A [munition] went through the roof and hit two older people, in their 70s, before they had reached the shelter.”
Human Rights Watch confirmed near simultaneous impacts in Petah Tikva on March 18 that were also most likely caused by submunitions. A photograph geolocated by Human Rights Watch shows an impact crater next to an upturned vehicle consistent with the size and depth of craters in other videos of submunition impacts. A video verified by Human Rights Watch and time-stamped 12:21 a.m. on March 18, shows an explosion consistent with a submunition impact approximately 815 meters to the northeast.
On March 19, four Palestinian women were killed in the West Bank town of Beit Awa. The Israeli military asserted they were killed by a submunition, while the Palestinian Red Crescent Society reported that they were killed by shrapnel falling from a missile. Human Rights Watch has not been able to independently verify the type of munition that killed them. Palestinians in the West Bank are more vulnerable to missiles and falling interception fragments due to a lack of protective infrastructure such as warning sirens and bomb shelters.
Human Rights Watch also reviewed six photographs showing unexploded submunitions posted online between March 1 and 15, that reportedly struck Israel and the West Bank. Human Rights Watch could not establish the locations of these submunitions due to the lack of geographic detail in the photographs, but researchers could not find them online before March. These submunitions are consistent with munitions used by Iran during the 12-Day War in June 2025, and their use has not been documented in other conflicts.
Publicly available technical information on the exact weapons used in these strikes is limited. Iran has, however, previously published information on ballistic missiles that have the capability to dispense submunitions. Iranian media published information on the “Zelzal” ballistic missile, which can carry up to 30 unguided submunitions weighing 17 kilograms that resemble those identified by Human Rights Watch. The number of submunitions is also consistent with most videos of suspected submunition use reviewed by Human Rights Watch.
Following an apparent failed missile test in Iran in 2023, submunitions resembling those Human Rights Watch identified in Israel struck the city of Gorgan in northeastern Iran. These submunitions are equipped with a heat shield that protects them as they descend through the atmosphere, causing a glow visible in videos of their descent. Additionally, Iran is also known to possess multiple other ballistic missiles reportedly capable of delivering submunitions, including variants of the “Ghadr,” “Khorramshar,” and “Fateh” missiles.
“The Iranian government should immediately stop firing cluster munitions,” Thompson said. “These munitions are not only inherently indiscriminate at the time of use, but unexploded submunitions pose a risk long afterwards, until cleared or destroyed.”
The Loss of a Journalist in Burundi
Human Rights Watch mourns the passing of Burundian journalist Jackson Bahati, who died suddenly at age 55 on March 16, 2026.
Click to expand Image Jackson Bahati. © PrivateBahati was a pillar among journalists in Burundi. A skilled writer and presenter, he was led by an innate curiosity and love for his country. Throughout his career spanning decades, Bahati interviewed many victims and witnesses of human rights abuses with care and compassion, empowering them while giving voice to their experiences.
Bahati worked for a variety of outlets across Burundi over the course of his career and was regarded as a mentor for younger journalists, ready to support the next generation. He was deeply committed to those who looked to him as a teacher and wanted, above all else, a strong media in Burundi to be part of his legacy.
When Burundi experienced tumultuous political and security upheaval in 2015, Bahati remained in the country, committed to continuing his work. He was attuned to the challenging and at times dangerous security situation for journalists working in that environment but never allowed these to discourage him or those around him.
In 2015, during violence around his home in Cibitoke, Bahati was out in front of the reporting, leading with his eloquence and a deep personal commitment to both journalism and the human rights cause.
Bahati’s death is a shock to the Great Lakes media community and his colleagues and partners around the world, including Human Rights Watch. We express our deepest condolences to his family and all those close to him. Burundi has lost a committed journalist, fierce advocate, friend, and a kind, generous soul. He will be dearly missed and always remembered.
A Year on from Myanmar’s Earthquake
On March 28, 2025, a 7.7-magnitude earthquake struck central Myanmar, killing thousands and devastating communities already affected by armed conflict, displacement, and economic collapse.
The quake and its aftershock toppled buildings and collapsed roads and bridges across several of the country’s states and regions. Essential services were brought to the “verge of collapse,” according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, impacting millions of people. But rather than receiving support, most were left to contend with the junta’s misuse of aid for military purposes.
Junta officials denied and delayed visas for international emergency response teams, confiscated medicine, extorted and harassed aid workers, and blocked internet access. Areas under the opposition’s control—large swathes of the affected regions—were left “largely devoid of external assistance,” according to an internal UN report. Hundreds of thousands were displaced and exposed to extreme heat without access to clean water or medical care.
The junta took advantage of this catastrophe to ruthlessly attack civilians in affected areas, despite its announcement of a ceasefire to allow for relief. In the two months after the earthquake, the military carried out more than 550 aerial and artillery attacks, killing hundreds of civilians. More airstrikes were launched in April 2025 than in any prior month since the 2021 military coup.
Over the past year, the military has benefitted from increased support from China and Russia. Military operations to retake territory from opposition forces ahead of the junta’s recent sham national elections involved numerous airstrikes killing and wounding civilians that amounted to war crimes.
Earlier this month, the junta convened its new proxy parliament, a military body in all but name. Army chief Sr. Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, who has overseen the military’s war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocidal acts for 15 years, is seeking the role of president.
After the earthquake, the UN Security Council released a statement calling for timely and effective assistance, echoing its December 2022 resolution. But the council has remained largely deadlocked and ineffectual on Myanmar and the junta’s frequent violations of the resolution.
Waves of overlapping crises—humanitarian, man-made, and natural—continue to threaten the lives and well-being of people across Myanmar. The junta has driven these conditions. Governments should increase pressure on the military to protect the rights of everyone in Myanmar, now and in future disasters.
Hungary Orders Investigation of Journalist on Espionage Accusation
The decision by Hungary’s minister of justice to order an investigation into Szabolcs Panyi, a prominent Hungarian journalist, on dubious accusations of espionage, marks a dangerous escalation in the state’s crackdown on independent media.
The government accuses Panyi, who writes for Direkt36 and VSquare, of spying “in cooperation with a foreign state,”suggesting his journalism serves as a “cover activity.” He has not yet been charged with any offence. Conviction for espionage carries a sentence of up to 15 years. Panyi has denied the accusations, calling them an attack on journalism.
The allegations stem from his reporting on ties between the Hungarian and Russian governments, including communications between officials that could be politically embarrassing to the Hungarian government.
The investigation started after a Hungarian pro-government newspaper published a covertly recorded conversation between Panyi and a source. The recording raises fresh concerns about surveillance of journalists in Hungary, especially as Panyi was previously targeted by Pegasus spyware, which allows users unfettered access to a targets device and is only supplied to governments. A 2023 European Parliament investigation found that Hungary’s government uses Pegasus.
Hungary’s media environment has been systematically eroded over the past decade with an estimated 80 percent of the media now directly or indirectly controlled by the government. Some independent outlets have been taken over by government-linked actors and turned into pro-government mouthpieces, while others have been shut down completely.
Hundreds of pro-government outlets have been consolidated under the umbrella of a single private foundation, the Central European Press and Media Foundation, or KESMA, while independent media face sustained economic pressure through the selective allocation of state advertising. Journalists face smear campaigns, obstruction, and surveillance, while regulators lack independence, creating an increasingly hostile environment for independent reporting.
Investigating a journalist for espionage in retaliation for reporting on issues of public interest risks criminalizing journalism itself. It sends the chilling message that reporters who look too closely may face criminal proceedings.
Hungarian authorities should immediately drop their investigation into Panyi and end their intimidation of independent journalists.
The European Commission should closely monitor Panyi’s case and ensure it is reflected in its ongoing assessment of Hungary’s compliance with the rule of law and funding conditionality, while EU member states should use the article 7 process, designed to address serious rule of law breaches including by suspending a member state’s voting rights, to pressure Hungary to end its crackdown on independent media.
Pakistan: Airstrike on Afghan Medical Facility Unlawful
(New York) – A Pakistani airstrike on a drug treatment center in Afghanistan on March 16, 2026, was an unlawful attack and a possible war crime, Human Rights Watch said today. International agencies reported that at least 143 people were killed and more than 250 injured, most of them patients. Pakistani authorities should promptly and impartially investigate the incident and hold all those responsible for wrongdoing to account.
The Pakistan air force attack struck the Omid Drug Rehabilitation Center, a 2,000-bed treatment complex in eastern Kabul that has operated since 2016 on the premises of a former NATO base known as Camp Phoenix. A center employee told Human Rights Watch that three buildings were hit: a large building used as a dining area, a building that accommodates 450 patients, and a guard room where eight men were working. On March 17, Pakistan’s federal minister of information and broadcasting, Attaullah Tarar, posted on X that Pakistan had carried out “precision airstrikes” on “technical support infrastructure and ammunition storage facilities,” but did not mention the Omid facility.
“The available evidence indicates that the Pakistani airstrike against a well-known Kabul medical facility killing dozens of patients was unlawful,” said Patricia Gossman, senior associate Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Pakistani authorities need to carry out an impartial investigation to determine why it hit a drug treatment center filled with civilians and who should be held to account.”
The center employee said that over 1,000 patients were at the facility at the time of the attack, but the actual number is uncertain. An official with an international agency said that many patients were in the dining area to break the Ramadan fast. The United Nations describedthe “complete destruction of one block that housed adolescents receiving drug treatment.”
Afghanistan’s poor health infrastructure and lack of DNA testing capacity have hampered identification of the dead. An Afghan forensic doctor at the Public Health Ministry said that medical personnel could not identify some bodies. The father of one victim said: “We searched all hospitals in Kabul…[but] we couldn’t find him. Then we went to forensic medicine, and his body was there. … They showed us many bodies before we could identify him.”
Afghan officials have read out their names to families searching for their relatives. Omid center patients also included detainees and prisoners from Pul-e Charkhi prison, 16 kilometers east, and people picked up during anti-drug sweeps in Kabul. Former employees and aid officials said that the missing may include prisoners and other patients who escaped in the chaos.
Satellite imagery from March 23, analyzed by Human Rights Watch, shows widespread destruction across the Omid center. The largest building in the compound and two smaller buildings are destroyed. Other buildings around the main building sustained heavy damage, as well as a group of buildings in a corner of the compound that appear completely burned.
Human Rights Watch verified a video that the Pakistan information minister posted on social media on March 17 showing a missile hitting the largest building in the compound, closely followed by explosions at two other buildings. Humanitarian agency officials told researchers that the large building was used as a dining area and for accommodation, which Human Rights Watch corroborated by matching earlier photographs and video of the building’s interior. A 2023 Al Jazeera documentary about the Omid center shows dozens of patients gathering in the courtyard outside the building. Humanitarian agency officials said the other two buildings were living facilities and a guard room that a center employee said was used to store food and cooking oil.
Human Rights Watch verified three videos posted on social media showing the immediate aftermath of the attack and photographs from search-and-rescue operations showing destruction across the camp. Videos show the group of buildings in the center’s corner engulfed in flames. In a verified video, a sign on a burning building reads “Directorate of 2000-bed Support and Treatment Center (2000), Omid.” A photograph of the same building’s destroyed interior posted online on March 17 shows charred remains of a bunk bed.
The former NATO complex also houses the 1,000-bed Ibn Sina Addiction Treatment Hospital, run by the Public Health Ministry. The two medical facilities occupied only part of the former military base, and the purpose of other structures in the complex is unclear. However, in the videos reviewed, Human Rights Watch saw no indication of secondary detonations caused by bulk explosives, propellants, or ammunition with tracer elements typically associated with ammunition depots. In addition, the facility had insufficient space to safely segregate and store bulk ammunition or propellants given the quantity and distance needed.
International humanitarian law applicable to the armed conflict between Pakistan and Afghanistan obligates all warring parties to take “constant care” to protect civilians during military operations. This includes taking all feasible precautions to avoid locating military objectives near densely populated areas and doing everything feasible to ensure that targets of attack are lawful military objectives.
Hospitals and clinics have special protections under the laws of war. While other presumptively civilian structures become military objectives when being used for a military purpose, medical facilities lose their protection from attack only if being used to commit “acts harmful to the enemy.” Even then, a warning with a reasonable time limit is required. The laws of war also prohibit attacks on military objectives if the anticipated harm to civilians is disproportionate compared to the expected military gain.
On the basis of available information, Human Rights Watch found no evidence that the Omid center was being used for military purposes, making the attack unlawfully indiscriminate. In any case, the attack would appear to violate the prohibition against disproportionate attacks. Serious violations of the laws of war committed with criminal intent—that is, deliberately or recklessly—are war crimes. Pakistan has an obligation under international law to investigate alleged war crimes by its forces and bring those responsible for serious abuses to account.
The Pakistani government in recent years has accused Taliban authorities in Afghanistan of harboring and providing material support to the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. The Islamist armed group’s attacks in Pakistan killed over 600 Pakistani security force personnel and over 500 civilians in 2024 and prompted a surge in cross-border attacks between Afghan and Pakistani forces. In February, the UN documented at least 76 civilian deaths and 213 injuries from Pakistani airstrikes across Afghanistan. On March 13, Pakistan’s president said that Afghanistan “had crossed a red line” after a spate of drone attacks on Pakistani cities injured civilians.
“Concerned countries should press Pakistan to provide genuine accountability and ensure that failures in intelligence, target verification, and decision-making are identified and fixed so such strikes never happen again,” Gossman said.
India’s Transgender Rights Bill a Huge Setback
India’s parliament passed a bill this week that changes how transgender people are legally recognized and removes their right to self-identification. If the bill becomes law, it will be a major reversal of the hard-won rights of transgender people in India.
“These politicians are making laws for us when they don’t even have basic concepts of gender, sex, and sexuality,” said Akkai Padmashali, a trans rights activist. “This new bill criminalizes us and disrespects our right to exist.”
The 2026 Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill amends the 2019 law that laid out an inclusive definition of transgender persons. Instead, it limits legal recognition to historically accepted socio-cultural groups such as hijra and kinner, as well as intersex individuals. This removes legal recognition for those who self-identify as trans men, trans women, or gender non-binary people.
The bill also mandates medical certification for identity recognition, effectively removing the gains of the landmark 2014 Supreme Court judgment in NALSA v. India. International human rights standards provide for self-declared identity to form the basis for access to all social security measures, benefits, and entitlements.
India’s last census recorded 487,803 transgender persons, but so far only about 32,500 have identity cards, essential for accessing various social security measures.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government hastily pushed the bill through both houses of parliament in the face of protests from transgender communities. Opposition members of parliament criticized the bill and sought a parliamentary committee to review the proposed law.
The social justice and empowerment minister told parliament that the bill aims to protect only those who face severe discrimination due to biological reasons. However, the bill puts transgender persons at further risk by introducing additional offenses and up to life in prison for “coercing or alluring” people to be transgender. These are reminiscent of the colonial-era laws that criminalized transgender persons for appearing dressed as women and could be used to criminalize support systems of transgender persons, said the People’s Union for Civil Liberties.
India’s president should not sign the adopted bill into law. Instead of adopting a regressive law, the government should have broad consultations with transgender communities and work toward expanding and enforcing their rights.
Landmark Ruling for Victims of Thailand Gold Mine Contamination
In a landmark class action lawsuit in Thailand, a court held a multinational corporation accountable for contamination from a gold mine and recognized the right of villagers in affected areas to effective remedies.
On March 24, the Bangkok Civil Court ordered Akara Resources, a subsidiary of Australia-based Kingsgate Consolidated Ltd., to pay up to THB200,000 (US$6,250) per person to 382 villagers affected by land and water contamination from the Chatree Gold Mine. The mine operator was also ordered to clean up the affected areas and take other measures.
The Chatree mine, about 280 kilometers north of Bangkok, is Thailand’s largest gold mine.
Blood tests conducted on hundreds of villagers living near the mine in 2014 and 2015 found that the majority of children and adults tested had unsafe levels of arsenic, manganese, and cyanide. These common byproducts of gold-mining operations can profoundly affect the health of those exposed. Akara Resources did not endorse the test results.
In 2017, Thailand’s then-military junta ordered gold-mining operations temporarily suspended across the country. Kingsgate subsequently began legal proceedings, alleging that the mine’s closure violated the Thailand-Australia Free Trade Agreement. In March 2023, Thai authorities allowed the Chatree mine to resume operations, and in November 2025, the Thai government and Kingsgate agreed to end the legal dispute.
Akara Resources had initially contested the class action and lost. Following the court’s decision this week, the company reportedly said it would consult its team “before taking any further action.” Promptly taking the steps ordered in the judgment and paying compensation without delay would best serve the harmed villagers.
Consistent with its human rights responsibilities, Kingsgate should disclose detailed summaries of the outcome of the case that led to the reopening of Chatree mine. Kingsgate should ensure that its resumed operations respect the rights of affected communities, including their right to a healthy environment. Villagers continue to express concerns about water quality and potential contamination of their crops.
Australia should heed the recommendations of the 2024 inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth that called on the “Australian Government [to] seek to include human rights, labour and environmental chapters in its trade agreements.”
The ruling is a strong signal to other companies operating in Thailand that local communities can seek legal remedies through Thai courts for harms related to their business operations.
Nigeria: Maiduguri Bombings Show New Threat to Civilians
(Abuja) – Deadly bombings in Maiduguri, the capital of Borno State in northeastern Nigeria, have heightened concerns about the resurgence of violent attacks by Boko Haram and a growing risk to civilians in the region, Human Rights Watch said today. In the aftermath of this apparent war crime, Nigerian authorities should urgently strengthen protection for civilians in the region.
The attacks, on the evening of March 16, 2026, struck crowded public locations, including a market, the area near a post office, and the University of Maiduguri Teaching Hospital gate, killing 23 people and injuring 108, according to police authorities. These attacks appear to have been indiscriminate and therefore, a war crime under international law. The Nigerian government has been engaged in an armed conflict in northeastern Nigeria with the Boko Haram insurgent group, and with factions splintered from that group, for well over a decade.
“These latest attacks show that civilians in northeastern Nigeria remain dangerously exposed to deadly violence, despite years of government security efforts,” said Anietie Ewang, Nigeria researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The resurgence of such attacks in Maiduguri is deeply alarming and underscores the persistent threat armed groups pose to everyday life.”
Human Rights Watch spoke with five witnesses to the bombings at the post office, hospital, and market. No armed group has claimed responsibility, but the Nigerian military described the attacks as coordinated attempts by suspected Boko Haram fighters to cause mass casualties and spread panic. Jama’atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda’awati wal-Jihad (JAS) popularly known as Boko Haram, has previously carried out suicide bombings targeting civilians.
JAS was significantly weakened after its longtime leader, Abubakar Shekau, died in 2021 during clashes with the Islamic State West Africa Province, a rival break out faction. However, analysts say JAS appears to be making a comeback, as reflected in several recent attacks in the region.
In December 2025, a mosque in Maiduguri was bombed, killing five people, ending years of relative calm. Although violence linked to Boko Haram has declined from its peak, continued attacks across the region suggest the insurgency remains a persistent threat, and the Maiduguri bombings raise renewed concerns about security.
Borno State is widely regarded as the epicenter of the insurgency, while Maiduguri is the main operational hub for security responses. It is also a key humanitarian hub, hosting agencies that support populations affected by the crisis.
In 2020, Fatou Bensouda, then the International Criminal Court prosecutor, asserted that her office had found a reasonable basis to believe that Boko Haram and its splinter groups, as well as Nigerian security forces, had committed war crimes and crimes against humanity during the conflict. She noted that “the vast majority of criminality within the situation [was] attributable to nonstate actors.” Prosecutor Bensouda decided not to proceed with a request to open a formal investigation at the time due in part to limited resources and the situation remains in the preliminary examination stage.
Ibrahim Talba, a 35-year-old tailor, told Human Rights Watch that he had gone to a local restaurant opposite the University of Maiduguri Teaching Hospital gate to eat after breaking his fast during Ramadan. There he witnessed an argument between two young men in a commercial tricycle and a security guard, who denied them entry for not using an authorized tricycle. He said that after a brief, heated exchange, one of the men threw a food flask at the security guard, which exploded after the guard threw it back toward them. As he and others rushed toward the scene, a second explosion occurred, injuring him. He has shrapnel wounds to his back, legs, and stomach.
Fatima Sheriff, a 25-year-old food vendor, said that after delivering food to a hospital staff member, she was heading toward the gate when she paused to answer a call from her sister. She briefly noticed the argument, but the call distracted her. Moments later, a loud explosion erupted, flames engulfed the area, and she lost consciousness. She later regained it in the hospital, without any physical injuries. While there, she saw seven people brought in unconscious from the blast, including a young girl whom a doctor later pronounced dead.
Mustafa Muhammed, a 45-year-old cap seller, said he had shrapnel injuries to his back and the side of his ribs from a blast in front of the hospital. He said: “I was in the Costain area near Gwange graveyard when I heard a loud explosion from the Monday Market area. I just ran, I got on my bicycle to get home, using the road leading toward the University of Maiduguri Teaching Hospital. While crossing the road toward the hospital, there was another explosion. I don’t even know what happened. I just saw a reddish-black cloud of smoke, and then I found myself covered in blood. The next thing I knew, I opened my eyes and I was in a hospital bed.”
Babagana Abubakar, a 39-year-old fruit seller near the post office, said he was selling watermelon to a customer when a loud explosion “scattered everything.” “We all began running for safety without knowing where to hide. I knew it was a bomb blast because I’ve heard that sound before in Maiduguri,” he said.
Abubakar returned to help victims and saw people lying on the ground but was unable to tell who was alive or dead. “I tried to help one of the injured but stepped back when I saw blood coming from his chest,” he said. “I couldn’t continue. It was too much. I was shaking and felt cold all over. I didn’t know the victims, as I mostly sell to passersby, but I later recognized a young man who had bought bananas from me minutes before the blast among the dead by his white Real Madrid jersey.”
He said he still hears the echo of the explosion. “Whenever I close my eyes, I see the scene again, the bodies lying there. It keeps replaying in my mind. I have also lost my source of livelihood since all the fruits I sell were scattered everywhere from the explosion and I couldn’t pick or salvage anything.”
A 53-year-old civil servant said that he was driving toward the Monday Market to buy groceries from street vendors outside when he heard a loud explosion, accompanied by a bright red light in the sky. He said: “After the explosion, people started running in all directions. I left my car and ran on foot, as other motorists did. After running for about 400 meters without hearing any follow-up gunshots, we stopped, realizing it likely meant there were no armed operatives at the scene. The incident has really scared me. I have never experienced anything like this since I moved here.”
Nigerian authorities should urgently strengthen protection for civilians in high-risk areas, improve early warning and response measures, and provide support to victims and those who have lost their livelihoods, Human Rights Watch said.
“The bombings in Maiduguri lay bare the extreme and ongoing danger civilians in northeastern Nigeria face from armed groups,” Ewang said. “Nigerian authorities need to urgently step up efforts to protect civilians, ensure swift and transparent investigations, and hold those responsible to account.”
Middle East Conflict: Rhetoric, Actions Flout Laws of War
(New York, March 26, 2026) – The geographic spread, speed of escalation, and open disregard for international norms by all parties one month into the Middle East conflict are a critical stress test for the international legal order created to protect civilians during armed conflict, Human Rights Watch said today.
Statements by top officials from the United States, Israel, and Iran demonstrate a willingness to violate fundamental protections of international humanitarian law, reveal callous disregard for civilian life and property, and signal that those in power do not consider themselves bound by the law. All world leaders should urgently speak out in defense of the rules that protect civilians everywhere, strongly condemn violations, and demand accountability.
“As the Middle East conflict has spread and intensified, so too has the dangerous rhetoric by leaders on all sides, including open threats to commit war crimes,” said Philippe Bolopion, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “This explosive combination, building on world leaders’ longstanding failure to hold those responsible for serious violations of international law to account, is threatening the rules-based order that has long sought to protect civilians.”
Since the United States and Israel began their assault on Iran on February 28, 2026, and as Iran responded and Israel escalated attacks in Lebanon, all parties to the conflict have been responsible for serious violations of the laws of war, including possible war crimes. Officials’ inflammatory public statements have included open threats to kill civilians and destroy critical civilian infrastructure, suggestions that abuses by one side justify abuses by the other, and dismissal of international law and rules of engagement.
US President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have in the past month alone made numerous public statements showing disregard for international humanitarian law, also called the laws of war.
Hegseth stated on March 13 that “no quarter” would be given to “our enemies” in Iran. Declaring no quarter––the refusal to spare enemy combatants’ lives by accepting their surrender––is a war crime.
On March 21, President Trump warned in a social media post that, if Iran didn’t “FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS,” the United States “will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!” Trump later postponed but did not revoke his threat.
The laws of war protect from attack civilian infrastructure and objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population––which could include power plants, oil and gas facilities, and water desalination plants––and attacks on these facilities could amount to war crimes. Even if such infrastructure is used in part for military purposes, an attack would likely be disproportionate and thus unlawful.
Iran’s reply to Trump’s statement indicated a willingness to commit a similar violation. Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya military command headquarters spokesman, Ebrahim Zolfaqari, responded to Trump’s post by stating that if Iran’s fuel and energy infrastructure were attacked, “then all electricity power plants, energy infrastructure, and information technology systems of the Zionist regime in the region will be struck on a wide scale… all similar infrastructure which have American shareholders will be fully destroyed... [and] all electricity power plants in countries in the region that host American bases will be legitimate targets.”
Iranian officials have also claimed that all of a country’s companies, banks, and commercial ships are military objectives, which violates the presumption under the laws of war that they are protected civilian objects.
Iranian authorities have also threatened to commit further human rights violations against their own population, as they have done repeatedly, including in January, when security forces carried out countrywide massacres of protesters and bystanders.
Ahmad-Reza Radan, the commander of the Iranian police force, told state television in a program aired on March 10 that if people take to the streets “at the will of the enemy,” then “we will not see them as a protester or something else; we will see them as the enemy and do with them what we do with the enemy. … All of our guys are ready with their fingers on the triggers to safeguard their revolution, to back their people and country.” The next day, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Intelligence Organization issued a statement warning that any protests would be faced “with [even] a harsher blow than that of January 8.”
Senior Israeli officials and military leaders have also made numerous problematic statements, including threats to carry out unlawful attacks in Iran and Lebanon. The Israeli military’s Arabic spokesperson issued a statement on X on March 3 calling for representatives of the Iranian government to leave Lebanon before they would be targeted.
Attacks targeting political leaders or government officials are prohibited unless the leader is a member of the armed forces or a civilian directly participating in hostilities. Deliberately attacking a civilian violates the laws of war, and constitutes a war crime.
Statements about Lebanon by Israeli officials also indicate an intent to forcibly displace residents, destroy civilian homes, and conduct strikes that could target civilians, all violations of the laws of war.
During armed conflict, such warnings, threats to commit serious crimes, and other dangerous rhetoric have been followed by military action that violates the laws of war and has had grave consequences for civilians across the region.
Serious violations of the laws of war during the first month of conflict include:A US attack on a primary school in Minab in southern Iran that killed scores of civilians, including many children; Israel’s use of white phosphorus over homes and targeting of financial institutions in Lebanon; Iranian attacks on hotels, residential buildings, financial centers, and airports in the Gulf;Iranian attacks on commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz; Israeli and Iranian attacks on oil and gas infrastructure; andIran’s use of internationally banned cluster munitions in attacks on Israel.The attacks, as well as the threat of attacks, on commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz and on oil and natural gas facilities in Iran and the Gulf states also appear to have contributed to significant global cost increases in energy and may also result in cost increases in food, fertilizer essential for agriculture, and transportation worldwide, as well as significant environmental damage.
This could cause economic catastrophe and food insecurity to civilians in Iran and across the Gulf and economically marginalized people across the globe. The World Food Programme estimates that almost 45 million more people could fall into acute food insecurity or worse should the conflict continue through the middle of the year and if oil prices remain above US$100 per barrel.
The toll of the conflict on civilians so far, and the extent of violations and potential war crimes, remains unknown, in part due to censorship by involved governments. In Iran, the government has imposed an unlawful blanket internet shutdown and arrested hundreds of people for alleged contact with media outlets outside Iran, taking footage of strike sites, and sending such footage to the media.
In the United States, Trump and Hegseth have attacked the media for its Iran coverage, and Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr accused media outlets of publishing “fake news” and threatened their broadcasting licenses.
Israeli officials have banned live broadcasts of city skylines, prohibited the reporting of precise locations of missile or rocket impacts, and detained journalists deemed to have violated these restrictions.
Countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council, including in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, have also detained people for allegedly posting images and footage of attacks on social media.
In Lebanon, the Iranian-backed armed group Hezbollah has banned all filming “under any circumstances” in the southern suburbs of Beirut.
In the face of this disregard for international humanitarian law and the potential far-reaching consequences of this conflict for civilians across the globe, world leaders––including allies of the United States, Israel, and Iran––should speak out for the need to respect international human rights and humanitarian law, strongly condemn violations, insist on accountability, and ensure that they are not complicit in serious violations by the warring parties.
Common Article 1 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions provides that states “undertake to respect and to ensure respect” for the conventions “in all circumstances.” This obligation binds the parties to the conflict in the Middle East to respect the conventions and ensure their respect by their armed forces at all times, regardless of the conduct of other parties.
The International Committee of the Red Cross’ authoritative commentary on the Geneva Conventions states that to “ensure respect” requires all states parties to the conventions “take proactive steps” to stop violations of the conventions and to “bring an erring Party to a conflict back to an attitude of respect for the Conventions, in particular by using their influence on that Party.” It includes the obligation “to prevent violations when there is a foreseeable risk that they will be committed.” Customary international humanitarian law also provides that states must exert their influence, to the degree possible, to stop violations of international humanitarian law.
The current Middle East conflict is occurring in the context of ongoing war crimes, crimes against humanity and acts of genocide in Gaza––committed by Israel with significant support from the United States since October 7, 2023––and Iran’s crimes against humanity against its own population. Impunity for these crimes and states failing to consistently apply international humanitarian law elsewhere, including in Sudan and Ukraine, have contributed to the dangerous disregard of the rules designed to protect civilians in war occurring today.
“The words of leaders are especially consequential during wartime,” Bolopion said. “Rhetoric that mocks or dismisses the laws of war is dangerously corrosive and can be seen to encourage grave violations that inevitably prove harmful to civilians. It’s increasingly clear that other governments urgently need to weigh in and press for greater protection of civilians.”
Additional concerning statements by US officials, some of which threaten to violate international humanitarian law, include:On March 2, Hegseth said that the United States was fighting the war in Iran with “No stupid rules of engagement,” reflecting comments he made throughout 2025 about “overbearing” and “burdensome” rules of engagement and “tepid legality,” and in 2024 that the United States “should fight by its own rules” and not “by rules written by dignified men... eighty years ago.” On March 9, Trump said the US Navy sank Iran’s warship off the coast of Sri Lanka because “it’s more fun” to sink ships than capture them.Also on March 9, Trump said that the United States could strike to “make it virtually impossible for Iran to ever be built back, as a Nation, again — Death, Fire, and Fury will reign [sic] upon them.” On March 13, Trump stated that the United States had “demolished” Kharg Island, a small island critical for Iran’s oil export infrastructure, but may strike “a few more times just for fun.” Also on March 13, Trump said that while the United States had “so far... chosen not to,” it could strike “power plants that create the electricity, that create[KA1] the water. … We could do things that would be so bad they could literally never rebuild as a nation again.” Additional concerning statements by Iranian officials, some of which threaten to violate international humanitarian law, include:A spokesman from Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters said on March 8 that “every point that serves as the origin of aggression against Iran is a legitimate target.” On March 14, a media outlet affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) stated that American “companies will be the legitimate targets for Iran’s Armed Forces,” listing a number of US management consulting and investment firms. Also on March 14, an IRGC spokesperson posted: “The attack on American bank branches was in response to the enemy’s attack on 2 Iranian banks. If the enemy repeats this action, all branches of American banks in the region will be our legitimate target.”On March 16, Brig. Gen. Ali Mohammad Naini, an IRGC spokesman who was reportedly killed in an Israeli attack on March 20, stated that Iranian forces had targeted all vessels owned by a US or Israeli entity, regardless of their flag country. Additional concerning statements by Israeli officials, some of which threaten to violate international humanitarian law, include:Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said on March 16 that “hundreds of thousands of Shiite residents of southern Lebanon … will not return to their homes south of the Litani [River] area until the safety of Israel’s northern residents is guaranteed.”In a video clip posted on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s X account on March 17, Netanyahu and US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee joke about a “punch card” listing individuals the Israelis are targeting in Iran. Netanyahu says: “We’re wiping them out,” and Huckabee says: “I love it.” On March 22, Katz threatened to “hit Iran so hard it will be sent back decades” and to implement house demolition policies across Lebanon’s southern border villages like those seen in Gaza. The Israeli military’s Arabic spokesperson repeatedly posted orders on X to people in Lebanon, saying that they “will not hesitate to target anyone who is near Hezbollah members, facilities or means of combat” in the southern suburbs of Beirut.Japan’s Flag Desecration Law Poses a Threat to Freedom of Expression
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi and the ruling Liberal Democratic Party’s coalition partner, the Japan Innovation Party, said on March 17 that they would present a law forbidding the desecration of the national flag during the ongoing Diet session.
Currently, Japan’s penal code only makes it a criminal offense to damage foreign flags, which the two parties described in their October coalition agreement as a “contradiction” that they pledged to “correct.”
For Takaichi, passing this law has been a long-running political goal. In 2012, when the Liberal Democratic Party was in the opposition, she attempted to amend the penal code and criminalize the “damaging, removal, or defacement” of the Japanese flag “with an intent to insult Japan.” The bill, which included penalties of up to two years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to 200,000 yen (US$2,500), was scrapped. Her second attempt in 2021 was also unsuccessful.
The United Nations Human Committee in a General Comment on freedom of expression has expressed concern regarding laws on such matters as “disrespect for flags and symbols.”
In the United States, similar laws have been found to be unconstitutional. In 1984, Gregory Lee Johnson was arrested and charged after he burned a US flag to protest the policies of President Ronald Reagan. The US Supreme Court ruled that flag burning is a form of free speech protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Five years later, the US Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which made desecration of the US flag a criminal offense, but in 1990, the Supreme Court ruled the law “inconsistent with the First Amendment.”
Some governments have used flag desecration laws to stifle dissent. For instance, in Hong Kong, two laws criminalizing the desecration of China’s national flag and Hong Kong’s regional flag have long been used against democracy activists. In 2019, a Hong Kong court sentenced a 13-year-old girl to 12 months of probation for burning a Chinese flag during a pro-democracy protest. Democracy activist Koo Sze-yiu has been convicted at least eight times for violating the anti-flag laws.
While Japan’s ruling coalition has yet to submit its bill, such laws need to be consistent with international human rights law, notably the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It’s difficult to envision a flag desecration law that would meet its strict standards.
Council of Europe Adopts New Social Rights Declaration
Amid a bleak political landscape of rising authoritarianism and anti-rights political agendas, the Council of Europe and its member states adopted a new declaration last week in Chișinău, Moldova, reinforcing their commitment to social rights.
The Chișinău Declaration recognizes that “democratic stability and security are directly impacted by rising socio-economic inequalities and the cost-of-living crisis” and that “ensuring social rights as enshrined notably in the European Social Charter is essential to countering growing threats to democracy.” This high-level statement has the potential to encourage a necessary change in direction across the region—and it comes at a pivotal moment.
Political actors openly hostile to human rights and social justice are gaining influence. European governments are increasingly implementing policies that either seek to roll back rights protections or do away with them altogether.
First signed in 1961 and then revised in 1996, the Charter is sometimes described as “the social constitution of Europe.” It sets out rights—“social rights” in European legal shorthand—relating to employment, housing, health, education, social security, and the right to be free from poverty and social exclusion, among others.
Aoife Nolan, President of European Committee of Social Rights, the body that monitors the Charter’s implementation, has argued forcefully, citing evidence, that “the delivery of social rights […] is fundamental to sustaining confidence and trust in democracy.”
Michael O’Flaherty, the Council of Europe’s human rights commissioner and Olivier de Schutter, the UN special rapporteur on poverty, also published a joint statement ahead of the conference, saying, “The current threats to democratic life are largely the result of the sentiment, within certain groups of the population, that they are being left behind and are not benefiting from general progress.”
The Chișinău Declaration recognizes the challenge presented by the gap in democratic trust caused by unfulfilled rights promises, and responds by committing to greater investment in social rights as “both a moral imperative and a strategic choice” to bolster democratic resilience.
Governments and regional institutions across Europe should now use the Chișinău declaration’s momentum to take concrete action, translating rhetorical commitment into practice. They should act with purpose to take seriously the rights concerns of people who feel left behind. The task of rebuilding fractured trust is urgent; improving people’s lives and rights is an essential place from which to start.
UN: Western Sahara Peoples’ Self-Determination at Risk
(Beirut) – A United Nations Security Council resolution on the dispute around Morocco’s claims to Western Sahara does not ensure that a new framework to end the long-standing impasse on the issue upholds the right to self-determination for the territory’s peoples and is consistent with international law, Human Rights Watch said today.
A settlement should also ensure the Sahrawis’ right to reparations for harm against them since Morocco took control of most of the territory, including compensation and the right to return for those displaced outside the territory and their descendants who have maintained appropriate links to the territory.
“Thirty-five years after the United Nations Security Council agreed on a referendum to resolve the situation in the Western Sahara, political expediency risks trumping the Sahrawi people’s right to self-determination,” said Hanan Salah, associate Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “To fulfill those rights, the Security Council and all countries should ensure the Sahrawi people’s right to freely determine their political status.”
On October 31, 2025, the Security Council adopted a United States-sponsored resolution, UNSCR 2797, on the Western Sahara and Morocco’s claims to the territory. Its stated purpose is to achieve “a just, lasting, and mutually acceptable resolution to the dispute, consistent with the UN Charter,” while affirming the “people of Western Sahara’s right to self-determination and recognizing “that genuine autonomy could represent a most feasible outcome.”
The resolution endorses only Morocco’s 2007 autonomy proposal, which does not include independence as an option, provide for the right to reparations, or define the people of Western Sahara who possess the right to self-determination. Human Rights Watch takes no position on the issue of independence for Western Sahara.
Morocco has occupied most of Western Sahara since 1975 when Spain ended its colonial administration in the vast desert territory. There has been an armed conflict ever since between Morocco and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Rio de Oro, known as the Polisario Front, an independence movement representing Sahrawis.
In 1991, the UN brokered a ceasefire between Morocco and the Polisario Front and established the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara to monitor the ceasefire and organize a referendum that would allow eligible Sahrawis to choose between independence and integration with Morocco. The referendum never materialized. Morocco claimed that establishing a voter list was impracticable and rejected independence as a referendum option, while the Polisario Front insisted on an option for independence. The armed conflict between Polisario and Morocco resumed in 2020.
International humanitarian law applies in the territory due to the armed conflict and Morocco’s occupation. Morocco also maintains a responsibility to uphold its obligations to the population under international human rights law.
At least 173,000 Sahrawi refugees currently reside in remote refugee camps near the town of Tindouf, in Algeria, administered by the Polisario Front. According to World Population Review, a majority of the population of the Western Sahara now consists of Moroccans who started to settle in the region when the territory came under Moroccan occupation and their descendants.
International humanitarian law forbids an occupying power from transferring its civilian population into an occupied territory, and such transfer constitutes a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
The people of Western Sahara have the right to self-determination under international law, Human Rights Watch said. A 1975 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) reaffirmed the right of Western Sahara peoples to self-determination in accordance with the 1960 General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) on Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
The ICJ has found that in non-self-governing territories, the right to self-determination may be fulfilled through one of the options of “independence, free association with an independent state, or integration with an independent state,” and “must be the expression of the free and genuine will of the people concerned.” A key aspect of the exercise of the right to self-determination is the “freely expressed wishes of the people concerned.”
Human Rights Watch research has found that Moroccan authorities systematically obstruct the work of groups that advocate self-determination in Western Sahara and have repressed any manifestations of opposition to Moroccan rule. They have enforced laws penalizing affronts to Morocco’s “territorial integrity;” prevented gatherings and associations supporting Sahrawi self-determination; beat activists in their custody and on the streets, subjected them to torture, imprisoned and sentenced them in trials marred with due process violations and coerced statements; and impeded their freedom of movement.
In December 2025, Human Rights Watch wrote to the United States, United Kingdom, France, Morocco, Algeria, and to the secretary general’s special envoy on the Western Sahara, Staffan de Mistura, requesting information on the negotiations framework on the future of Western Sahara, but has not received a response.
The Security Council should uphold the right to self-determination and ensure that any outcome reflects the genuine will of the Sahrawi people. Any updated proposal by Morocco should also fulfill the Sahrawis’ right to reparations for harm against them since Morocco took control of most of the territory by 1976, including compensation and the right to return for those displaced outside the territory and their descendants who have maintained appropriate links to the territory, Human Rights Watch said.
“The Security Council made a promise decades ago to fulfill the Sahrawi People’s right to self-determination, but has little to show for it,” Salah said. “After 50 years of occupation, it should articulate how it plans to fulfil the full range of human rights for the Sahrawi people, including self-determination.”
The United Nations has listed Western Sahara as a non-self-governing territory since 1963 and its status hasn’t changed despite several countries’ recognition of Moroccan sovereignty. It is one of the last remaining such territories recognized by the UN and the only one listed in Africa for an incomplete decolonization process.
Non-self-governing territories are defined under the UN Charter as those “whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government.” The African Union recognizes the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic as a member state and has treated the territory as a decolonization question requiring the free and genuine expression of the will of the Sahrawi people.
Background on the Moroccan Initiative and UNSCR 2797A 2007 Moroccan Initiative for Negotiating an Autonomy Statute for the Sahara Region proposed devolving a measure of autonomy for the people of the Western Sahara under Moroccan sovereignty, excluding any option for independence, while retaining jurisdiction over national security, defense, external relations, and the judiciary.
Several states have recognized Morocco’s sovereignty claim to the Western Sahara, most notably the United States in December 2020. Although the African Union has not recognized it, several of its members have backed the Moroccan autnomy proposal, including Senegal and Kenya.
In 2007, the Polisario Front issued its own proposal for a political solution, which included a referendum on self-determination. It issued an updated proposal in 2025.
UN Security Council resolution 2797 (UNSCR 2797) endorsed the 2007 Moroccan autonomy proposal as a basis for negotiation and called on parties to “engage in these discussions without preconditions, taking as a basis Morocco’s Autonomy Proposal, with a view to achieving a final and mutually acceptable political solution that provides for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara,” stating that “genuine autonomy could represent a most feasible outcome.” UNSCR 2797 does not reference the 1975 World Court advisory opinion or provide guarantees that it will be respected.
The resolution does not specify who the peoples of the Western Sahara are nor whether they include all the Sahrawi people displaced since the 1975 conflict and their descendants. The 1988 settlement plan as agreed upon by the parties mandated that “All Saharans counted in the 1974 census undertaken by the Spanish authorities and aged 18 years or over will have the right to vote in the referendum,” including “Saharan refugees counted in the census.”
The Polisario rejected the premise of the resolution.
In a departure from previous positions held by many member states, the European Union in January 2026, said it unanimously “updated its position regarding Western Sahara […] aligning it with UNSCR 2797,” and saying that negotiations should take “as a basis Morocco’s Autonomy Proposal.”
De Mistura, the secretary general’s special envoy on the Western Sahara, requested that Morocco provide an “expanded and updated autonomy plan” and said that UNSCR 2797 “provides a framework for negotiations. It does not prescribe an outcome.”
In an explanatory statement published on October 31, Algeria said that the resolution “fails to reflect the legitimate expectations and aspirations of the people of Western Sahara, represented by the Polisario Front.”
International Law on the Right to Self DeterminationThe right to self-determination is enshrined in the UN Charter and under international human rights law. Articles 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights both state “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
The UN Human Rights Committee, which authoritatively interprets the covenant, stated in its General Comment 12 that all states are obligated to respect and promote the realization of a population’s self-determination.
UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 (1970), on the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, and UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (1960) on the Declaration of Granting Independence to Colonial Countries and People, affirm the right to self-determination.
The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights holds that all peoples “shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self-determination. They shall freely determine their political status and shall pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen.” In a landmark 2022 case brought before the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the readmission of Morocco to the African Union in 2017, the court noted:
[I]n view of the fact that part of the SADR’s [Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic) territory is still under occupation by Morocco, there is no question that State Parties to the Charter have an obligation, individually and collectively, towards the people of SADR to protect their right to self-determination, particularly, by providing assistance in their struggle for freedom […].
Indonesia: Acid Attack Against Rights Activist
(Sydney) – Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto should immediately issue a presidential decree setting up a fact-finding team independent of the military to fully investigate the acid attack against a prominent human rights activist who has criticized the military, Human Rights Watch said today. While the military police have arrested four soldiers in connection with the attack, the Indonesian armed forces’ long history of impunity for serious rights violations raises accountability concerns.
At about 11 p.m. on March 12, 2026, at an intersection in the Menteng area of Jakarta, two men on a motorcycle threw acid at Andrie Yunus, a 27-year-old deputy coordinator at KontraS, the nongovernmental Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence. Yunus had just finished recording a podcast interview at the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation and was traveling home by motorcycle. He has 24 percent burns to his face, chest, and hands, and has possibly lost his right eye.
“The brutal acid attack in downtown Jakarta against a prominent rights activist by alleged military intelligence members raises grave concerns for Indonesia’s entire human rights community,” said Elaine Pearson, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “President Prabowo should set up an independent fact-finding team to investigate the attack against Andrie Yunus to ensure that all those responsible are brought to justice.”
On March 18, Indonesian military police arrested a military captain, two lieutenants, and a sergeant, all of whom work for the Indonesian Strategic Intelligence Agency (Badan Intelijen Strategis, BAIS). The agency handles military intelligence under the command of the National Armed Forces.
The National Police earlier released CCTV videos of the acid attack, showing two men following Yunus on his motorcycle, making a U-turn, and throwing the acid. They also released more than 2,000 images from 86 CCTV cameras around Jakarta that captured Yunus up to a week before the attack. The images ranged from Jakarta’s National Monument Park, where Yunus attended a protest to Bogor, to where he was visiting his parents.
The National Police released the initials of two suspects apparently derived from the CCTV images. The military police provided the initials of the four military personnel arrested, but these differed from the police list, raising concerns that all involved in the attack were not accounted for.
Yunus has been an outspoken critic of the Indonesian military, particularly since Indonesia’s parliament passed an amendment to the Armed Forces Law that expands the military’s role in civilian sectors. He also participated in a report about possible involvement of BAIS officers in arson attacks during nationwide protests over the economy in August and September 2025. He had told close friends and his parents that unidentified people were threatening him and putting him under surveillance.
More than 420 organizations have issued statements condemning “invisible hands” for planning the attack on Yunus and calling for a full and independent investigation. KontraS denounced the attack as “brutal and evil.”
On March 19, President Prabowo told journalists and commentators: “This is a barbaric act, we must pursue it. We must investigate. Who ordered them, who paid.”
Under Indonesian law, civilian police cannot investigate military personnel, with only a few rarely invoked exceptions. The 1997 Law on Military Courts provides that the military will investigate crimes by soldiers and military tribunals have jurisdiction to prosecute all alleged crimes by soldiers. The military justice system in Indonesia lacks transparency, independence, and impartiality, and has failed to properly investigate and prosecute alleged serious human rights abuses by military personnel.
In one example, Papua police investigated an October 2024 attack in Jayapura in which two men on a motorcycle threw a gasoline bomb at the newsroom of Jubi news. The January 2025 police report, based on interviews with nine witnesses and CCTV recordings, implicated two Indonesian soldiers. But the military returned the report to the police, saying that there was insufficient evidence to proceed.
KontraS has long been the target of attacks. In 2001, a bomb was sent to the home of the organization’s founding coordinator, Munir Thalib, when KontraS was investigating the role of a Special Forces team in abducting activists. On September 7, 2004, Munir was poisoned during a Garuda Indonesia flight from Singapore to Amsterdam, resulting in his death. Two civilians were convicted in the case, but a Jakarta court in 2008 acquitted a former deputy at the State Intelligence Agency who was initially charged with premeditated murder.
Since taking office in October 2024, the Prabowo administration has adopted laws and policies that undercut human rights, creating an atmosphere hostile to civil society, Human Rights Watch said. Amendments to the Armed Forces Law enacted in March 2025 permit military officers to hold more positions in government. Activists have expressed concern that a bill on Combatting Disinformation and Foreign Propaganda could be used to target government critics. Prabowo has repeatedly raised concerns over “foreign puppets,” raising fears of a crackdown on civil society groups that receive international assistance.
“It’s crucial for the Indonesian government to uncover and prosecute everyone responsible for the horrific acid attack on Andries Yunus,” Pearson said. “President Prabowo needs to demonstrate to the Indonesian people that such violence won’t be tolerated, no matter who commits it, and regardless of their rank and title.”
Belarus Rights Crisis Requires Sustained Scrutiny
Next week, the United Nations Human Rights Council will vote on a resolution to renew the mandates of the Group of Independent Experts on the Situation in Belarus and the special rapporteur on Belarus. As Belarusian authorities continue to commit grave rights violations in the country and persecute Belarusians in exile, these mandates are vital to addressing the unrelenting rights crisis in Belarus and help provide a prospect for future accountability.
Civil society organizations, including Human Rights Watch, have long documented Belarus’ crackdown on independent voices, including the malicious prosecution and harassment of human rights defenders, journalists, lawyers, opposition politicians, protesters, and activists. At least 860 people remain behind bars for peacefully exercising their fundamental rights and freedoms and many face torture and ill-treatment in detention. Former political prisoners, including some most recently released, are forced into exile. Human rights organizations are unable to operate legally in the country.
A report presented by the group of experts during the current council session provides a clear picture of the severity of the crisis. It identifies continuing patterns of violations including arbitrary detention of individuals for their actual or perceived opposition to the government, inhumane conditions, ill-treatment, torture and death in detention, and newly verified patterns of forced exiles, forced pardon requests, and transnational repression. According to the report, some of these violations amount to crimes against humanity.
The group of experts is instrumental in preserving and analyzing evidence of grave human rights violations and, where possible, identifying those responsible, with a view to future accountability. The recent decision by the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor’s office to open an investigation into alleged crimes committed by Belarusian authorities at least in part in the territory of Lithuania, an ICC member, underlines the ongoing utility for the investigative-mechanism’s work. Meanwhile, the special rapporteur is a longstanding lifeline for Belarusian civil society, ensuring that violations of all fundamental rights remain in public scrutiny.
By maintaining both the accountability-focused mechanism and the expert monitor, the council ensures that the systematic nature and gravity of Belarus’ rights violations receive in-depth scrutiny. The council should heed the call of Belarusian and international civil society organizations to renew both mechanisms and send an unequivocal message that the UN remains vigilant and committed to supporting those seeking justice and respect for human rights in Belarus.
Iran: Deliberate Attacks on Civilian Ships Apparent War Crimes
(Beirut, March 24, 2026) – Iranian forces appear to have deliberately targeted at least two civilian commercial ships in and around the Strait of Hormuz on March 11, 2026, which would amount to war crimes, Human Rights Watch said today. The attacks, and threat of attack, may also contribute to significant global cost increases in energy, food, and other critical sectors, to the detriment of people’s rights.
“Deliberately targeting civilian ships and their crew members is a war crime,” said Niku Jafarnia, Middle East and North Africa researcher at Human Rights Watch. “War crimes do not justify further war crimes, and Iran, the United States, and Israel should all immediately end unlawful attacks on civilians and civilian objects and should stop attempting to frame these objects as legitimate targets.”
Starting on March 1, Iranian forces reportedly began attacking commercial ships in and around the Strait of Hormuz in response to US and Israeli attacks on Iran, according to the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a United Nations agency. On March 11, Ebrahim Zofaghari, a spokesperson for Iran’s armed forces, said in a speech that if the United States and Israel continued to carry out attacks on Iran, Iranian forces would not allow “one liter of oil” through the strait.
Arsenio Dominquez, the IMO secretary-general, stated on March 6: “Around 20,000 seafarers remain stranded in the Persian Gulf, on board ships under heightened risk and considerable mental strain.”
Human Rights Watch documented the apparent deliberate targeting of two commercial ships, the Safesea Vishnu and the Mayuree Naree, on March 11 through statements made by Iranian authorities claiming these attacks; photographs and videos posted online of the direct aftermath of the attacks and, in the case of the Safesea Vishnu, the apparent moment of attack; and data gathered by the IMO.
Between March 1 and 17, the IMO confirmed 17 incidents of damage to commercial vessels from 16 apparent attacks in the Strait of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf, and the Gulf of Oman. It also reported that seven seafarers and one shipyard worker had been killed, four seafarers were missing, and ten people were injured, five severely.
An IMO representative told Human Rights Watch that the organization receives data from authorities such as the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO), the Joint Maritime Information Centre (JMIC), and the Maritime Security Centre Indian Ocean (MSCIO). It said that the organization directly verifies information it receives with the vessels’ flag states to document attacks. It said the organization was unable to confirm who was responsible for the 16 attacks. However, the IMO Council adopted a decision on March 19 in which they “strongly condemned the threats and attacks against vessels and purported closure of the Strait of Hormuz by the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
Human Rights Watch identified all the vessels included by the IMO in vessel tracking websites and was able to corroborate that they were civilian commercial vessels with civilian crews. In some cases, Human Rights Watch identified their location at the time of the attack. In addition to corroborating attacks on the Safesea Vishnu and Mayuree Naree, researchers corroborated attacks on two other vessels—Skylight and Safeen Prestige—through photographs and videos posted online as well as online statements made by government and military entities, along with a third vessel—the MKD Vyom—by statements alone. In these three cases, Human Rights Watch could not confirm who was responsible for the attacks.
One-quarter of the world’s “seaborne oil trade” travels through the Strait of Hormuz. Since the conflict began, the price of crude oil has risen by 40 percent, according to the New York Times. The International Energy Agency has stated: “The war in the Middle East is creating the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market.”
On March 16, Brigadier General Ali Mohammad Naini, a spokesman for Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) who was reportedly killed in an Israeli strike on March 20, stated that Iranian forces had targeted all vessels owned by a US or Israeli entity, regardless of their flag country. He did not indicate whether he was referring to military or civilian vessels, or both. The Joint Maritime Information Center stated on March 11 that while some of the vessels that had been struck since March 1 had “potential Western commercial associations…multiple attacks have involved vessels with no confirmed affiliation to US or Israeli ownership.”
Lloyd’s List Intelligence, a maritime data and intelligence company, reported that some vessels have continued to pass through the strait between March 1 and 18 and noted: “Shadow fleet vessels [ships engaging in illegal operations for the purposes of circumventing sanctions] carrying Iranian oil and gas account for most transits through the Strait of Hormuz.”
Human Rights Watch wrote to Iranian authorities on March 18 seeking clarification about the attacks but did not receive a response.
Iranian authorities, in statements they made pertaining to the two ships they claimed to have targeted—the Safesea Vishnu and Mayuree Naree—did not state that the vessels were military objects, nor did they present any evidence to demonstrate that anything on board the ships could have constituted military objects.
Under international humanitarian law, it is forbidden in any circumstance to carry out direct attacks against civilians and civilian objects, and warring parties are obligated to take all feasible precautions to avoid harm to civilians and civilian objects. Civilian vessels with commercial ties to the United States or Israel remain civilian objects. Warring parties must take all necessary action to verify that targets are military objectives. A person who commits serious violations of the laws of war with criminal intent—that is, intentionally or recklessly—may be prosecuted for war crimes. Individuals may also be held criminally liable for assisting in, facilitating, aiding, or abetting a war crime.
The effects of global fossil fuel dependence, and its connections to concentrated corporate power and authoritarian governments, are increasingly evident, Human Rights watch said. A just transition to renewable energy is an environmental and geopolitical urgency now more than ever. This requires concomitant efforts to provide universal access to public services such as social security, education, and health care to guarantee everyone’s rights and accelerate the transition.
“Iranian forces’ attacks on civilian ships in the Strait of Hormuz will result in harm to some of the most socioeconomically disadvantaged people across the globe,” Jafarnia said. “Iranian forces should immediately end these attacks, rescue the remaining three crew members aboard the Mayuree Naree, and release any seafarers they have detained.”
For details of the documented attacks on two vessels, further details about the others, and IRGC statements, please see below.
Click to expand Image Locations of reported and confirmed attacks against commercial ships as of March 18, 2026. Approximate locations based on International Maritime Organization reporting and vessel tracking data. Data © 2026 IMO, VesselFinder, MarineTraffic. Graphic © 2026 Human Rights Watch. March 11 Iranian Attacks on ShipsOn March 11, the Safesea Vishnu, an oil tanker, was “struck by an unknown projectile,” according to the UKMTO. The last signal sent from the ship was received by the vessel-tracking website Marine Traffic at 10:01 p.m. local time. On March 12, the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), Iran’s official state news agency, published a statement from the IRGC that confirmed that the Safesea Vishnu “had been hit in the northern Persian Gulf after failing to comply with and ignoring the warnings of the IRGC Navy.”
One of the crew members was killed in the attack, the IMO said. It also reported that another oil tanker, the Zefyros, caught fire in the same incident. The two vessels were next to each other within Iraqi territorial waters approximately 50 nautical miles southeast of Basra, according to measurements taken from vessel-tracking websites.
Human Rights Watch analyzed three videos posted to X by different accounts on March 12, with the earliest posted at 12:32 a.m. One of the videos, filmed from a nearby vessel, shows two large explosions on the Safesea Vishnu, seconds apart. Those filming from the nearby vessel claim to be the IRGC Navy and say that they have destroyed a US ship in the Persian Gulf. The Safesea Vishnu is engulfed in flames. This video supports accounts by Reuters from the US owner and operator of the vessel that two explosive-laden, unmanned boats rammed the vessel.
Another video shows firefighters spraying the Safesea Vishnu with water from a nearby boat. The BBC published a video filmed in daylight that shows the vessel tilting to one side considerably damaged.
The New York Times reported that, according to Iraq’s oil export authority, “[t]he two vessels were used by Iraq for its own oil transport.” The news outlet added that “[s]enior Iraqi officials said that one of the vessels, flying the flag of the Marshall Islands, was owned by an American company.”
On the same day, three other vessels—One Majesty, a Japanese-flagged container vessel, and two bulk carriers, the Marshall Islands-flagged Star Gwyneth and the Thai-flagged Mayuree Naree—were attacked in the strait, the IMO said.
The Royal Thai Navy spokesperson said in a statement that the navy had received an initial report that “two projectiles of unknown origin” had struck the Mayuree Naree as it sailed into the Strait of Hormuz after departing from the UAE. The statement said that the Omani navy had rescued 20 of the vessel’s 23 crew members, which the Omani Maritime Security Center confirmed. On March 18, the Royal Thai Navy reported that the ship had moved from Omani to Iranian territorial waters. Three crew members reportedly remain on board the seriously damaged vessel.
Photographs taken by rescued crew members circulating online show the superstructure emitting large columns of black smoke. One photograph shows damage to the hull of the boat near the propeller that is consistent with an explosion.
The day the three ships were reportedly attacked, Tasnim News, affiliated with the IRGC, posted a statement on its Telegram channel at 3:36 p.m. stating that the Mayuree Naree was “shelled by Iranian fighters hours ago after ignoring the warnings of the IRGC Navy and illegally insisting on passing through the Strait of Hormuz.”
Alireza Tangsiri, commander of the IRGC naval forces, posted on X the same day at 3:50 p.m. local time that the crew of the Mayuree Naree had “ignored [Iranian authorities’] warnings and intended to pass through the strait but was caught.” He added that “[a]ny vessel intending to pass [the Strait of Hormuz] must obtain permission from #Iran.”
Both statements included claims that Iranian forces had also attacked another ship, the Express Rome, a ship not listed by the IMO as having been attacked. On March 19, Human Rights Watch received confirmation from Danaos Shipping, the owners of Express Rome, that the ship had not been hit or compromised in any way and that its crew is safe.
According to media reports from March 20, a Nepali Ministry of Foreign Affairs official stated that Iranian authorities had “taken one Nepali into custody from the Strait of Hormuz.”
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps StatementsHuman Rights Watch was unable to confirm who was responsible for the other 14 attacks the IMO documented. However, Iranian authorities have made several statements in which they have demonstrated a clear intention to attack ships, including civilian ships, that attempt to pass through the strait.
On March 4, Mohammad Akbarzadeh, an IRGC navy official, announced that the Strait of Hormuz was “under the complete control of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” On March 16, Naini repeated the statement.
“If the US claims that the Iranian Navy has been destroyed, then why is the Strait of Hormuz still closed and not even a tanker is allowed to pass,” Akbarzadeh said. “If the Iranian Aerospace Force [the IRGC’s missile, air, and space force, separate from the Air Force] has been destroyed, why do our missiles and drones hit the intended targets at specific intervals?”
On March 12, what appears to be the new X account of the newly appointed supreme leader of Iran, Mojtaba Khamenei, posted: “the lever of blocking the Strait of Hormuz must definitely continue to be used.” Tangsiri reposted the statement, adding: “By maintaining the strategy of keeping the #Strait_of_Hormuz closed, we will deal the most severe blows to the aggressor enemy.”
Also on March 12, the IRGC Public Relations office said in the statement posted by IRNA on Telegram that ships “must act in accordance with the laws and regulations of passage in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz…in order to remain safe from being hit by stray projectiles.”
The United States has also targeted and destroyed Iranian military vessels. US Central Command reported that they had damaged or destroyed 43 Iranian ships within the first seven days of the war. While military vessels constitute legitimate military targets, the attacks may pose long-term environmental threats to the region. The US navy’s attack on an Iranian military vessel near Sri Lanka on March 4 caused an oil spill stretching 20 kilometers, according to the Conflict and Environment Observatory.
Wim Zwijnenberg, an analyst at PAX, a Dutch nongovernmental organization, told Human Rights Watch that, as of March 13, the attacks by all parties to the conflict had caused “a lot of [environmental] impacts on many different locations, [including] oil spills near Basra, Bandar Abbas and Sri Lanka, but often short-term and limited impact” as a result of authorities’ quick cleanups. However, on March 18, Zwijnenberg said that a separate US strike on an Iranian drone carrier near Bandar Abbas in southern Iran had “resulted in a large 25km long oil slick that is posing a threat [to] the coastal and marine environment of the Hara Biosphere and Khuran Strait Wetlands.”
The continuation of attacks on vessels carrying large quantities of oil and gas has the potential to cause long-term and significant environmental harm. Despite cleanup efforts, offshore oil spills have long-lasting detrimental impacts on marine life and ecosystems. Customary international humanitarian law provides that warring parties need to respect the protection and preservation of the natural environment. All feasible steps should be taken to minimize environmental harm. Using methods or means of warfare that are intended or can be expected to cause widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment is prohibited.
The attacks on civilian ships in the Strait of Hormuz, as well as the threat of attack, and the targeting of energy infrastructure within the context of conflicts also appear to be contributing to significant global cost increases in energy, which may lead to increases in the costs of food and other critical sectors, to the detriment of the rights of populations.
In the same speech on March 11, Zofaghari said: “Get ready for the oil barrel to be at [US]$200, because the oil price depends on the regional stability which you have destabilized.”
Increases in oil and gas prices will have ripple effects on sectors such as food, transportation, and energyprices around the globe, which are critical to the enjoyment of human rights. Moreover, news outlets and think tanks have described the potential impact on the global food supply as a result of the collapse in fertilizer exports through the strait. The Financial Times has reported that, according to several experts, the “Middle East war is close to triggering a global food shock worse than that unleashed by Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine” given that significant percentages of the raw materials for widely used fertilizers are transported through the strait.
World Food Programme Deputy Executive Director Carl Skau told reporters on March 17 that if the ongoing regional conflict continues, “an additional 45 million people could be pushed into acute hunger by price rises.”
Iran: Deliberate Attacks on Civilian Ships Apparent War Crimes
(Beirut, March 24, 2026) – Iranian forces appear to have deliberately targeted at least two civilian commercial ships in and around the Strait of Hormuz on March 11, 2026, which would amount to war crimes, Human Rights Watch said today. The attacks, and threat of attack, may also contribute to significant global cost increases in energy, food, and other critical sectors, to the detriment of people’s rights.
“Deliberately targeting civilian ships and their crew members is a war crime,” said Niku Jafarnia, Middle East and North Africa researcher at Human Rights Watch. “War crimes do not justify further war crimes, and Iran, the United States, and Israel should all immediately end unlawful attacks on civilians and civilian objects and should stop attempting to frame these objects as legitimate targets.”
Starting on March 1, Iranian forces reportedly began attacking commercial ships in and around the Strait of Hormuz in response to US and Israeli attacks on Iran, according to the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a United Nations agency. On March 11, Ebrahim Zofaghari, a spokesperson for Iran’s armed forces, said in a speech that if the United States and Israel continued to carry out attacks on Iran, Iranian forces would not allow “one liter of oil” through the strait.
Arsenio Dominquez, the IMO secretary-general, stated on March 6: “Around 20,000 seafarers remain stranded in the Persian Gulf, on board ships under heightened risk and considerable mental strain.”
Human Rights Watch documented the apparent deliberate targeting of two commercial ships, the Safesea Vishnu and the Mayuree Naree, on March 11 through statements made by Iranian authorities claiming these attacks; photographs and videos posted online of the direct aftermath of the attacks and, in the case of the Safesea Vishnu, the apparent moment of attack; and data gathered by the IMO.
Between March 1 and 17, the IMO confirmed 17 incidents of damage to commercial vessels from 16 apparent attacks in the Strait of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf, and the Gulf of Oman. It also reported that seven seafarers and one shipyard worker had been killed, four seafarers were missing, and ten people were injured, five severely.
An IMO representative told Human Rights Watch that the organization receives data from authorities such as the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO), the Joint Maritime Information Centre (JMIC), and the Maritime Security Centre Indian Ocean (MSCIO). It said that the organization directly verifies information it receives with the vessels’ flag states to document attacks. It said the organization was unable to confirm who was responsible for the 16 attacks. However, the IMO Council adopted a decision on March 19 in which they “strongly condemned the threats and attacks against vessels and purported closure of the Strait of Hormuz by the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
Human Rights Watch identified all the vessels included by the IMO in vessel tracking websites and was able to corroborate that they were civilian commercial vessels with civilian crews. In some cases, Human Rights Watch identified their location at the time of the attack. In addition to corroborating attacks on the Safesea Vishnu and Mayuree Naree, researchers corroborated attacks on two other vessels—Skylight and Safeen Prestige—through photographs and videos posted online as well as online statements made by government and military entities, along with a third vessel—the MKD Vyom—by statements alone. In these three cases, Human Rights Watch could not confirm who was responsible for the attacks.
One-quarter of the world’s “seaborne oil trade” travels through the Strait of Hormuz. Since the conflict began, the price of crude oil has risen by 40 percent, according to the New York Times. The International Energy Agency has stated: “The war in the Middle East is creating the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market.”
On March 16, Brigadier General Ali Mohammad Naini, a spokesman for Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) who was reportedly killed in an Israeli strike on March 20, stated that Iranian forces had targeted all vessels owned by a US or Israeli entity, regardless of their flag country. He did not indicate whether he was referring to military or civilian vessels, or both. The Joint Maritime Information Center stated on March 11 that while some of the vessels that had been struck since March 1 had “potential Western commercial associations…multiple attacks have involved vessels with no confirmed affiliation to US or Israeli ownership.”
Lloyd’s List Intelligence, a maritime data and intelligence company, reported that some vessels have continued to pass through the strait between March 1 and 18 and noted: “Shadow fleet vessels [ships engaging in illegal operations for the purposes of circumventing sanctions] carrying Iranian oil and gas account for most transits through the Strait of Hormuz.”
Human Rights Watch wrote to Iranian authorities on March 18 seeking clarification about the attacks but did not receive a response.
Iranian authorities, in statements they made pertaining to the two ships they claimed to have targeted—the Safesea Vishnu and Mayuree Naree—did not state that the vessels were military objects, nor did they present any evidence to demonstrate that anything on board the ships could have constituted military objects.
Under international humanitarian law, it is forbidden in any circumstance to carry out direct attacks against civilians and civilian objects, and warring parties are obligated to take all feasible precautions to avoid harm to civilians and civilian objects. Civilian vessels with commercial ties to the United States or Israel remain civilian objects. Warring parties must take all necessary action to verify that targets are military objectives. A person who commits serious violations of the laws of war with criminal intent—that is, intentionally or recklessly—may be prosecuted for war crimes. Individuals may also be held criminally liable for assisting in, facilitating, aiding, or abetting a war crime.
The effects of global fossil fuel dependence, and its connections to concentrated corporate power and authoritarian governments, are increasingly evident, Human Rights watch said. A just transition to renewable energy is an environmental and geopolitical urgency now more than ever. This requires concomitant efforts to provide universal access to public services such as social security, education, and health care to guarantee everyone’s rights and accelerate the transition.
“Iranian forces’ attacks on civilian ships in the Strait of Hormuz will result in harm to some of the most socioeconomically disadvantaged people across the globe,” Jafarnia said. “Iranian forces should immediately end these attacks, rescue the remaining three crew members aboard the Mayuree Naree, and release any seafarers they have detained.”
For details of the documented attacks on two vessels, further details about the others, and IRGC statements, please see below.
Click to expand Image Locations of reported and confirmed attacks against commercial ships as of March 18, 2026. Approximate locations based on International Maritime Organization reporting and vessel tracking data. Data © 2026 IMO, VesselFinder, MarineTraffic. Graphic © 2026 Human Rights Watch. March 11 Iranian Attacks on ShipsOn March 11, the Safesea Vishnu, an oil tanker, was “struck by an unknown projectile,” according to the UKMTO. The last signal sent from the ship was received by the vessel-tracking website Marine Traffic at 10:01 p.m. local time. On March 12, the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), Iran’s official state news agency, published a statement from the IRGC that confirmed that the Safesea Vishnu “had been hit in the northern Persian Gulf after failing to comply with and ignoring the warnings of the IRGC Navy.”
One of the crew members was killed in the attack, the IMO said. It also reported that another oil tanker, the Zefyros, caught fire in the same incident. The two vessels were next to each other within Iraqi territorial waters approximately 50 nautical miles southeast of Basra, according to measurements taken from vessel-tracking websites.
Human Rights Watch analyzed three videos posted to X by different accounts on March 12, with the earliest posted at 12:32 a.m. One of the videos, filmed from a nearby vessel, shows two large explosions on the Safesea Vishnu, seconds apart. Those filming from the nearby vessel claim to be the IRGC Navy and say that they have destroyed a US ship in the Persian Gulf. The Safesea Vishnu is engulfed in flames. This video supports accounts by Reuters from the US owner and operator of the vessel that two explosive-laden, unmanned boats rammed the vessel.
Another video shows firefighters spraying the Safesea Vishnu with water from a nearby boat. The BBC published a video filmed in daylight that shows the vessel tilting to one side considerably damaged.
The New York Times reported that, according to Iraq’s oil export authority, “[t]he two vessels were used by Iraq for its own oil transport.” The news outlet added that “[s]enior Iraqi officials said that one of the vessels, flying the flag of the Marshall Islands, was owned by an American company.”
On the same day, three other vessels—One Majesty, a Japanese-flagged container vessel, and two bulk carriers, the Marshall Islands-flagged Star Gwyneth and the Thai-flagged Mayuree Naree—were attacked in the strait, the IMO said.
The Royal Thai Navy spokesperson said in a statement that the navy had received an initial report that “two projectiles of unknown origin” had struck the Mayuree Naree as it sailed into the Strait of Hormuz after departing from the UAE. The statement said that the Omani navy had rescued 20 of the vessel’s 23 crew members, which the Omani Maritime Security Center confirmed. On March 18, the Royal Thai Navy reported that the ship had moved from Omani to Iranian territorial waters. Three crew members reportedly remain on board the seriously damaged vessel.
Photographs taken by rescued crew members circulating online show the superstructure emitting large columns of black smoke. One photograph shows damage to the hull of the boat near the propeller that is consistent with an explosion.
The day the three ships were reportedly attacked, Tasnim News, affiliated with the IRGC, posted a statement on its Telegram channel at 3:36 p.m. stating that the Mayuree Naree was “shelled by Iranian fighters hours ago after ignoring the warnings of the IRGC Navy and illegally insisting on passing through the Strait of Hormuz.”
Alireza Tangsiri, commander of the IRGC naval forces, posted on X the same day at 3:50 p.m. local time that the crew of the Mayuree Naree had “ignored [Iranian authorities’] warnings and intended to pass through the strait but was caught.” He added that “[a]ny vessel intending to pass [the Strait of Hormuz] must obtain permission from #Iran.”
Both statements included claims that Iranian forces had also attacked another ship, the Express Rome, a ship not listed by the IMO as having been attacked. On March 19, Human Rights Watch received confirmation from Danaos Shipping, the owners of Express Rome, that the ship had not been hit or compromised in any way and that its crew is safe.
According to media reports from March 20, a Nepali Ministry of Foreign Affairs official stated that Iranian authorities had “taken one Nepali into custody from the Strait of Hormuz.”
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps StatementsHuman Rights Watch was unable to confirm who was responsible for the other 14 attacks the IMO documented. However, Iranian authorities have made several statements in which they have demonstrated a clear intention to attack ships, including civilian ships, that attempt to pass through the strait.
On March 4, Mohammad Akbarzadeh, an IRGC navy official, announced that the Strait of Hormuz was “under the complete control of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” On March 16, Naini repeated the statement.
“If the US claims that the Iranian Navy has been destroyed, then why is the Strait of Hormuz still closed and not even a tanker is allowed to pass,” Akbarzadeh said. “If the Iranian Aerospace Force [the IRGC’s missile, air, and space force, separate from the Air Force] has been destroyed, why do our missiles and drones hit the intended targets at specific intervals?”
On March 12, what appears to be the new X account of the newly appointed supreme leader of Iran, Mojtaba Khamenei, posted: “the lever of blocking the Strait of Hormuz must definitely continue to be used.” Tangsiri reposted the statement, adding: “By maintaining the strategy of keeping the #Strait_of_Hormuz closed, we will deal the most severe blows to the aggressor enemy.”
Also on March 12, the IRGC Public Relations office said in the statement posted by IRNA on Telegram that ships “must act in accordance with the laws and regulations of passage in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz…in order to remain safe from being hit by stray projectiles.”
The United States has also targeted and destroyed Iranian military vessels. US Central Command reported that they had damaged or destroyed 43 Iranian ships within the first seven days of the war. While military vessels constitute legitimate military targets, the attacks may pose long-term environmental threats to the region. The US navy’s attack on an Iranian military vessel near Sri Lanka on March 4 caused an oil spill stretching 20 kilometers, according to the Conflict and Environment Observatory.
Wim Zwijnenberg, an analyst at PAX, a Dutch nongovernmental organization, told Human Rights Watch that, as of March 13, the attacks by all parties to the conflict had caused “a lot of [environmental] impacts on many different locations, [including] oil spills near Basra, Bandar Abbas and Sri Lanka, but often short-term and limited impact” as a result of authorities’ quick cleanups. However, on March 18, Zwijnenberg said that a separate US strike on an Iranian drone carrier near Bandar Abbas in southern Iran had “resulted in a large 25km long oil slick that is posing a threat [to] the coastal and marine environment of the Hara Biosphere and Khuran Strait Wetlands.”
The continuation of attacks on vessels carrying large quantities of oil and gas has the potential to cause long-term and significant environmental harm. Despite cleanup efforts, offshore oil spills have long-lasting detrimental impacts on marine life and ecosystems. Customary international humanitarian law provides that warring parties need to respect the protection and preservation of the natural environment. All feasible steps should be taken to minimize environmental harm. Using methods or means of warfare that are intended or can be expected to cause widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment is prohibited.
The attacks on civilian ships in the Strait of Hormuz, as well as the threat of attack, and the targeting of energy infrastructure within the context of conflicts also appear to be contributing to significant global cost increases in energy, which may lead to increases in the costs of food and other critical sectors, to the detriment of the rights of populations.
In the same speech on March 11, Zofaghari said: “Get ready for the oil barrel to be at [US]$200, because the oil price depends on the regional stability which you have destabilized.”
Increases in oil and gas prices will have ripple effects on sectors such as food, transportation, and energyprices around the globe, which are critical to the enjoyment of human rights. Moreover, news outlets and think tanks have described the potential impact on the global food supply as a result of the collapse in fertilizer exports through the strait. The Financial Times has reported that, according to several experts, the “Middle East war is close to triggering a global food shock worse than that unleashed by Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine” given that significant percentages of the raw materials for widely used fertilizers are transported through the strait.
World Food Programme Deputy Executive Director Carl Skau told reporters on March 17 that if the ongoing regional conflict continues, “an additional 45 million people could be pushed into acute hunger by price rises.”