Secondary menu
Feed aggregator
Türkiye: European Court Hears New Case on Jailed Rights Defender
(London, March 24, 2026) – The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights will hear pleadings on March 25, 2026, in a case brought by the human rights defender Osman Kavala, the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project (TLSP), Human Rights Watch, and the International Commission of Jurists said today.
Joint Third Party Intervention in Kavala v Türkiye
Kavala has been continuously detained since 2017, despite binding judgments from the court that his detention should end. The three organizations have submitted a third-party intervention to the court, arguing, among other points, that the government’s undermining of judicial independence in Türkiye has contributed to the violations against Kavala.
“Osman Kavala’s unlawful and politically motivated detention has been allowed to persist for the best part of a decade in part because Türkiye’s judicial system lacks independence,” said Ayşe Bingöl Demir, director of TLSP. “We hope the court will scrutinize how Türkiye’s ruling political parties have systematically taken steps to capture judicial authority and what that means for human rights.”
Kavala was arrested in October 2017, and on April 25, 2022, was convicted of “attempting to overthrow the government” and sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment for his alleged role in the 2013 mass protests triggered by an urban transformation plan around Istanbul’s Gezi Park. In 2019 and 2022, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that his detention was arbitrary and motivated by ulterior political purposes. The second judgment was the result of highly exceptional infringement proceedings, initiated by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe when Türkiye failed to implement the earlier judgement.
In early 2024, Kavala submitted a new application to the court, alleging that there had been multiple additional violations of his rights since its 2019 ruling. As of November 2025, the case has been before the court’s Grand Chamber, which is now due to examine the case.
The organizations’ intervention describes the degradation of the independence and impartiality of the judiciary in Türkiye, leading to the capture of judicial authority by the ruling coalition political parties—Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP)—as part of a broader assumption of effective political control over state institutions.
Attacks on judicial independence have included the removal of many legal safeguards designed to protect the independence of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors, the main self-governing body of the judiciary. Positions on the council were then able to be filled by judges and prosecutors close to the government. Some of those appointed have a track record of misusing anti-terrorism and national security laws as well as failing to implement Constitutional Court and European Court judgments.
“The council appears to have become an instrument to unduly influence the judiciary and its decision making, rather than serving as a safeguard for its independence,” said Temur Shakirov, director of the Europe and Central Asia program at the International Commission of Jurists. “Its powers are used to create a climate of fear and submission among judges and prosecutors, including through arbitrary measures affecting their careers and rights.”
Influence and control over the judiciary have also been secured in the aftermath of the 2016 coup attempt in Türkiye by arbitrarily dismissing thousands of judges and prosecutors and replacing them with individuals seemingly approved by or aligned with the ruling political parties. Their recruitment has been neither independent from the executive nor based on objective and transparent criteria.
Continued political pressure and interference with the judiciary in cases concerning perceived dissidents or others viewed as obstructing the interests of the ruling coalition have further contributed to the capture and instrumentalization of judicial authority in Türkiye.
Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the right to an effective remedy for violations of human rights protected by the convention. The third-party intervention argues that individual applications to Türkiye’s Constitutional Court can no longer be considered an effective remedy due to the lack of independence of its members from the executive and the resulting ineffectiveness in upholding the human rights of perceived dissidents. The Constitutional Court also lacks a transparent case prioritization policy, contributing to selectivity and facilitating interference with its independence.
The groups’ intervention notes that Türkiye consistently avoids discharging its convention obligations, particularly in politically sensitive cases, and that judicial and government authorities frequently circumvent national or European Court judgments and actively undermine their proper implementation.
“Turkish judicial authorities have subverted criminal proceedings, including by unreasonable interpretations of provisions of criminal law and disregard for core procedural rights,” said Aisling Reidy, senior legal adviser at Human Rights Watch. “This is also reflected in the persistent defiance of European Court of Human Rights judgments and the standards established in its case law.”
Japan Authorities Take Steps to Address Athlete Abuse
The Japan Sports Agency (JSA) recently released its Guidelines for Evaluating and Improving Safety Measures in Physical Activity and Sports (Trial Version). After documented suffering by Japanese athletes and insufficient mechanisms to report abuse, the government’s efforts to end mistreatment in sports are a positive step. However, effective implementation is crucial.
The guidelines, published on January 27, 2026, come in five versions targeting groups involved in sports. The ones for athletes, coaches, and sports organizers, such as teams and clubs, include a section on abuse and harassment, provide examples of abusive behavior, identify contributing factors, and offer prevention and response measures.
In 2020, Human Rights Watch documented systemic child abuse in Japanese sports. Five years later, the Basic Act on Sport was revised, requiring the national government to address abuse. Soon after, Human Rights Watch and advocacy partners wrote to the JSA commissioner, Junichi Kawai, recommending establishing a Safe Sport Act and a Safe Sport Center to ensure that athletes can report abuse and that their cases are addressed.
On January 28, safe sport advocacy groups and former athletes and scholars met with the JSA to back efforts to eliminate harassment in sports and to stress the need for a Safe Sport Act and a Safe Sport Center.
Carrying out the new guidelines is merely voluntary. The draft FY2026 budget states that JSA will promote the guidelines and create a program to register and publicize organizations that comply. However, the process to address abuses in organizations that have refused to carry out the suggested measures remains unclear. Japan needs a legal framework requiring sports organizations to act on abuse.
While the guidelines list hotlines to report athlete abuse, each sports organization would operate its own complaint mechanism. Experts have raised concerns about insufficient staffing, funding, and expertise if organizations operate the hotlines. To establish a system that athletes can use without fear of retaliation and can trust to take effective action, an independent complaint mechanism is necessary.
The Japanese government has embarked on a path to greater sports safety, but to succeed, effective implementation, including a Safe Sport Act and a Safe Sport Center, is needed so that athletes and children across Japan are protected.
Türkiye: Impeded Access to Mayor’s Trial
(Istanbul, March 23, 2026) – An Istanbul court has imposed arbitrary restrictions on lawyers, journalists, and members of the public seeking to follow the trial of the jailed Istanbul Mayor, Ekrem İmamoğlu, Human Rights Watch said today. Imamoğlu and 406 municipal officials and others have been on trial since March 9, 2026, facing politically motivated corruption charges.
The court should ensure that hearings are open to the public and that reporters are not relegated to the far back corner of the courtroom, where it can be difficult to follow interactions between the defendants and judges.
“The fundamental principle that justice must be seen to be done requires access for journalists, lawyers, and the public, especially when elected officials are on trial and the proceedings are of such public interest,” said Benjamin Ward, deputy Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “There is a lot of empty space in the huge courtroom that could and should be used to ensure that journalists observing the case are able to effectively follow the proceedings.”
The decisions by the Istanbul 40th Assize Court to increase restrictions followed several tense hearings, which Human Rights Watch representatives observed, marked by disputes about seating arrangements between the court, lawyers, journalists, and politicians from the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), from which İmamoğlu was elected.
Two co-defendants Resul Emrah Şahan and Mehmet Murat Çalık, CHP mayors of Istanbul districts Şişli and Beylikdüzü, are expected to present their defense during the week beginning March 23. The indictment accuses both district mayors as being members of an alleged criminal organization led by İmamoğlu, with Şahan referred to as a “special member.” If the court’s entry restrictions continue, the public will not be permitted to attend their hearings.
The hearings are taking place in the Marmara Prison campus courthouse in Istanbul’s most remote district, Silivri, 70 kilometers from the city center. Security arrangements outside the courthouse are strict, with a large presence of gendarmes, barricades, and identity checks at the entrances to the prison campus car park and to the building housing the courtrooms.
The courtroom itself is the size of a sports hall with the judges and prosecutor seated at one end, with 107 defendants held in pretrial detention in front of them surrounded by gendarmes, then seating for defendants who are at liberty, with seating for lawyers on raised rows of benches at the sides, and seating for onlookers and the media in a small enclosure at the very back.
On March 16, the chief judge postponed the hearing before the session began because three members of parliament from the CHP, who are lawyers and were observing, refused to comply with his order to move from the lawyers’ benches at the front, to the back of the court.
The court issued a written order later that day limiting presence in the courtroom to defendants, three lawyers per defendant, one relative per defendant, and media, excluding everyone else from the room. Lawyers not acting for defendants, but wishing to observe the proceedings, were also excluded.
The hearings on March 17 and 18 took place with increased security and reduced public presence, with all defendants’ relatives seated at the back and many rows of benches at the sides reserved for lawyers left empty. After a negotiation with the court, several CHP members of parliament were admitted to the back of the court. On March 18, further negotiation resulted in more relatives and opposition party supporters and officials being allowed in, although the wider public and lawyers not acting for defendants were not granted access.
On March 12, the chief judge ended a hearing early when journalists did not comply with his order to move from benches reserved for lawyers to the back corner. Following an incident in which a journalist had asked İmamoğlu a question as he was leaving the courtroom, journalists are now only permitted to follow proceedings from the back corner of the courtroom. Journalists have submitted written petitions requesting to be moved back to the empty side benches, citing the difficulty of seeing and hearing the full proceedings from what they described as a “blind spot.”
Being seated in the back corner limits what journalists can hear beyond the testimony of individuals in the dock whose words are audible via speakers and who are visible via two large video screens. Off-microphone discussions between defendants and the judges are not audible at the back of the court.
Over the past year the Turkish authorities have targeted journalists for their critical reporting on the investigations and court cases against İmamoğlu, other CHP mayors, and lawsuits aimed at removing the leadership of the party.
The journalists should be able to do their work without unnecessary restrictions on their ability to inform the public of all developments in the court, Human Rights Watch said.
Under the Turkish Constitution, and in line with the right under international law to a public hearing as part of a fair trial, court hearings are open to the public. A decision to hold part or all of a hearing in private may only be made in cases in which it is strictly required by considerations of public morality or public security. In 2023, the Constitutional Court ruled that public trials are a constitutional requirement, and restrictions on hearings cannot be imposed unless the conditions specified in the constitution are met.
Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which Türkiye is party, guarantees the right to a fair trial including “a fair and public hearing.” The European Court of Human Rights has confirmed that public access is an important factor in ensuring the right to a fair trial, and while some limitations are permitted, they must be strictly necessary for specific purposes in the interest of justice. Arbitrary restrictions are not permissible.
“Imposing arbitrary restrictions on access to this case undermines confidence in the proceedings and violates the requirement under Turkish and international law to conduct justice in public,” Ward said. “Instead of limiting the public’s right to information about the case, the authorities should allow journalists to report fully on proceedings and ensure public access to the trial.”
Israeli Officials Signal Stepped-Up Atrocities in Lebanon
(Beirut, March 23, 2026) – Israeli forces have expanded ground operations in southern Lebanon after indicating an intent to forcibly displace residents, destroy civilian homes and conduct strikes that could target civilians, Human Rights Watch said today. Forcible displacement, wanton destruction and attacks deliberately targeting civilians are war crimes. Countries that continue to provide Israel with arms and military aid risk complicity in the Israeli government’s serious violations in Lebanon.
On March 22, Israel’s defense Minister, Israel Katz, issued a statement announcing that he and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have “ordered the acceleration of the demolition of Lebanese houses in the border villages in order to thwart threats to Israeli communities - in accordance with the Beit Hanoun and Rafah models in Gaza.” On March 16, 2026, Katz said that “hundreds of thousands of Shiite residents of southern Lebanon […] will not return to their homes south of the Litani area until the safety of Israel’s northern residents is guaranteed.” Displacement orders issued by the Israeli military to residents of the southern suburbs of Beirut between March 11 and 15 further stated that the Israeli military “will not hesitate to target anyone who is present near Hezbollah members, facilities, or means of combat.”
“For over two years, Israel’s allies and European states that purport to support and uphold human rights have buried their heads in the sand as atrocities continue in Lebanon, as in Gaza,” said Ramzi Kaiss, Lebanon researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Atrocities flourish when there is impunity, and other countries should no longer stand by as they continue.”
Since the recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah on March 2, Israeli attacks have killed at least 1,029 people in Lebanon, including 118 children and 40 medical workers, as of March 18 according to Lebanon’s Ministry of Public Health. In recent days, Hezbollah has fired an average of about 150 rockets per day, according to the Israeli military. Hezbollah attacks have injured at least 15 people in Israel, according to Israeli mediareports.
On March 4 and 5, the Israeli military issued displacement orders for the entire population of Lebanon south of the Litani River and all residents of Beirut’s southern suburbs, which include hundreds of thousands of people. Since March 12, the Israeli military has expanded the areas subject to displacement orders, ordering residents of southern Lebanon to evacuate north of the Zahrani River, 15 kilometers north of the Litani River, and 40 kilometers north of Lebanon’s southern border with Israel. Over a million people have been displaced in Lebanon thus far.
The Israeli defense minister’s statement, indicating that Shiite residents of southern Lebanon will be prevented from returning to their homes until an undetermined safety standard for Israel’s northern residents is guaranteed, signals that Israel will prevent residents from returning to their homes for an indefinite period. The sweeping nature of the displacement orders, and the statements that do not address the protection of the displaced civilians, raises concerns of the war crime of forced displacement, Human Rights Watch said.
Singling out Shiite residents further indicates that Israel is imposing such measures based on their religion, a human rights violation, and further indicates that the residents’ security is not the aim of the displacement.
Ordering the Israeli military to accelerate the destruction of Lebanese homes raises serious risk of the war crime of wanton destruction and violations of the prohibition under international law against deliberately destroying civilian property except when necessary for lawful military reasons. The mere possibility of future military use by armed groups of some civilian structures cannot under the laws of war justify the wide-scale destruction of whole homes across Lebanon’s border.
Between March 11 and 15, the Israeli military’s Arabic spokesperson issued at least five nearly identical displacement orders for residents of seven neighborhoods in Beirut’s southern suburbs, after first issuing a sweeping displacement order for entire southern suburbs of Beirut on March 5. The statement ordered residents to “evacuate the area immediately” and called on them to “not return to those neighborhoods until further notice.”
The orders further stated that the Israeli military “will not hesitate to target anyone who is present near Hezbollah members, facilities, or means of combat.” This differs from previous orders issued to residents of Beirut’s southern suburbs, which stated, for example, that “Anyone who is near Hezbollah members, facilities or means of combat is putting their lives at risk.”
On March 5, minister in the defense ministry, Bezalel Smotrich, who sits on the security cabinet and also serves as Israel’s finance minister, recorded a video statement standing at the Israel-Lebanon border, stating that “very soon, Dahieh [Beirut’s southern suburb] will look like Khan Younis,” in Gaza. Human Rights Watch has previously documented war crimes, crimes against humanity, and acts of genocide by the Israeli military in Gaza.
These statements, combined with Israeli forces’ previous conduct of war in Lebanon, raise serious concern that the Israeli military may target civilians, based solely on their presence in or proximity to areas where Hezbollah is present.
Since October 7, 2023, Israeli forces have committed numerous violations of the laws of war and apparent war crimes in Lebanon with total impunity, including apparently deliberate or indiscriminate attacks on journalists, civilians, medics, financial institutions, reconstruction-related facilities, and peacekeepers. They have also unlawfully used white phosphorus in populated areas, among other violations. Human Rights Watch has documented several unlawful attacks in Lebanon using US-made weapons.
Civilians who chose to stay in areas subject to displacement orders in southern Lebanon are particularly at risk of being cut-off from food and medicine supplies and other aid, Human Rights Watch said.
In a statement published on March 18, the Israeli Military Arabic spokesperson said that bridges crossing over the Litani River into southern Lebanon would be struck “to prevent the movement of reinforcements and means of combat” into southern Lebanon. Between March 13 and 22, the Israeli military said that it struck at least four Litani River bridges.
Hezbollah should take all feasible precautions to protect civilians in its operations in Lebanon and Israel.
Civilians who do not evacuate following orders are still fully protected by international humanitarian law. Forced displacement is prohibited under the laws of war, except in cases in which civilian security is involved or for imperative military reasons.
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.
Lebanon’s judicial authorities should initiate domestic investigations of serious international crimes, and the government should accede to the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute and submit a declaration accepting the court’s jurisdiction prior to the date of accession, including since at least October 7, 2023.
Israel’s key allies, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany, should suspend military assistance and arms sales to Israel and impose targeted sanctions on officials credibly responsible for ongoing serious abuses. They should levy further pressure on Israel to ensure that displaced residents can return to their homes once hostilities end or once the reasons for their displacement cease to exist.
“The Israeli military does not get to decide when civilians lose protections afforded by international law nor should it be allowed to prevent displaced residents from returning to their homes based on some undefined ‘safety’ standard,” Kaiss said. “Deliberately targeting civilians, civilian objects, and others protected under international law would be a war crime, and countries supplying Israel with weapons need to realize they are risking complicity in war crimes too.”
A Step Toward Justice for Abuses in Ukraine
As Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine enters its fifth year, sustained international efforts are critical to ensure accountability for grave abuses. New findings by the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine underscore why its mandate should be renewed.
The commission’s new report includes findings on Russian authorities’ deportation and forcible transfer of Ukrainian children to Russia or Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine. The commission verified the deportation or transfer of at least 1,205 children, 80 percent of whom have not been returned.
It also found that Russian authorities have systematically withheld information about the children’s whereabouts from their parents or legal guardians and obstructed efforts to secure their return. Russian authorities instead have sought to place the children with families or in institutions in Russia. The commission concluded that these systematic acts, including deportation, forcible transfer, and enforced disappearances, amount to crimes against humanity.
The commission also documented serious violations of fair trial rights for Ukrainian civilians and prisoners of war before courts in the Russian Federation and in Russian occupied areas of Ukraine. It found that these courts accept fabricated evidence or testimony obtained under torture, in proceedings marked by a lack of independence and an apparent presumption of guilt.
As the UN Human Rights Council negotiates a resolution during its current session to renew the commission’s mandate, ongoing abuses in Ukraine underscore the importance of continued international scrutiny.
The commission’s findings echo Human Rights Watch findings of the systematic torture and ill-treatment of Ukrainian prisoners of war and civilian detainees, which constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity. Human Rights Watch has also documented repeated indiscriminate and unlawful attacks on civilian infrastructure, and deliberate drone attacks on Ukrainian civilians, amounting to war crimes.
In occupied territories, Russian authorities continue to impose Russian laws, unlawfully seize civilian property, and coerce residents to acquire Russian citizenship and serve in the Russian military. They have also imposed Russian language and curriculum in schools as part of a systematic campaign to suppress Ukrainian identity, language, and culture.
The Commission of Inquiry remains a cornerstone of accountability, helping preserve evidence, identify patterns of abuse, and support future prosecutions. Human Rights Council member states should support its renewal and ensure that it has the resources needed to continue independent investigations into grave abuses in Ukraine.
As EU and Australia Sign Trade Deal, Will They Defend Rules-Based Order?
This week, European Union Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic will visit Canberra in anticipation of signing a free trade agreement with Australia. The deal will be the third concluded by the EU this year, following others with the Mercosur and India, and with more likely to follow. Australia meanwhile has concluded an agreement with the UAE and is seeking to boost economic ties with India.
Yet, as the EU and Australia intensify efforts to conclude trade treaties, their defense of the international rules-based order on which treaties depend has been less robust.
Von der Leyen recently came under fire following a speech in which she claimed Europe “can no longer be a custodian for the old-world order,” arguing the EU should pursue “a more realistic and interest-driven foreign policy.” Facing criticism, she later reaffirmed commitment to international law, as both the EU and Australia often do in statements. Their actions, however, do not always match their rhetoric.
Abusive migration policies, foreign policy double standards, and lukewarm defense of international law from both the EU and Australia have contributed to the weakening of the rules-based order they claim to support.
A course change is needed.
Amid global uncertainties largely induced by US President Donald Trump, the EU and Australia should reject the “low rights” economic model pushed by China and act to ensure it no longer gets rewarded.
The Australian government should heed recommendations to use trade to advance rights and environmental protection, and the EU should live up to its treaty obligations to do that, for instance by focusing on labor reforms in negotiations with Thailand and Gulf countries, instead of overlooking repression as it has done in deals with India and Vietnam.
Von der Leyen should reverse deregulation efforts that have undone years of EU progress to address corporate abuses, while Australia should adopt human rights due diligence legislation.
Furthermore, both the EU and Australia should uphold international law and ban trade with Israel’s illegal settlements, and end their one-sided approach to denouncing rights abuses and laws of war violations in the Middle East.
They should invest in the United Nations human rights pillar and consistently implement policies inspired by it. Ultimately their actions, not their words, will show how deep their “shared commitment” to the international rules-based order really is, at a time when it’s most needed.