View previous stories
	New Criminal Code in Afghanistan Institutionalizes Discrimination by Julia Saltzman Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, agencies   Jan. 2026   On 4 January the de facto Taliban authorities in Afghanistan issued a decree endorsing a new criminal code – known as the “Criminal Procedural Regulations for Courts.” Adopted without public notice or transparent consultation, the code stands in stark contradiction to international human rights treaties and conventions, many of which Afghanistan has ratified.   The code abandons fundamental due process guarantees by privileging confession and testimony without safeguards against coercion and eliminating independent investigation. The code also determines punishment based on an individual’s social and religious status rather than the nature or gravity of the offense and formalizes a caste-like social classification system, dividing society into four categories: “scholars” (ulama), “the elite” (ashraf), “the middle class” and “the lower class.”   Religious authorities are granted sweeping discretion to impose and carry out the death penalty, while criticism of the Taliban is criminalized and the use of corporal punishment expanded.   The code further authorizes arbitrary vigilante justice as a religious and legal duty, empowering private citizens in ways that risk violations of the prohibition against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. It also explicitly permits the practice of slavery, raising grave concerns under international law.   Violence and discrimination against women and children, which are already codified in the Taliban’s so-called “vice and virtue” laws that subjugate women, girls and individuals with expansive gender identities, are reinforced and expanded further within the new code. Several articles indirectly legitimize abuse, maltreatment and punishment by defining harm broadly while prescribing disproportionately limited penalties for perpetrators.   Clerics, religious figures and others who perpetrate violence – particularly against women and children – are afforded near-total immunity, while poorer and more marginalized Afghans face harsher, often violent, punishments.   Since the Taliban’s emergence in the 1990s, Sharia-based justice has been central to its stated objectives. Following the overthrow of the internationally recognized government in 2021, the Taliban dismantled Afghanistan’s existing legal framework.   Julia Saltzman, Afghanistan expert at the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, stated, “The Taliban’s distortion of Sharia to justify discriminatory and persecutory policies, combined with restrictions on fundamental freedoms and impunity for past and ongoing abuses, significantly heightens the risk of human rights violations and atrocity crimes.”   The international community should reject this code as a dangerous precedent. Regional and Islamic governments, as well as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, should publicly condemn provisions contained in the new penal procedures, particularly those that entrench ongoing repression of women and girls.   UNAMA and the UN Human Rights Office should regularly assess implementation of the code in their reporting to the Security Council and Human Rights Council. Reversal of this code, alongside other laws codifying persecution in Afghanistan, must serve as an essential and non-negotiable benchmark for progress in the Doha Process and other political dialogues.   http://www.globalr2p.org/publications/atrocity-alert-no-468/   Feb. 2026   India: Major reforms to modernise policing in line with international human rights standards required. (OHCHR)   UN experts today called on the Government of India to launch urgent independent investigations into alarming allegations of hundreds of extrajudicial killings and torture-related deaths and thousands of injuries by law enforcement officials, and undertake major reforms to modernise policing in line with international human rights standards.   “These allegations paint a picture of law enforcement violence that is not sporadic, but systemic,” the experts said. “If substantiated, they reveal grave violations of the right to life, the absolute prohibition of torture, and the right to non-discrimination — all of which are jus cogens norms.”   “We are deeply troubled that these operations appear to substitute lawful policing and due process with summary violence,” they said. “Every incident must be promptly, independently, and transparently investigated in accordance with applicable international standards.   The experts received credible information indicating a pervasive pattern of excessive and often lethal use of force by police, especially in Uttar Pradesh and Assam, including so-called “encounters” and “half-encounters”, alongside widespread custodial torture. Marginalised communities – such as Muslims, Dalits and Adivasis – have been disproportionately affected.   “Even the use of terms such as ‘encounters’ and ‘half-encounters’ masks a pervasive and dehumanising practice that risks normalising unlawful violence and eroding public trust in law enforcement,” they said.   The experts expressed alarm at persistent reports of torture and other ill-treatment in police and judicial custody, including beatings, electric shocks, sexual violence, psychological humiliation, and denial of medical care, often in both official and unofficial places of detention. Chronic overcrowding and inadequate conditions were said to further exacerbate abuse.   “Significant gaps in legal safeguards and accountability enable this level of abuse,” they said, noting that India has yet to ratify the Convention against Torture, and torture is not explicitly criminalised in domestic law. Recent legislative reforms have reportedly expanded police powers while weakening protections against abuse. Existing safeguards, including Supreme Court directives on CCTV installation in police stations and guidelines on encounter investigations, are frequently ignored.   “States have a heightened duty of care to protect the right to life and integrity of all persons during arrest and in custody, to criminalise torture in domestic law, to investigate complaints promptly and impartially, to exclude evidence obtained through torture, and to provide victims with effective remedies, including rehabilitation,” the experts said.   “There appears to be a systemic failure of policing to meet basic human rights standards,” they said. “Modernising India’s police force must be an urgent priority — moving away from a culture of power and violence towards service-oriented, rights-respecting policing.”   The experts condemned the reported harassment and reprisals against victims, families, lawyers, medical personnel and civil society actors who are seeking accountability. “Silencing those who seek justice is incompatible with an open and democratic society,” they said.   The Special Rapporteurs have written to the Government of India on this matter. They expressed their willingness to provide technical advice to the national authorities and will continue to monitor the situation.   http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/02/india-un-experts-warn-systemic-policing-failures-over-reports-deaths-and Visit the related web page
	Human rights obligations cannot be subordinated to commercial seed monopolies by OHCHR, UN Working Group on Peasants   Dec. 2025   UN experts today welcomed a landmark ruling of the High Court of Kenya declaring unconstitutional provisions of the Seed and Plant Varieties Act that criminalised the saving, use, exchange and sale of Indigenous and farm-saved seeds.   “This judgment rightly recognises that seed sharing is not a crime, but a fundamental element of peasants’ identity, resilience and contribution to national food systems,” said the Working Group on Peasants and other people working in rural areas.   The High Court of Kenya found that the law, which granted exclusive marketing and property rights over seeds to breeders and seed companies and exposed farmers to potential imprisonment of up to two years for seed-saving and seed-sharing, violated farmers’ rights to life, livelihood and food.   The Court stressed that centuries-old practices of seed-sharing form the backbone of Kenya’s food security and cultural heritage.   “This decision is a significant affirmation that the human rights of peasants and the imperatives of food security and biodiversity must prevail over overly restrictive intellectual property regimes,” the Working Group said.   The experts noted that similar restrictive provisions, often modelled on the 1991 Act of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), have been incorporated into national laws in many countries – criminalising age-old practices in Indigenous and peasant agriculture.   “The Kenyan ruling sends a clear and timely message that human rights obligations cannot be subordinated to commercial seed monopolies or narrow interpretations of plant breeders’ rights,” the Working Group said.   The decision is consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP), in particular article 19, which recognises the right to seeds, including the right to save, use, exchange and sell farm-saved seed or propagating material.   The experts recalled their Briefing Paper on the Right to Seeds, which clarifies that States must ensure that seed policies, certification schemes and intellectual property frameworks, are designed and applied in a manner that respects, protects and fulfils these rights, and that peasants-managed seed systems are legally recognised and actively supported.   “Courts play a critical role in ensuring that national laws comply with international human rights standards,” the Working Group said. “Where legislative frameworks have criminalised traditional seed systems or restricted peasants’ customary practices, judicial review offers an essential safeguard to restore the primacy of human rights and the right to food.”   The experts commended the courage and perseverance of Kenyan peasants, Indigenous Peoples and civil society actors who mobilised to secure seeds rights before the Court.   “Their determination offers inspiration to peasant movements worldwide and shows that when courts uphold human rights, they defend not only the livelihoods of small-scale farmers and Indigenous Peoples but also the future of diverse, resilient and sovereign food systems,” they said.   “Kenya’s ruling should inspire similar human-rights-based interpretations of seed laws and plant variety protection regimes in other jurisdictions,” the Working Group said.   http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/12/kenyas-seed-sharing-ruling-milestone-peasants-rights-and-food-security-un   19 Dec. 2025   Domestic interpretations cannot override norms designed to protect humanity from the worst crimes. “Crimes against humanity are imprescriptible under international law.”   UN human rights experts today expressed grave concern over the content of Peru’s Constitutional Court ruling upholding the “impunity” law, which allows statutes of limitations for crimes against humanity.   “This ruling is a dangerous step backward,” the experts said. “Crimes against humanity are imprescriptible under international law.”   The majority decision of four judges upheld the constitutionality of Law 32107, arguing that the statute of limitations could apply to such crimes if committed prior to Peru’s ratification of the Rome Statute and the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. The Court further argued that treaty obligations were not self-executing due to an interpretative declaration, invoked legality and non-retroactivity principles, and cited lengthy proceedings.   “As a peremptory norm binding on all States, the prohibition of statutory limitations for crimes against humanity is not contingent on treaty ratification,” the experts said.   “The principle of legality does not shield perpetrators of atrocities that were criminal under international law at the time,” they said. “Neither can delays in proceedings justify impunity for grave violations.”   The UN experts recalled their previous opinions and the decisions of the Inter-American Court and Commission on Human Rights warning Peru about the illegality of the Act under international law.   “Peru is bound by the norms of general international law and by its international obligations. Domestic interpretations cannot override norms designed to protect humanity from the worst crimes,” they said.   The Court’s ruling also ordered the annulment of judicial decisions that disregard the constitutionality of the “impunity law”.   “This decision undermines judicial independence and introduces a risk of additional reprisals against justice operators who are already under attack for applying binding international standards,” the experts said.   They called on Peru to align its laws with international standards, ensure accountability, and protect judicial actors.   “Justice delayed must not become justice denied,” the experts said.   http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/12/peru-un-experts-concerned-about-constitutional-court-ruling-impunity-law
	View more stories