View previous stories
	Prohibiting the use of neurotechnology for social control or coercive behavioural conformity by Report of Secretary-General to UN General Assembly   Neurotechnology, including new and emerging forms, raises profound human rights challenges when applied to the administration of justice. Its expansion beyond clinical settings into investigative, judicial and correctional contexts introduces significant risks.   By enabling access to and possible interference with the brain, its use may affect a wide spectrum of human rights, including the rights to human dignity, privacy, freedom of thought, a fair trial, protection against self-incrimination and the presumption of innocence, as well as the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. At the same time, the evidentiary use of neuroscientific data remains contested.   Neurotechnologies’ have the potential to access mental content and influence cognition, emotion, and behaviour. Neurotechnologies can be used to "infer mental states, memory or recognition".   Neurotechnology treats people as as biological objects to be decoded or manipulated. Coercive neuromodulation technologies can alter brain activity and shape how thoughts occur. Such technologies can thus have a profound impact on the freedom of thought.   Neurotechnology accesses, measures and analyses brain signals. If these signals are treated as direct indicators of thoughts, intentions or truthfulness, the use of neural data points could undermine how we understand and value each of us as human beings.   The Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief has stated that “despite its proclaimed importance and absolute nature”, the scope and content of the right to freedom of thought “remain largely underdeveloped and poorly understood”.   Experts emphasize the urgent need to address this gap, particularly given neurotechnologies’ potential to access mental content and influence cognition, emotion, and behaviour.   Acts that seek to alter thoughts, such as “ideology conversion” programmes, may violate the right to freedom of thought and opinion, and “no one can be compelled to reveal his thoughts”.   The main element of the right to freedom of thought and conscience has been identified as the right of everyone to develop thoughts and conscience autonomously, free from impermissible external interference or alteration.   Experts have argued that four pillars of freedom of thought are most relevant to neurotechnology: the freedom not to disclose thoughts; freedom from punishment for thoughts, real or inferred; freedom from impermissible alteration of thoughts; and an enabling environment for free thought.   Neurotechnology may potentially affect all four pillars of freedom of thought. Neurotechnologies capable of inferring mental states and revealing information that the person has not chosen to disclose may impact the freedom not to disclose thoughts.   While neurotechnology is not capable at present of “mind-reading”, it is reportedly capable of inferring emotions and internal reactions based on neural data. The freedom from punishment for thoughts could be threatened should such inference result in sanctions.   Individuals have an unlimited right to think whatever they wish, whether in terms of actual thoughts or inferred ones. The freedom from impermissible alteration of thoughts could be impacted by coercive neuromodulation, which may alter or shape a person ’s thoughts.   Freedom of thought contributes to freedom of opinion in that opinions usually represent the result of a thought process. Given the overlapping nature of these freedoms, representing part of the “forum internum”, neurotechnology presents similar risks to freedom of opinion as to thought.   Article 19 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects the right to have and form opinions without interference.   According to the Human Rights Committee, this right is one to which the Covenant permits no exception or restriction, and protects all forms of opinion, including political, scientific, historical, moral and religious opinions.   Harassment, intimidation or stigmatization of a person on account of opinions held is forbidden.   Forced neurological interventions, indoctrination programmes or threats of violence designed to compel individuals to form particular opinions or change their opinion would violate this freedom.   The Constitutional Court of Spain decided that “ideological freedom” is a combination of the freedoms of thought and opinion, protecting the mind from technologies capable of modulating or manipulating political beliefs.   Neurotechnologies can access the brain to collect and record highly sensitive information and affect physical and mental privacy by exposing the individual ’s private space and integrity.   Articles 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 16 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child protect individuals from arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy. Neurotechnology introduces new threats to privacy by significantly increasing the level of possible interference.   The prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is absolute and non-derogable and extends not only to physical pain but also to acts that cause mental suffering. Persons in detention also have the right to be “treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person”.   The use of brain-based decoding of readable information about thoughts, intentions or memories, coercive interrogation techniques, and neuromodulation, applied in detention or investigative contexts, may result in mental or physical suffering contravening the protection provided under articles 7 and 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.   The Human Rights Council Advisory Committee is of the view that the use of neuromodulation techniques intended to alter the brain activity of offenders to reduce aggression or impulsivity may constitute treatment contrary to articles 7 or 10 of the Covenant. In custodial settings, the pronounced power imbalance between the State and the individual may call into question the genuineness of consent.   The introduction of neurotechnology, particularly in combination with artificial intelligence, poses significant risks to judicial independence, protected under article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This article stipulates that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.   When the design, implementation and oversight of artificial intelligence-enhanced tools are the responsibility of the executive branch alone, or when such systems are outsourced to private companies whose proprietary models are shielded by intellectual property safeguards, the independence of the judiciary may be jeopardized. The phenomenon of automation bias – the tendency to accept uncritically the outputs of technological systems – can represent a further threat to independent judicial reasoning.   The Human Rights Council Advisory Committee has identified “groups experiencing structural discrimination and marginalized people or those in positions of socioeconomic disadvantage” as being particularly vulnerable to negative impacts of the use of neurotechnology in the administration of justice.   Technology is never neutral, but reflects the values and interests of those who influence its design and use, and is fundamentally shaped by the same structures of inequality that operate in society.   Children’s heightened brain plasticity makes them especially vulnerable to coercive alteration and to permanent labelling on the basis of predictive risk assessments before their personalities are fully formed. States are urged to identify, define and prohibit digital practices that manipulate or interfere with children ’s freedom of thought.   Among the recommendations to Member States:   Establish regulatory frameworks, consistent with international human rights law and relevant international standards and guidance provided by United Nations human rights mechanisms, governing the development, deployment and use of neurotechnologies in the administration of justice, including their development by business enterprises or other entities.   Neural data, is uniquely sensitive personal data, demanding heightened protection, specially considering their increasing collection by private actors and potential reuse in legal proceedings. Current regulatory approaches remain fragmented and insufficient, underscoring the need for comprehensive, human rights-based governance.   Recognize neural data as highly sensitive personal data subject to the highest level of legal protection; impose clear limitations on its collection, processing, sale, storage, retention, reuse and sharing; and provide accessible mechanisms for remedy in the event of infringement and effective judicial and independent oversight;   Prohibit the compulsory or coercive use of neurotechnologies in the administration of justice, including brain-based deception detection, predictive applications, decoding applications to “read” thoughts, intentions or memories, neuromodulation and arbitrary or unlawful cognitive surveillance and monitoring; Prohibit the use of neurotechnology as a means of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or for any kind of social control or coercive behavioural conformity..   http://news.un.org/en/story/2026/10/1168609 http://docs.un.org/en/A/81/351 Visit the related web page
	The Responsibility to Protect by UN News, OHCHR, agencies   The Responsibility to Protect Doctrine, by Martin Griffiths - Former UN under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs:   The legal norm has been manipulated and forgotten. But today it is needed more than ever.   The United Nations General Assembly met yesterday at its headquarters in New York to discuss the responsibility to protect (R2P) doctrine and the continuing perpetration of atrocities across the world.   These gatherings have been taking place annually since 2018, but they have done little to advance the proper enforcement of R2P. Yesterday’s meeting was no different.   The UN may have failed to effectively apply R2P, but that does not mean it is a bad principle. It also does not mean we should give up on it.   The idea of establishing a norm in international law to prevent crimes against humanity and genocide first emerged in the aftermath of the failure to stop the genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia.   In 2001, the International Committee on Intervention and State Sovereignty developed the framework for R2P. It was crafted first as an obligation of states to protect their own people, and then, when that fails, as an obligation of other states to take action.   In 2005, at the UN World Summit, the world’s heads of state met to discuss the new framework. The final document adopted at the summit – which, in effect, embedded R2P into international law – read:   “The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.”   Similar efforts resulted, in July 2002, in the establishment of the International Criminal Court tasked with prosecuting individuals accused of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.   All this represented a high point of the desire to ensure a rules-based order to protect people in need and to punish all those who flout that obligation.   It was an ambitious and imaginative effort to make the world a safer place. But it did not work. There are various reasons for that failure.   Perhaps the main one was the absence of the slightest interest from several powerful member states in implementing R2P. Lack of action from governments has resulted in brutal indifference to suffering, famine, crimes against humanity and genocide. Ironically, several of them remain members of the so-called Group of Friends of R2P.   There was also the politicisation of R2P in pursuit of geopolitical agendas. In 2011, when protests erupted in Libya, the government of Muammar Gaddafi responded violently. Western governments led by the US invoked R2P when seeking permission from the UN Security Council to intervene.   What was supposed to be a humanitarian intervention to protect the civilian population turned into a regime-change operation. The manipulation of R2P was its death sentence. Russia, a permanent UNSC member, but also other powers, saw it as a conduit for Western interventionism rather than a humanitarian doctrine.   What followed was global inaction on horrific atrocities in Syria, Palestine, Sudan, DRC, Ethiopia, Myanmar, and elsewhere.   As a UN official involved in humanitarian efforts and conflict mediation, I have had a front seat to the suffering and devastation that the failure to protect has led to. I have spent the last six years in the worst places of the world – places of unimaginable suffering.   I have raged against those leaders who feel comfortable with their “expressions of concern” in the absence of any decisive action. I have mourned the dead and the suffering. And I have seen no justice for those who made these tragedies a new norm.   And yet, in every place, I was reminded of the power of human kindness and compassion. Everywhere I went, I met people who had given their all to help the displaced fleeing from war, who had opened their schools and clinics to host the homeless and injured and spent their own money to feed and clothe them.   This world of kindness and respect remains invisible to global politics. The lack of attention, however, has not diminished it. Indeed, it has grown even as leaders continue to betray the most basic humanitarian principles and hypocritically hide behind weak statements of condemnation.   The human values and ideals behind R2P still exist, and it is up to us to take it back to the high and inspiring grounds it once occupied. There are steps the UN can take that go far beyond the annual meetings in order to put this legal norm into action.   First, the international committee which put together the R2P framework needs to be reconvened and tasked with revising it in order to ensure proper implementation, outlining conditions and scope of action.   Second, their report must be recognised and endorsed by the UN, with the General Assembly, the Security Council, and the Human Rights Council putting their weight behind it.   Third, a mechanism needs to be set up for reporting back to the UN on situations where R2P may need to be applied. This would require an official mandate for a UN body to take up this responsibility.   All of this would require political will, which could only be generated when a threshold of popular revulsion at the continuing mass atrocities is reached.   In Sudan, right now, another genocidal moment is looming. El Obeid is under siege, and all indications are that the atrocities that happened in el-Fasher last year will repeat there.   We must act with urgency and determination. Stopping genocide is not a political act; it is a humanistic one.   http://www.globalr2p.org/populations-at-risk/ http://www.globalr2p.org/publications/atrocity-alert-no-497/ http://www.globalr2p.org/what-is-r2p/ http://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ http://www.icc-cpi.int/ http://www.ohchr.org/en/ohchr_homepage http://www.icj-cij.org/s/court/80th-anniversary http://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/responsibility-protect/key-documents http://docs.un.org/en/A/80/716 http://docs.un.org/en/A/79/875 http://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention http://www.icrc.org/en/statement/statement-universal-jurisdiction-un-general-assemblys-sixth-committee   July 2026   UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk calls for strong action at the highest level to prevent atrocity crimes in Sudan:   The signs from El Obeid are clear and unmistakable: another human rights catastrophe is unfolding in Sudan, this time in the capital of the strategic state of North Kordofan.   Civilians have been subjected to siege-like conditions for 18 months, battered by relentless drone strikes as the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces battle for control over areas surrounding the city.   My Office documented 15 drone strikes on El Obeid and surrounding areas between 6 and 28 June, which killed at least 45 civilians and injured 41. The actual number of civilian casualties is likely higher.   Across the Kordofan region, drones launched by both sides have repeatedly struck markets, schools, fuel stations, water infrastructure, and civilian vehicles. In recent weeks, we documented damage to at least 13 fuel stations in El Obeid and Al Rahad from RSF drones.   These attacks, and fuel shortages, have a compound impact, making it difficult for civilians to access clean water, food, transport and healthcare, and to communicate with each other and the outside world.   Shortages of clean water are reaching a critical point in El Obeid. As the rainy season starts, this puts people at risk of waterborne diseases, including cholera. An influx of tens of thousands of people fleeing violence in other parts of Kordofan is straining resources even further.   People are selling their belongings to finance their escape from the city. For many, the exorbitant cost of transport, and constant attacks on vehicles along exit routes, make leaving impossible.   We have documented patterns of summary executions, abductions, torture and ill-treatment, sexual violence, and looting along the routes taken by displaced people across the Kordofan region.   Those who stay in El Obeid are also at risk of arbitrary arrest and detention. People who have fled areas controlled by the RSF and allied forces are frequently accused of collaboration. All this takes place against a backdrop of rising hate speech.   The international community cannot allow a repeat of the widespread atrocities that took place in Zamzam camp for displaced people, and in El Fasher in North Darfur last year.   My Office assessed that at least 6,000 people were killed in the span of just three days when the RSF captured El Fasher. We found the RSF and allied militia committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, including mass killings, summary executions, sexual violence, and torture.   These crimes were foreseen, with repeated warnings by myself and my Office. But they were not prevented.   This is not a drill. It is a red alert that needs to land on the desks of Heads of State and government around the world. Their phones should be running hot in the coming days and weeks, with ideas on how to prevent atrocity crimes in El Obeid and in other places in Kordofan, where the same strategies are being deployed.   Reports by my Office and others, call for strong action at the highest level. The UN Security Council needs to fulfil its responsibilities to prevent atrocity crimes. El Obeid is a classic case that shows why the use of the veto should be limited.   All leaders must use their influence to exert pressure on all parties, and particularly the RSF, to stop an offensive on El Obeid; to end strikes on civilians and essential infrastructure; to stop the flow of weapons; and to comply with their obligations under international law.   There also needs to be accountability for the crimes that have been committed. I welcome the continued engagement of the International Criminal Court on Sudan as a path to that end, in addition to efforts based on universal jurisdiction.   The safe and voluntary movement of civilians out of El Obeid must be guaranteed. We urgently need a humanitarian pause to allow for the unhindered delivery of food and humanitarian aid into the city and its surroundings.   We also need to pay far closer attention to the political economy of this war. The leaders of the warring parties bear the greatest responsibility for three years of appalling suffering. But behind them, domestic and foreign players are benefiting from the carnage.   We need to end the steady supply of weapons from outside the country to all sides, which continues with complete disregard for their use in contravention of international law. Without action to end this, the conflict risks continuing indefinitely. I repeat my call for the arms embargo on Darfur to be extended to the whole country.   I call for concerted efforts by the international community to assume its responsibilities to protect the people of Sudan, and support their efforts to build a peaceful, inclusive and democratic future.   http://www.ohchr.org/en/statements-and-speeches/2026/07/high-commissioner-turk-calls-strong-action-highest-level-prevent?sub-site=HRC http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/09/sudan-external-support-networks-are-fuelling-conflict-and-civilian-harm-un http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/07/sudan-mass-killings-abductions-and-gang-rape-carried-out-el-fasher http://www.hrw.org/news/2026/06/22/robust-global-action-is-key-to-curbing-sudan-atrocities http://raoulwallenbergcentre.org/en/news/2026-06-26 http://www.globaldispatches.org/p/sudan-is-on-the-brink-of-another http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/07/sudan-rsf-atrocities-in-el-fasher-a-stain-on-the-conscience-of-humanity-new-report/ http://www.unicef.org/press-releases/least-330-children-killed-or-injured-sudan-during-first-six-months-2026-conflict http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jul/06/the-guardian-view-on-atrocities-in-sudan-when-never-again-becomes-again-and-again http://humanrightscommission.house.gov/news/press-releases/co-chairs-call-us-corporations-reassess-uae-partnerships-amid-sudan-atrocity http://www.ipcinfo.org/ipcinfo-website/countries-in-focus-archive/issue-151/en/   18 June 2026   UN Secretary-General, Rights chief warn of impending atrocities as RSF militia closes in on El Obeid, Sudan. (UN News, agencies)   The United Nations Secretary-General has expressed deep alarm at the escalation of fighting in and around El Obeid, North Kordofan state, including drone attacks impacting civilians and civilian infrastructure.   He is particularly alarmed by reports of the deployment, by the Rapid Support Forces, of substantial military reinforcements around El Obeid which may indicate an imminent ground offensive on the city, potentially placing yet another major population centre in Sudan at grave risk of large-scale violence. (El Obeid has a reported population of over 500,000 people)   The Secretary-General calls for restraint from all parties and urges them to take all necessary measures to respect and protect civilians. The Secretary-General urges all those with influence over the parties to exert it to prevent further bloodshed.   We must not allow the horrors of El Fasher to be repeated in El Obeid. The Secretary-General reiterates his call for an immediate cessation of hostilities.   The Secretary-General stresses that humanitarian workers and supplies must be able to move safely. Humanitarian operations must be protected and facilitated. El Obeid is a crucial hub for humanitarian response efforts across the broader Kordofan region.   Civilians who wish to leave must be allowed to do so safely. Those choosing to remain must be respected, protected and have access to the humanitarian relief they need.   The Secretary-General reminds all parties of their clear obligations under international humanitarian law and international human rights law, including to respect and protect civilians and civilian infrastructure, and to facilitate rapid, safe, unhindered and sustained humanitarian access.   UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk issued a stark warning that an imminent RSF offensive risked the fresh commission of serious international crimes and deepening the catastrophic impact on an already beleaguered civilian population.   El Obeid is the capital of North Kordofan state in Sudan, and its inhabitants have been strangled by siege-like conditions for more than 18 months.   “We have seen this playbook before. We know where it led then, and cannot now allow a repeat of the preventable atrocities we documented in El Fasher and Zamzam IDP camp in North Darfur last year. Civilians are at grave risk in Kordofan, particularly in El Obeid, in the absence of action to halt the imminent offensive and further military escalation,” the High Commissioner said.   “Let this be a stark warning to the world of an impending human rights disaster and worsening humanitarian situation. The States with influence have the duty to exercise it now to stop this madness in its tracks.”   Given the patterns of serious violations of international law documented by the UN Human Rights Office during RSF offensives on El Fasher and Zamzam IDP camp last year, the risk of summary executions, abduction, arbitrary detention and other violence against civilians is high, and must be prevented, the High Commissioner added.   The ever-increasing use of drones to conduct airstrikes is having a further devastating impact on civilians and civilian infrastructure in Kordofan. Over the past two weeks, there have been dozens of drone strikes on El Obeid, leading to loss of civilian lives. This has had a serious impact on civilian access to basic services.   The High Commissioner also urged parties to the conflict to ensure the safe movement of civilians who have been repeatedly forced to flee violence, and in search of basic services.   The RSF’s takeover of El Fasher in October 2025 was marked by widespread atrocities, including targeted ethnic violence, extrajudicial killings and executions. The UN Fact-Finding Mission on Sudan later concluded that the RSF committed crimes against humanity, war crimes and acts that may amount to genocide against non-Arab communities during its siege and subsequent takeover. Unconfirmed reports from December 2025 estimate that at least 60,000 people may have been killed since the RSF’s takeover.   http://news.un.org/en/story/2026/06/1167752 http://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statements/2026-06-18/statement-attributable-the-spokesperson-for-the-secretary-general-sudan http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/06/sudan-imminent-offensive-el-obeid-must-be-halted-turk-warns-catastrophic http://www.globalr2p.org/publications/atrocity-alert-no-487/ http://www.unicef.org/press-releases/unicef-deputy-executive-director-hannan-suliemans-remarks-united-nations-security http://www.wfp.org/news/wfp-warns-assault-sudans-el-obeid-area-threatens-deepen-countrys-hunger-crisis-0 http://www.hrw.org/news/2026/06/26/sudan-urgently-address-the-situation-in-and-around-el-obeid-take-bold-steps-towards http://www.hrw.org/news/2026/06/22/robust-global-action-is-key-to-curbing-sudan-atrocities
	View more stories