Niccolo Fantin, Author at UpRights

Yesterday, March 5, 2026, the Database Center for North Korean Human Rights (NKDB) hosted a seminar in Seoul to present the findings of its latest investigative report, “The Machinery Behind the Forced Repatriation of North Koreans in China.” The report examines the system of forced repatriation of North Korean escapees carried out by North Korean and Chinese authorities, and proposes concrete pathways for accountability, including potential sanctions against responsible actors.

UpRights provided comprehensive legal analyses examining China’s forced repatriation practices from three perspectives: international criminal law, international refugee law, and international human rights law.

Our team assessed whether China’s forced repatriation practices may constitute crimes against humanity under Article 7 of the ICC Rome Statute. Crucially, the analysis also examined whether the involvement of Chinese officials and agencies – from arrest and detention in China through to the handover and subsequent treatment of escapees in the DPRK – may amount to complicity in the DPRK’s own crimes against humanity under international criminal law. This analysis drew from a detailed study of bilateral treaties between the respective states, the organisational structures of multiple state agencies involved, patterns of interagency coordination and cooperation, and documented post-repatriation human rights violations.

UpRights also assessed China’s binding obligations as a State Party to the Torture Convention and Refugee Convention, identifying China’s failure to provide asylum where warranted, its failure to undertake refugee status determination, and violations of the principle of non-refoulement – all despite its obligations under the Refugee Convention and international human rights law.

Recognising that effective domestic remedies within China are essentially unavailable, UpRights evaluated the viability of different pathways, identifying three key potential accountability avenues:

Third-state proceedings under universal or extraterritorial jurisdiction
Targeted human rights sanctions, including Magnitsky-style sanctions and the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime
UN mechanisms

At the Seoul seminar, NKDB’s human rights analysts shared the legal findings with senior international figures, including Special Rapporteur Elizabeth Salmon, acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Julie Turner, and former ROK Ambassador Shinhwa Lee.

UpRights is committed to contributing rigorous legal analysis in support of accountability for serious human rights violations and crimes under international law. We thank NKDB for their leadership in amplifying victims’ voices and pursuing accountability until forced repatriations are fully halted.

The full report is available in English and Korean on the NKDB website: https://en.nkdb.org/researchreport/?q=YToxOntzOjEyOiJrZXl3b3JkX3R5cGUiO3M6MzoiYWxsIjt9&bmode=view&idx=170265783&t=board

Amid the deadliest nationwide protests in Iran since the revolution in 1979, the need to acknowledge suffering by victims and ensure their right to hold perpetrators accountable has never been more critical. In 2025, HRA, with legal support from UpRights, published the “Practitioner’s Guide to Addressing Alleged Serious Human Rights Violations and International Crimes Committed by the IRGC in Iran and Abroad”. Building on the Pasdaran Documentation Project (PDP), the Guide transforms structured documentation into a tool practitioners can actively use in navigating complex accountability landscapes concerning Iran.

Instead of functioning as an overly technical manual, the Guide is designed as a pragmatic roadmap to support victims, lawyers, investigators, civil society and other actors seeking practical ways to pursue accountability for alleged Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)-linked violations and international crimes. In the absence of effective domestic remedies in Iran, the Guide realistically maps judicial, quasi-judicial and non-judicial pathways available outside Iran, including the limitations and challenges of each pathway. The Guide was presented by Valérie Gabard, Co-Director of UpRights during Asser Institute’s Panel Discussion, “Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps: human rights violations and international crimes in Iran and beyond” on 5^th February 2026.

This blogpost explores the Guide’s role as a practical tool to challenge impunity where domestic remedies are absent or ineffective. It examines the methodological approach used to identify feasible accountability pathways during the development of the Guide and highlights key considerations for practitioners seeking to apply this approach across different contexts.

The PDP, built by HRA with legal support from UpRights, was created with future accountability efforts in mind. The database systematically maps the IRGC’s structure, units, chains of command from its inception to the present day, and links those to documented incidents of serious human rights violations and potential international crimes, including repression within Iran and operations connected to IRGC structures abroad. Today, the PDP Database houses profiles of more than 4,800 IRGC members and 84,700 IRGC units, providing practitioners with solid foundations to advance accountability while also serving as an enduring public record of an institution notorious for its widespread abuses.

Developing an Accountability Strategy

Recognising that accountability could be pursued on multiple fronts, the Guide provides practitioners across the world with a concrete and clear methodology to identify pathways to accountability, gain practical insights and plan effective international strategies as there are no viable domestic remedies in Iran. It adopts a victim-centred and broad approach to accountability encompassing judicial, quasi-judicial and non-judicial pathways, including transitional justice mechanisms, and sets out to assess the viability of different pathways.

Developing an accountability strategy like the one outlined in the guide starts with the documentation and assessment of the human rights violations and/or international crimes committed and the perpetrators that are alleged to be responsible for these acts. Since its establishment in 1979, the IRGC – a parallel military institution created in 1979 to protect the Iranian revolution and who respond directly to Iran’s Supreme Leader – has been allegedly responsible for a wide range of serious human rights violations and international crimes committed both within Iran and abroad. Outside of Iran, allegations of human rights violations or crimes involving IRGC’s members have been reported all over the world for decades and are an integral part of the IRGC modus operandi. These incidents mostly target dissidents or interests of foreign enemies to the Iranian regime such as the 1994 AMIA bombing in Argentina.

In Iran, the IRGC’s involvement in violations or crimes relates inter alia to the targeting of political dissidents, journalists, activists, and any perceived enemy of the regime, including by kidnapping dissidents abroad and running unofficial detention centres across the country. Over the years, the IRGC has been involved in the violent repression of most, if not all, the protests challenging the Iranian Government. Most recent crackdowns like the repression of 2022-2023 “Woman, Life, Freedom”movement, and incidents such as the 2022 “Bloody Friday” in Zahedan not only constitute serious human rights violations but also amount to crimes against humanity, including political and gender persecution, as shown in our submission to the UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Iran (FFMI) from 2023.

The IRGC also appears to bear primary responsibility for the deadly crackdown on protesters between 8 to 10 January 2026. Based on publicly available information to date, the acts committed by the IRGC in this context similarly may meet the threshold of crimes against humanity in light of the verified scale of killings and injured, number of protesters arrested and detained, forced confessions already broadcast, nationwide geographic distribution, and deliberate deployment of military-grade weapons against civilians, as documented in HRA’s latest report.

Based on the human rights violations and/or international crimes documented, the second step is to map the full range of accountability pathways understood broadly as including judicial, quasi-judicial and non-judicial available at the international level. While Iran is the primary duty-bearer for its citizens’ human rights, there are no viable domestic remedies within Iran which makes accountability avenues outside Iran essential for victims seeking justice or redress.

In this context, human rights violations generally refer to violations attributable to the State – thereby engaging State responsibility. International crimes, by contrast, concern individual criminal responsibility under international law. The Guide underscores that accountability pathways for serious human rights violations and international crimes at the international level are fragmented and rarely offer fully satisfactory answers or comprehensive solutions for victims and affected communities.

As a result, the mapping contained in the Guide emphasises the strategic use of combined/mixed pathways such as criminal prosecution in third States under universal or extraterritorial jurisdiction, targeted sanctions under Magnitsky-style and global human rights sanctions regimes, and engagement with relevant UN mechanisms. Rather than presenting any single pathway as a solution, the Guide highlights the need for a coordinated, long-term strategy as well as the importance to have realistic expectations about each pathway’s viability and potential outcomes.

The mapping of accountability pathways is often undertaken in a theoretical manner – this fails to provide direct support to practitioners. Accordingly, the Guide incorporates a feasibility analysis. For each pathway, consideration is taken to outline in concrete and accessible terms:

its legal requirements;

the evidentiary thresholds needed;

Iran’s limited treaty ratification, reservation or declaration;

current contextual risks, challenges and political constrains; and

lessons from past Iran-related or other comparable efforts.

Because the alleged violations may amount to crimes against humanity and therefore attract criminal responsibility under international law, the Guide evaluates accountability options for both States responsibility and individual criminal liability. For example, it examines potential pathways at the International Criminal Court (ICC), International Court of Justice (ICJ), and third States proceedings under universal or extraterritorial jurisdiction and their feasibility.

For instance, because Iran is not a State Party to the ICC, the ICC’s ability to exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed in Iran or by Iranian nationals, such as IRGC members, is extremely limited and currently unrealistic. The ICJ also has its own legal and political obstacles which make this pathway particularly challenging in the context of Iran. Recognising these limitations, the Guide places greater emphasis on feasible domestic forums outside Iran, notably third States proceedings under universal or extraterritorial jurisdiction, as the more realistic pathway to advancing criminal accountability,

In addition, States’ responsibility for human rights violations can be pursued in parallel through different forums, including strategic engagement with relevant UN mechanisms such as the FFMI, and using Magnitsky-style and EU sanctions regimes. While these tools have their limitations, including the lack of formal victim participation in the sanction’s designation process, they still serve as an important accountability tool especially when available avenues are otherwise limited. The Guide also recommends that any strategy on accountability related to Iran be framed under broader transitional justice principles to ensure on the long term that Iranian society can come to terms with its legacy of States’ abuses.

Key Considerations for Practitioners Applying This Approach Across Different Contexts

The approach underpinning the Guide offers a structured framework that practitioners can adapt across different contexts to pursue accountability, including incorporating transitional justice principles and pursuing non-judicial pathways for serious human rights violations and international crimes.

First, an effective accountability strategy begins with clearly identifying the types of violations, the scale of harm and the individuals or entities responsible. Tools like the PDP Database are especially valuable as they enable practitioners to transform fragmented information into connected, verifiable patterns of violation backed by structured, evidence-based documentation.

Second, practitioners must have clear objectives related to the accountability efforts they wish to pursue. Different accountability pathways serve different purposes. Practitioners need to decide whether they want to pursue short-term outcomes such as engaging with UN mechanisms or securing sanctions designations, or longer-term goals such as third States universal jurisdiction, or support to potential transitional justice initiatives. Each pathway comes with its own legal and jurisdictional requirements, evidentiary standards, risks, challenges and limitations. Clearly defining the objectives pursued is what can make accountability efforts move from abstract goals to actionable, effective strategies.

Third, context specificity is crucial in understanding different nuances and shaping accountability strategies. A pathway that worked in one country or case may not be viable in another. Effective strategies must therefore be tailored to the specific jurisdictional and legal requirements, evidentiary standards, political willingness and situational realities of each context. By conducting careful legal and contextual analysis together with a rigorous feasibility assessment, practitioners will be able to determine which pathways are most realistic and effective given the context.

Fourth, practitioners must keep in mind that accountability efforts can expose victims, witnesses, their families, and organisations involved in documentation or advocacy, to reprisals, intimidation or legal risks. Aiming to pursue accountability can also easily create unrealistic expectations for victims and communities that should be properly understood and managed from inception. This is why risk assessment must sit at the centre of planning and practitioners must always prioritise a “Do No Harm” approach.

Conclusion

Judicial, quasi-judicial and non-judicial pathways together form a broader accountability ecosystem and when used strategically, each pathway can reinforce and strengthen one another. The most effective approach at the international level is rarely a single, isolated effort but mixed, long-term accountability strategies that combines multiple pathways conducted by one or several actors. For practitioners facing difficulties in navigating complex international accountability landscapes, the Guide serves as a practical tool in helping to map viable pathways, set realistic expectations, and design both advocacy and accountability strategies that can best deliver tangible results for victims pursuing recognition and some form of redress for their suffering.

On 11 December 2025, the Council of Europe convened prosecutors from the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine (OPG) and regional offices to address the recruitment of children to commit acts that threaten national security in Ukraine. The increasing number of cases – often involving minors recruited online to carry out sabotage or attacks on infrastructure – has raised urgent questions about responsibility, accountability, and the rights of children exploited by foreign actors.

UpRights was invited to contribute to the session, with Co-Director Valérie Gabard and Legal Advisor Ciara Laverty sharing the results of research commissioned by the Council of Europe and the OPG. A central focus of UpRights’intervention was the amendment to Article 438 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which criminalizes the “recruitment or use of a child for participation in an armed conflict, military (combat) operations.” Their presentation focused on how Ukrainian law interacts with international standards on the recruitment and use of children in armed conflict, and how these legal frameworks can guide prosecutorial strategies in Ukraine.

UpRights also stressed that children coerced or manipulated into such acts must be viewed primarily as victims. Although international law does not prohibit prosecuting minors for crimes they commit, prevailing standards require states to prioritize alternatives to judicial proceedings, limit the use of detention, and ensure rehabilitation and reintegration.

—

UpRights remains committed to supporting Ukrainian prosecutors and judges in navigating these complex issues – combining comparative expertise, international standards, and practical approaches to accountability that reflect the realities of the armed conflict and the vulnerabilities of the children affected.

This work forms part of the Council of Europe project “Fostering Human Rights in the Criminal Justice System in Ukraine – Phase II,” under the Action Plan for Ukraine “Resilience, Recovery and Reconstruction” (2023–2026).

Throughout June UpRights delivered a training programme on auditing GOTS human rights due diligence (HRDD). The training was funded, in part, through an Impulse Grant from ISEAL Innovations Fund in partnership with the Global Standard.

The training was delivered to 30 auditors from 17 different GOTS-approved Certification Bodies across the world, in Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Portugal, Poland, Italy, Turkey, India, Bangladesh, China, and Indonesia.

Participating auditors learned to effectively audit GOTS Certified Entities in line with GOTS criteria, including particularly GOTS due diligence requirements as modelled on the OECD six steps of due diligence, and in line with fast-moving HRDD developments.

The training structure comprised four, full-day modules: Module 1, as a microcosm of the overall programme, covered GOTS due diligence and auditing techniques to verify that due diligence. Module 2 expanded on the theoretical foundations in the first module by covering other legal frameworks applying alongside GOTS, particularly the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive and select national HRDD legislation. Module 3 expanded on the practical foundations in the first module by way of a large-scale exercise, with small break-out groups undertaking a simulated facility walkthrough, interviews with workers, management and stakeholders, and document review and analysis. Module 4 covered pivotal cross-cutting issues, namely gender- and diversity-responsive HRDD auditing, cultural sensitivity, and enterprise pressures.

Methodologically, the training involved presentations, lively Q&A, open discussions, case studies, and the break-out group work. The training was presented by UpRights and Global Standard personnel, as well as guest presentations by specialists in certain subject matters including from the OECD, academia, and legal practitioners.

This was the culmination of a long journey. An UpRights-Global Standard consortium started a long-term needs assessment in 2023, including interviews with GOTS auditors. The consortium heard auditors’ unequivocal voices about the need for support, notedly in the form of training, to deal with the introduction of GOTS due diligence requirements, and the fluid, rapid developments in the HRDD legislative and regulatory landscape at the international, regional and national levels. This was followed by analysis and mapping out high-level purpose, objectives, and possible parameters for the form and content of the training. The needs assessment culminated in a research paper, a draft continuous learning policy, and the draft curriculum for the training programme, which comprised the first phase of this project.

UpRights and the Global Standard also jointly applied for an Impulse Grant from the ISEAL Innovations Fund, in late 2024, financed by the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) and UK International Development from the UK government. This grant was successfully awarded to the consortium in early 2025, enabling the development of the modules. This included training materials, and pre- and post-course assessments, as well as the delivery of the four training sessions, which comprised the second phase of the project.

Initial feedback on the course from participating auditors includes:

“[A] dynamic and professional training […] I appreciated these sessions very much.”

“Thank you [for] this meaningful and eye-opening training. I truly learned how to see beyond documents and better understand the real human rights risks in factories.”

“One thing I really appreciated about this module was how it clearly explained the latest updates in human rights due diligence laws. The way it connected the EU CSDDD with national laws and global frameworks made a complex topic much easier to understand. It really helped me see the bigger picture and how everything fits together in the real world of compliance and auditing.”

[On the Module 3 simulation exercise:] “The realistic audit flow was excellent. Going through desk review, walkthroughs, interviews, and document checks made it feel like we were in an actual audit. It really helped connect theory with practice […] Overall, a really engaging session—looking forward to more exercises like this!”

UpRights is very pleased to have had the opportunity to execute this project. UpRights looks forward to enhancing the training programme, scaling it up, extending and diversifying it, as well as keeping it up to date with future HRDD developments including for example the European Commission’s Omnibus Simplification Package and sector-/subsector-specific developments. This with a view to further contributing to strengthening the Global Standard and the wider system of voluntary sustainability standards in the textiles industry, to drive positive change in business and human rights.

(This project was possible thanks to an Impulse Grant from ISEAL Innovations Fund, with funding from the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) and UK International Development from the UK government.

As UpRights marks its fifth year, we are proud to release our 2024 Annual Report detailing our concrete efforts to promote a fair and just international system which promotes human rights and supports the rule of law. Our latest report details how, over the past year, we have:

Trained over 100 civil society actors and staff from international organizations on the documentation and adjudication of human rights violations and international crimes;

Strengthened the capacities of over 200 representatives of national authorities across Ukraine to confront challenges related to transitional justice matters;

Supported the worldwide leading textile processing standard for organic fibres in due diligence certification and developed a training programme on auditing human rights due diligence;

With partners, analysed and set out legal and policy recommendations promoting the rights of migrants and refugees, women, children, and LGBTQIA+ persons.

As detailed in our report, justice is not only about accountability for the past, but also about creating fair and just structures that prevent future abuses, promote human rights and contribute to resilient societies.

We invite you to read the full report and explore how, together with our partners, we are helping build more just, resilient, and rights-based societies.

📘 Read UpRights’ 2024 Annual Report

HERE

On Monday, 30 June the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development released its final report on the Alignment Assessment of the leading voluntary sustanability standard in the textile sector. The degree of alignment shows a very close incorporation of OECD due diligence into the framework.

The OECD’s present report covers the Standards Assessment component of the Alignment Assessment process. This has been a long-term endeavour, starting in the summer of 2023. The Global Standard enhanced all its existing documents and enacted new documents (including the Standard, Implementation Manual and Due Diligence Handbook for Certified Entities) to give effect to the OECD’s Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains in the Garment and Footwear Sector. UpRights undertook analysis and drafting for the Global Standard to help it to reach this achievement.

In parallel, UpRights supported the Global Standard to develop a new Due Diligence Handbook for Auditors, which was released last November (for further details, see website post of 19 November 2024). The Handbook is designed to give auditors practical guidance on auditing compliance with the OECD/Global Standard’s six steps of due diligence, as well as the Global Standard’s wider human rights and social criteria.

Moreover, UpRights and GOTS have undertaken a long-term needs assessment and developed a continuous learning policy and pilot training programme. This training addresses key developments on human rights due diligence in a fluid, changing landscape.

UpRights looks forward to continuing this meaningful work with the Global Standard.

On 26 May 2025, UpRights contributed to the “Building Bridges Through Justice: Addressing the Consequences of Russian Aggression” conference held in Kyiv. Convened by the European Union Advisory Mission (EUAM) Ukraine, the event brought together national and international experts, public officials, and civil society to confront the need to develop an inclusive, sustainable vision for justice while Ukraine continues to endure the consequences of full-scale aggression.

Asa Solway, Co-Director of UpRights, joined the opening panel, which considered mapping the array of harms inflicted by the Russian invasion – from war crimes and forced displacement to deep societal divisions and the complexity of reintegrating liberated territories. In his remarks, Asa emphasized the importance of identifying harms in a manner that not only supports accountability efforts but take an inclusive approach to identify criminal and non-criminal harms that will need to be addressed in both short and long-term processes.

Reflecting on comparative experiences, including the delayed engagement of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia with victims and civil society, Asa stressed the necessity of involving affected communities from the outset by underscoring that a transitional justice strategy offers a valuable framework for developing the extraordinary measures required to respond to the scale and scope of violations Ukraine faces.

Central to Asa’s intervention was the call for a comprehensive, context-sensitive strategy to justice – one that includes but also goes beyond prosecutions. He underscored that criminal trials alone cannot capture the full spectrum of harms experienced by victims, nor can they address the gaps that inevitably emerge when perpetrators evade apprehension. Instead, a multi-dimensional approach is needed: one that includes documentation for both legal accountability and memorialisation; one that draws on the expertise of Ukrainian civil society and government actors at all levels; and one that remains transparent about its limitations to maintain public trust.

As Asa concluded, developing a justice plan for Ukraine must be an iterative process, grounded in local realities, responsive to victims’ needs, and supported by international expertise where appropriate. A strategy that begins with a clear understanding of harms, consults broadly across society, and remains adaptable will be essential not only to secure justice, but to support healing and national unity in the years to come.

UpRights is grateful for the opportunity to have contributed to this important conversation and continues to support Ukraine through its contribution to the ‘Restoring Dignity and Justice in Ukraine’ programme, focusing on advancing accountability for international crimes committed in Ukraine. The full programme is funded by the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs and is implemented by the International Development Law Organisation (IDLO), in partnership with the T.M.C. Asser Institute, the Center for International Legal Cooperation (CILC), and the Netherlands Helsinki Committee (NHC).

Geneva, Switzerland and The Hague, The Netherlands, April 17, 2025 — Last week, UpRights’ report “The Congolese Justice System and Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind: Progress, Challenges, and Prospects,” was launched during a high-level workshop co-chaired by TRIAL International and the Congolese Conseil Supérieur de la Magistrature providing a forum to discuss the report’s findings and deepen dialogue on the future of justice in the DRC.

A Convergence of Diverse Voices
The workshop brought together a diverse array of stakeholders engaged in the justice sector and fight against impunity in the DRC. Representatives from the country’s military and civilian courts, including magistrates specializing in international crimes, engaged with key officials from the Ministries of Justice, Defense and Human Rights, and other national authorities. The event also welcomed participation from international partners such as the United Nations, diplomatic missions, and the International Criminal Court, along with national and international civil society actors. This broad participation underscored a common understanding: the fight against impunity for international crimes in the DRC can only be achieved through collective reflection and reinforced coordination between judicial authorities, governmental actors, civil society, technical and financial partners.

Presenting the Study’s Findings
At the heart of the workshop was the presentation of UpRights report’s conclusions and recommendations—a collaborative effort led jointly by UpRights and TRIAL International. As underscored by the report, despite recorded obstacles and systemic challenges, the Congolese justice system has, since 2004, built a rare body of jurisprudence with over 130 judgments on international crimes. By convening stakeholders from across the justice ecosystem, the workshop sought to raise awareness among participants about the strengths and shortcomings of the Congolese accountability model, promote collective reflection on the necessary steps to strengthen the judiciary’s capacities, but also to provide an open forum to explore opportunities for reinforcing the fight against impunity.

Exploring Institutional Solutions
Following an opening ceremony with contributions from the President of the Constitutional Court, the President of the High Council of the Judiciary and the Ambassador of the European Union to the DRC, UpRights provided an in-depth presentation of the study and provided participants with answers to the questions that arose during the presentation. This was followed by collaborative group sessions where participants delved into institutional solutions designed to enhance the fight against impunity. Discussions explored a range of proposals—from establishing a special criminal court and forming mixed or specialized judicial chambers to bolstering international support mechanisms integrated within the national system.

Participants presented a lively analysis of potential models. One argued that only a dedicated special criminal court could effectively counter political and military interference, while others advocated for specialized mixed chambers, combining civilian and military magistrates, as a more nuanced and cost-effective solution. A prevailing opinion emerged in favor of creating an integrated mechanism within the national judicial framework—one that would harness existing capacities, ensure national ownership, and minimize the costs and delays associated with building a new jurisdiction. The inclusion of international judges within prosecution services and chambers was also seen as a factor in enhancing both independence and credibility, particularly in a context frequently exposed to political pressures. In addition, participants stressed the necessity of rigorous selection, training, and ongoing capacity building for national magistrates to secure impartiality and professionalism.

Rethinking the Special Criminal Court
The workshop also addressed the challenges associated with establishing a Special Criminal Court. Although this model is recognized for potentially elevating credibility and addressing high-profile cases, participants expressed concerns about its high cost, the time required to operationalize such a court, and the risk of diminishing national ownership. Many were wary that a separate international tribunal might recreate frustrations experienced with existing international mechanisms that are often perceived as too remote or slow to respond to local realities. The temporary nature of such a mechanism was seen as a significant drawback when it comes to generating enduring reform in the Congolese justice system.

A Pragmatic, Locally Grounded Approach
Throughout the workshop, a pragmatic approach emerged as a unifying theme. Rather than attempting to import predefined models, stakeholders emphasized the importance of a nuanced, context-specific analysis to identify the most effective solutions. Drawing on lessons learned from prior initiatives—particularly issues around sovereignty, ownership, and inter-institutional coordination—the participants proposed a “symbiosis” between diverse mechanisms. One promising idea involved linking specialized mixed chambers with a dedicated international support system capable of providing technical, financial, and logistical assistance as well as strategic guidance.

Coordinated Action for Lasting Impact
A recurring theme was that coordination is paramount. The success of any judicial reform hinges on robust collaboration among all players—judicial authorities, parliament, government, and civil society, in addition to technical and financial partners. Establishing a framework for continuous dialogue and consultation will be essential to align interests, harmonize visions, and ensure that the future mechanism enjoys broad and sustained ownership. This approach must also incorporate the expertise of military justice, whose experience in prosecuting international crimes is invaluable in this challenging context.

Looking Ahead
The workshop served not only as a launchpad for critical insights but also as a catalyst for ongoing reform efforts. By fostering an environment where diverse voices could converge on actionable ideas, the event laid the groundwork for translating research-based recommendations into concrete reforms. As UpRights and TRIAL International continue their collaboration with Congolese institutions and civil society, the outcomes of this workshop will hopefully illuminate the path toward a justice system that is as resilient and credible as it is effective.

Read UpRights’ report that was launched at the workshop and served as basis for the dialogue—

• Executive Summary in English

here

• Executive Summary in French

here

• Full Report in French

here

Today, April 8, 2025, TRIAL International, in collaboration with Civitas Maxima, the Center for Justice and Accountability (CJA), the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), and REDRESS, published the latest edition of the Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review (UJAR).

Researched and written by UpRights and produced with the financial support of the City of Geneva, the European Union, Oak Foundation, and the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, the UJAR compiles developments in 95 extraterritorial and universal jurisdiction cases prosecuted in 16 countries, demonstrating that the upward trend in the use of universal jurisdiction to ensure accountability for international crimes continues, despite remaining challenges.

Universal jurisdiction as a pillar in the fight against impunity

This eleventh edition of the UJAR testifies to the enduring role of extraterritorial and universal jurisdiction as a central pillar of the global fight against impunity. Notably, 36 new cases were opened or made public in 2024, and 27 suspects were convicted in first instance or on appeal, nearly double the number in 2023. Furthermore, Portugal joined the group of jurisdictions actively prosecuting international crimes committed abroad. Legal reforms on universal jurisdiction were adopted in Germany and Denmark in 2024, that respectively strengthened and enabled the investigation and prosecution of international crimes in the two countries.

The year also witnessed several positive developments in specific cases. In France, a Court of Appeal confirmed an arrest warrant against former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. In two other cases related to the former Syrian regime, French judicial authorities confirmed that functional immunities do not apply in international crimes cases and entered convictions in absentia. These cases reflect the continued evolution of the legal framework around immunities and demonstrate that obstacles to accountability can be eroded through legal precedents. In Switzerland, Ousman Sonko, former minister of the interior of The Gambia, was convicted of crimes against humanity and sentenced to 20 years in prison, making him the highest-ranking State official tried under the principle of universal jurisdiction before a European court to date.

Challenges to the use of universal jurisdiction remain

At the same time, the report underscores some of the challenges faced in 2024. The failure to open investigations based on extraterritorial or universal jurisdiction into alleged international crimes committed in Gaza has been perceived as a major threat to the legitimacy of international criminal justice. Even in other situations, investigative efforts have yet to yield tangible results, such as in the case of crimes committed during Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and calls for accountability do not always translate into action, as has been the case for the documented crimes of the Belarusian regime.

Meeting the challenges

Despite these setbacks, the UJAR identifies several initiatives that States and their national prosecution authorities can implement to ensure that victims and survivors of international crimes have access to justice. An important first step is the strengthening of domestic legal frameworks to allow for and facilitate the prosecution of international crimes on the basis of universal jurisdiction. Increased training and resources for specialized international crimes units within domestic prosecution authorities are also essential.

The response to crimes committed in Syria demonstrates the importance of structural investigations and of the collaboration between civil society organizations – especially victims’ groups – and prosecuting authorities. The response to crimes committed in Ukraine following the full-scale invasion by Russia, demonstrates the potential of a coordinated, mobilized and cooperative international criminal justice. To ensure that victims and survivors have access to justice free from political bias, lessons learned from these responses can and should be applied across all regions affected by international crimes.

Read the full report here:

Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review – UJAR

The photograph shown on the publication’s cover was made by Bashar Taleb on 7 October 2023 in Gaza City.

On March 27, 2025, UpRights co-hosted the conference “The Role of Transitional Justice in Ukraine: National and Local Dimensions” in Kyiv, Ukraine. Organized with the National Agency of Ukraine on Civil Service, the High School of Public Governance, The Hague Academy for Local Governance, and supported by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the conference created a forum for Ukrainian public officials, local government representatives, international partners and civil society organisations to engage in broad and comprehensive discussions on the scope of transitional justice in the Ukrainian context.

The conference was designed to bring together a range of actors from different sectors to consider how to effectively collaborate on developing a holistic approach to transitional justice in Ukraine.

By bringing together a diverse range of perspectives, including representatives of local government in currently occupied and de-occupied communities, legal experts, public officials and civil society organisations working on providing support and compensation to victims, officials working on public archives, and civil society organisations working on cultural and artistic aspects of memorialisation, the conference provided a comprehensive platform to consider how to integrate transitional justice practices with present and future challenges.

Central to the conference’s vision was the understanding that transitional justice will serve as an important tool for all levels of government in dealing with the past, empowering victims, and promoting reconciliation and social cohesion. In doing so, it highlighted the necessity of building institutional capacity at every level of government—a critical step in ensuring that justice, accountability, and the protection of human rights remain at the forefront of Ukraine’s recovery process.

Background

The journey that culminated in this conference was shaped by longstanding collaborative engagement. In 2024, a training programme for public officials was developed by UpRights, The Hague Academy for Local Governance, the High School of Public Governance, and the National Agency of Ukraine on Civil Service, to provide an introduction to the fundamentals of transitional justice and guidance on its application in the work of local government in de-occupied communities.

Following a successful Training of Trainers week in The Hague in May 2024, which involved 16 representatives of various Ukrainian ministries and local administrations, six interactive online modules and a series of live follow-up workshops in different regions of Ukraine, including Kharkiv, Kherson and Kyiv, equipped over 250 civil servants with basic concepts and practical tools for addressing conflict-related harms using transitional justice approaches. These efforts laid a robust foundation that enriched the discussions at the conference.

Findings

Opening speakers reflected on the complexity of developing transitional justice responses in Ukraine and the need to ensure that policies are embedded within the particularities of the Ukrainian context. Questions arose as to how transitional justice is, in fact, applicable in Ukraine – is it since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, during the occupation of Crimea, or as far back as Ukraine’s transition to a democratic society following the dissolution of the USSR. It was highlighted that whatever manner transitional justice does take in Ukraine; it must be Ukrainian actors taking the lead on defining its role.

There was recognition, in this regard, that whatever lies ahead, transitional justice must extend well beyond the realm of criminal accountability, emphasizing its vital role in multiple sectors, from providing reparations, delivering victim support, ensuring transparent and accountable institutions to memorializing past atrocities.

The subsequent panel considered how local governments perceive and implement transitional justice particularly in conflict-affected communities. This session brought together local actors from diverse regions, who provided detailed accounts of the operational challenges they face in their communities.

They described the rapid reactivation of administrative service centers in the wake of conflict, the substantial logistical challenges posed by supporting and integrating internally displaced persons in host communities, the need for compensation mechanisms tailored to the needs of rural populations, and challenges to the social cohesion of communities in the aftermath of occupation.

These accounts illustrated how the principles of transitional justice are not just theoretical but can be actively integrated into everyday governance.

Subsequent sessions explored developments and continuing challenges in the provision of support to and compensation for victims, in particular victims of conflict-related sexual violence, as well as the issue of documentation for the purposes of accountability and memorialisation, providing a detailed overview of the extensive efforts underway to record and preserve the evidence of war crimes and human rights violations. Experts explained how these documentation efforts are designed not only to support ongoing legal proceedings but also to serve as a long-term repository of the country’s collective memory.

The discussion highlighted that memorialisation goes far beyond the erection of physical monuments; it encompasses a range of practices—from educational initiatives and public commemorations to creative cultural expressions—that together foster a resilient public narrative.

In closing reflections, both Ukrainian institutions and international partners reaffirmed their commitment to the long-term integration of transitional justice into public policy. The final remarks underscored that the comprehensive discussions and practical insights shared throughout the conference would serve as the basis for future capacity-building efforts and policy innovations. The conference did not mark an endpoint but rather a basis for continued engagement across sectors, one that envisions a future where justice and human rights form the bedrock of Ukraine’s recovery and development.

Finally, participants noted the importance of the creation of a forum in which Ukrainians both lead discussions and engage in conversations directly with each other, including different sectors of Government and civil society. While access to international experts remains a critical component of building successful domestic policies, it is of particular importance that national actors are provided the opportunity to discuss and ultimately lead on decision making concerning the scope, applicability and implementation relating to this important topic.

—

‘Restoring Dignity and Justice in Ukraine’
This project is part of the ‘Restoring Dignity and Justice in Ukraine’ programme, focusing on advancing accountability for international crimes committed in Ukraine. The full programme is funded by the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs and is implemented by the International Development Law Organisation (IDLO), in partnership with the T.M.C. Asser Institute, the Center for International Legal Cooperation (CILC), and the Netherlands Helsinki Committee (NHC).

The project aims at institutional strengthening and capacity development needs of various parties in Ukraine dealing with international crimes: prosecutors, police, judges, as well as journalists and civil society organisations. We believe that with the support of the international community, Ukraine can advance accountability for these crimes.