Human Rights

Hostages and Missing Families Forum called for a ‘return to the negotiating table’.

Families of Israeli captives held in Gaza have intensified their criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu amid large protests across the country, as the expanded military ground offensive and deadly bombardment in the Palestinian territory put the release of their loved ones at risk.

On Saturday, protesters took to the streets in Tel Aviv, Shar HaNegev Junction, Kiryat Gat, and Jerusalem, with members of the Hostages and Missing Families Forum accusing the Israeli government of prioritising its war over securing the return of their relatives.

“We demand that the decision-makers return to the negotiating table and not leave it until an agreement is reached that will bring them all back,” the group said in a statement on Saturday.

Among those speaking at a rally in Tel Aviv on Saturday was Einav Zangauker, the mother of captive Matan Zangauker, who directly addressed Netanyahu: “Tell me, Mr Prime Minister: How do you go to sleep at night and wake up in the morning. How do you look in the mirror knowing that you’re abandoning 58 hostages?”

The mounting anger among families has only deepened in recent days following Netanyahu’s nomination of Major General David Zini as the next head of the Shin Bet, Israel’s domestic intelligence agency.

Zini has reportedly voiced opposition to any deal to bring an end to Israel’s war on Gaza, telling colleagues during Israeli military meetings: “I oppose hostage deals. This is a forever war,” according to Israel’s Channel 12.

“The families of the kidnapped are outraged by the words of Major General Zini. If the publication is true, these are shocking and condemnable words coming from someone who will be the one to decide the fate of the kidnapped men and women,” the forum said in a statement on Friday.

“Appointing a Shin Bet chief who puts Netanyahu’s war before the abduction of the kidnapped is tantamount to committing a crime and doing injustice to the entire people of Israel,” the group said.

Netanyahu’s decision to appoint Zini came just one day after Israel’s Supreme Court found his attempt to fire outgoing Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar to be “unlawful”, citing a conflict of interest tied to Netanyahu’s ongoing corruption trial.

Despite the court ruling that Netanyahu could not appoint a replacement, he proceeded with the appointment of Zini anyway.

The attorney general later warned that the prime minister had defied legal guidance and tainted the appointment process.

The criticism comes as Netanyahu still faces an international arrest warrant request from the International Criminal Court over war crimes committed during the Gaza war.

Mullivaikkal, Sri Lanka – On a beach in northeastern Sri Lanka, Krishnan Anjan Jeevarani laid out some of her family’s favourite food items on a banana leaf. She placed a samosa, lollipops and a large bottle of Pepsi next to flowers and incense sticks in front of a framed photo.

Jeevarani was one of thousands of Tamils who gathered on May 18 to mark 16 years since the end of Sri Lanka’s brutal civil war in Mullivaikkal, the site of the final battle between the government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, a separatist group that fought for a Tamil homeland.

As on previous anniversaries, Tamils this year lit candles in remembrance of their loved ones and held a moment of silence. Dressed in black, people paid their respects before a memorial fire and ate kanji, the gruel consumed by civilians when they were trapped in Mullivaikkal amid acute food shortages.

This year’s commemorations were the first to take place under the new government helmed by leftist Anura Kumara Dissanayake, who was elected president in September and has prompted hopes of possible justice and answers for the Tamil community.

The Tamil community alleges that a genocide of civilians took place during the war’s final stages, estimating that nearly 170,000 people were killed by government forces. UN estimates put the figure at 40,000.

Dissanayake, the leader of the Marxist party Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), which itself led violent uprisings against the Sri Lankan government in the 1970s and 1980s, has emphasised “national unity” and its aim to wipe out racism. He made several promises to Tamil voters before the elections last year, including the withdrawal from military-occupied territory in Tamil heartlands and the release of political prisoners.

But eight months after he was elected, those commitments are now being tested – and while it’s still early days for his administration, many in the Tamil community say what they’ve seen so far is mixed, with some progress, but also disappointments.

No ‘climate of fear’ but no ‘real change’ either

In March 2009, Jeevarani lost several members of her family, including her parents, her sister and three-year-old daughter when Sri Lankan forces shelled the tents in which they were sheltering, near Mullivaikkal.

“We had just cooked and eaten and we were happy,” she said. “When the shell fell it was like we had woken up from a dream.”

Jeevarani, now 36, buried all her family members in a bunker and left the area, her movements dictated by shelling until she reached Mullivaikkal. In May 2009, she and the surviving members of her family entered army-controlled territory.

Now, 16 years later, as she and other Sri Lankan Tamils commemorated their lost family members, most said their memorials had gone largely unobstructed, although there were reports of police disrupting one event in the eastern part of the country.

This was a contrast from previous years of state crackdowns on such commemorative events.

“There isn’t that climate of fear which existed during the two Rajapaksa regimes,” said Ambika Satkunanathan, a human rights lawyer and former commissioner of the National Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, referring to former presidents Mahinda and Gotabaya Rajapaksa, brothers who between them ruled Sri Lanka for 13 out of 17 years between 2005 and 2022.

It was under Mahinda Rajapaksa that the Sri Lankan army carried out the final, bloody assaults that ended the war in 2009, amid allegations of human rights abuses.

“But has anything changed substantively [under Dissanayake]? Not yet,” said Satkunanathan.

Satkunanathan cited the government’s continued use of Sri Lanka’s controversial Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and a gazette issued on March 28 to seize land in Mullivaikkal as problematic examples of manifesto promises being overturned in an evident lack of transparency.

Despite his pre-election promises, Dissnayake’s government earlier this month denounced Tamil claims of genocide as “a false narrative”. On May 19, one day after the Tamil commemorations, Dissanayake also attended a “War Heroes” celebration of the Sri Lankan armed forces as the chief guest, while the Ministry of Defence announced the promotion of a number of military and navy personnel. In his speech, Dissanayake stated that “grief knows no ethnicity”, suggesting a reconciliatory stance, while also paying tribute to the “fallen heroes” of the army who “we forever honour in our hearts.”

‘We walked over dead bodies’

Kathiravelu Sooriyakumari, a 60-year-old retired principal, said casualties in Mullivaikkal in 2009 were so extreme that “we even had to walk over dead bodies.”

She said government forces had used white phosphorus during the civil war, a claim Sri Lankan authorities have repeatedly denied. Although not explicitly banned, many legal scholars interpret international law as prohibiting the use of white phosphorus – an incendiary chemical that can burn the skin down to the bone – in densely populated areas.

Sooriyakumari’s husband, Rasenthiram, died during an attack near Mullivaikkal while trying to protect others.

“He was sending everyone to the bunker. When he had sent everyone and was about to come himself, a shell hit a tree and then bounced off and hit him, and he died,” she said. Although his internal organs were coming out, “he raised his head and looked around at all of us, to see we were safe.”

Her son was just seven months old. “He has never seen his father’s face,” she said.

The war left many households like Sooriyakumari’s without breadwinners. They have experienced even more acute food shortage following Sri Lanka’s 2022 economic crisis and the subsequent rise in the cost of living.

“If we starve, will anyone come and check on us?” said 63-year-old Manoharan Kalimuthu, whose son died in Mullivaikkal after leaving a bunker to relieve himself and being hit by a shell. “If they [children who died in the final stages of the war] were here, they would’ve looked after us.”

Kalimuthu said she did not think the new government would deliver justice to Tamils, saying, “We can believe it only when we see it.”

‘No accountability’

Sooriyakumari also said she did not believe anything would change under the new administration.

“There’s been a lot of talk but no action. No foundations have been laid, so how can we believe them?” she told Al Jazeera. “So many Sinhalese people these days have understood our pain and suffering and are supporting us … but the government is against us.”

She also expressed suspicion of Dissanayake’s JVP party and its history of violence, saying she and the wider Tamil community “were scared of the JVP before”. The party had backed Rajapaksa’s government when the army crushed the Tamil separatist movement.

Satkunanathan said the JVP’s track record showed “they supported the Rajapaksas, they were pro-war, they were anti-devolution, anti-international community, were all anti-UN, all of which they viewed as conspiring against Sri Lanka.”

She conceded that the party was seeking to show that it had “evolved to a more progressive position but their action is falling short of rhetoric”.

Although Dissanayake’s government has announced plans to establish a truth and reconciliation commission, it has rejected a United Nations Human Rights Council resolution on accountability for war crimes, much like previous governments. Before the presidential elections, Dissanayake said he would not seek to prosecute those responsible for war crimes.

“On accountability for wartime violations, they have not moved at all,” Satkunanathan told Al Jazeera, citing the government’s refusal to engage with the UN-initiated Sri Lanka Accountability Project (SLAP), which was set up to collect evidence of potential war crimes. “I would love them to prove me wrong.”

The government has also repeatedly changed its stance on the Thirteenth Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution, which promises devolved powers to Tamil-majority areas in the north and east. Before the presidential election, Dissanayake said he supported its implementation in meetings with Tamil parties, but the government has not outlined a clear plan for this, with the JVP’s general secretary dismissing it as unnecessary shortly after the presidential election.

‘We need answers’

“Six months since coming into office, there’s no indication of the new government’s plan or intention to address the most urgent grievances of the Tamils affected by the war,” Thyagi Ruwanpathirana, South Asia researcher at Amnesty International, said. “And the truth about the forcibly disappeared features high on the agenda of those in the North and the East.”

Still, some, like 48-year-old Krishnapillai Sothilakshmi, remain hopeful. Sothilakshmi’s husband Senthivel was forcibly disappeared in 2008. She said she believed the new government would give her answers.

A 2017 report by Amnesty International [PDF] estimated that between 60,000 and 100,000 people have disappeared in Sri Lanka since the late 1980s. Although Sri Lanka established an Office of Missing Persons (OMP) in 2017, there has been no clear progress since.

“We need answers. Are they alive or not? We want to know,” Sothilakshmi said.

But for Jeevarani, weeping on the beach as she looked at a photograph of her three-year-old daughter Nila, it’s too late for any hope. Palm trees are growing over her family’s grave, and she is no longer even able to pinpoint the exact spot where they were buried.

“If someone is sick, this government or that government can say they’ll cure them,” she said. “But no government can bring back the dead, can they?”

A top figure in Venezuela’s opposition has been arrested on charges of “terrorism” before parliamentary elections scheduled for the weekend.

On Friday, a social media account for Juan Pablo Guanipa, a close associate of Maria Corina Machado, considered the leader of the opposition coalition, announced he had been detained. State television also carried images of his arrest, as he was escorted away by armed guards.

In a prewritten message online, Guanipa denounced Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro for human rights abuses, including stifling political dissent and false imprisonment.

“Brothers and sisters, if you are reading this, it is because I have been kidnapped by the forces of Nicolas Maduro’s regime,” Guanipa wrote.

“For months, I, like many Venezuelans, have been in hiding for my safety. Unfortunately, my time in hiding has come to an end. As of today, I am part of the list of Venezuelans kidnapped by the dictatorship.”

Since Venezuela held a hotly contested presidential election in July 2024, Guanipa, along with several other opposition figures, has been in hiding, for fear of being arrested.

That presidential election culminated in a disputed outcome and widespread protests. On the night of the vote, Venezuela’s election authorities declared Maduro the winner, awarding him a third successive six-year term, but it failed to publish the polling tallies to substantiate that result.

Meanwhile, the opposition coalition published tallies from voting stations that it said proved its candidate, Edmundo Gonzalez, had prevailed in a landslide. International watchdogs also criticised the election for its lack of transparency.

Maduro’s government responded to the election-related protests with a police crackdown that led to nearly 2,000 arrests and 25 people killed. It also issued arrest warrants against opposition leaders, accusing them of charges ranging from conspiracy to falsifying records.

Maduro has long accused political dissidents of conspiring with foreign forces to topple his government.

Gonzalez himself was among those for whom a warrant was signed. He fled to exile in Spain. Others have gone into hiding, avoiding the public eye. Until recently, a group of five opposition members had sought shelter in the Argentinian embassy in Caracas, until they were reportedly smuggled out of the country earlier this month.

Opposition members and their supporters have dismissed the charges against them as spurious and further evidence of the Maduro government’s repressive tactics.

“This is pure and simple STATE TERRORISM,” Machado, the opposition leader, wrote on social media in the wake of Guanipa’s arrest.

Machado and others have said that Guanipa was one of several people arrested in the lead-up to this weekend’s regional elections, which will see members of the National Assembly and state-level positions on the ballot.

Several prominent members of the opposition have pledged to boycott the vote, arguing it is a means for Maduro to consolidate power.

“Just hours before a farcical election with no guarantees of any kind, the regime has reactivated an operation of political repression,” Gonzalez wrote on social media, in reaction to the recent spate of arrests.

He argued that the detention of Guanipa and others was a means of ensuring “nothing will go off script” during Sunday’s vote.

“They harass political, social, and community leaders. They persecute those who influence public opinion. They intend to shut down all alternative information spaces and ensure a narrative monopoly,” Gonzalez wrote.

“To the international community: This is not an election. It’s an authoritarian device to shield the power they’ve usurped.”

A new law, championed by President Nayib Bukele, is seen by advocates as an effort to stifle dissent in El Salvador.

Human rights groups, politicians and experts have sharply criticised a law approved by El Salvador’s Congress as a censorship tool, designed to silence and criminalise dissent by nongovernmental organisations critical of President Nayib Bukele.

The law proposed by Bukele bypassed normal legislative procedures and was passed on Tuesday night by a Congress under the firm control of his New Ideas party.

Bukele first tried to introduce a similar law in 2021, but after strong international backlash, it was never brought for a vote by the full Congress.

Bukele said the law is intended to limit foreign influence and corruption. It comes after the government took a number of steps that have prompted concerns the country may be entering a new wave of crackdowns. Critics warn that it falls in line with measures passed by governments in Nicaragua, Venezuela, Russia, Belarus and China.

Here are more details about the root of the criticism:

What does the law say?

Anyone — individual or organisation, local or foreign — who acts in the interest of a foreign entity or receives foreign funding to operate in El Salvador is required to register under the law.

Every payment, whether in cash, goods or services, made to such groups will be subject to a 30-percent tax. The final law passed does not specify how the money from the tax will be used.

While the United States also has a law that requires individuals working on behalf of foreign entities and governments to register, Bukele’s is far broader in scope and grants him greater powers. It is fairly common in poorer countries in Latin America to depend on international aid dollars, as it is often difficult to raise money in their own countries.

Analysts say a broad definition of a “foreign agent” in the law could cover:

• Human rights organisations
• Community associations
• Independent media outlets
• Foreign-funded startups or businesses
• Religious groups
• International aid agencies

New rules governing NGOs

The law creates a new government body called RAEX, or Registry of Foreign Agents, which will have wide powers, including setting requirements for registration, approving or denying applications, revoking or refusing to renew registrations and demanding documents or information at any time.

Some NGOs can apply for exceptions, but RAEX will decide who can operate in the country. About 8,000 NGOs operate in El Salvador and often depend on foreign donations due to a lack of funds available in the Central American nation.

Some of those groups have long been at odds with Bukele and have criticised some of his actions, including his decision to waive key constitutional rights to crack down on the country’s gangs and seeking re-election despite clear constitutional prohibitions.

The rules NGOs will have to adhere to the following:

• They must register with RAEX and report the source and purpose of all donations.
• They must keep complete accounting records, use the banks for transactions and follow anti-money laundering laws.
• They cannot operate without registering.
• They cannot engage in political activities or actions seen as threatening public order or national security.
• They cannot use foreign donations for undeclared activities or share information on behalf of foreign donors without labelling it as such.

Violations of the rules can lead to fines between $100,000 to $250,000 and possible closure.

Why now?

Critics say Bukele revived the law because he has now consolidated power across all branches of government. His political alliance with US President Donald Trump has also emboldened him.

Bukele announced the law shortly after a protest near his home ended in a violent crackdown by police that saw two people arrested.

In addition, it comes after a number of moves by Bukele that have raised concerns that the self-described “world’s coolest dictator” is cracking down on dissent.

• Just two days before the law passed, the government arrested an anticorruption lawyer with the human rights organisation Cristosal — one of Bukele’s most outspoken critics — on corruption charges.
• The government arrested the heads of bus companies for defying an order from Bukele posted on his social media.
• Journalists with the investigative news organisation El Faro said they had to flee the country after receiving word that the government was preparing orders for their arrest, after they published reports on the president’s links to gangs.

What are critics saying?

• Opposition legislator Claudia Ortiz called the law “an authoritarian tool for censorship“ and said it hands the president excessive levels of control. “It’s obvious that exemptions will only be given to groups that align with the government, while those who expose corruption or abuse will be punished,” she said.
• Lawyer Roxana Cardona of the NGO Justicia Social y Controlaría Ciudadana said: “The Foreign Agents Law seeks to suppress organisations that promote civic participation or support marginalised groups the state ignores.”
• Eduardo Escobar, director of Acción Ciudadana, added: “This is part of the government’s increasing repression. It affects constitutional rights like freedom of expression and freedom of association.”
• Lawyer and analyst Bessy Ríos said: “The goal is to control the funding of civil society, especially organisations critical of the government.”

Aid agencies have continued to criticise Israel after it announced it had sent a small convoy of trucks carrying vital supplies into Gaza.

COGAT, the Israeli military body responsible for civil affairs in the occupied Palestinian territory, confirmed on Friday that 107 trucks had entered the enclave the previous day, loaded with flour, medicine and equipment.

However, aid agencies and others have condemned Israel’s policy to allow only minimal volumes of aid into Gaza, which the Israeli military has been blockading for close to three months.

They insist that the supplies are nowhere near enough for the millions trapped in the territory, and add that even the small amounts making it in are not making it to people due to Israeli attacks and looting.

The shipments follow Israel’s announcement on Sunday that it would permit “minimal” humanitarian aid into the territory for the first time since implementing a total blockade in early March.

Amid warnings of mounting famine and humanitarian disaster, Israel said that the decision to allow aid into Gaza was driven by diplomatic concerns.

Global outrage has been rising as the 11-week siege has progressed, leaving Gaza’s 2.1 million people on the brink of starvation, with medicine and fuel supplies exhausted.

The United Nations’ Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator Tom Fletcher has branded the aid deliveries “a drop in the ocean” and warned that far greater access is required to address the escalating crisis.

The UN estimates that at least 500 trucks of aid are needed daily. Since Monday’s announcement, only 300 trucks have made it in, including Thursday’s convoy, according to COGAT.

Attacks and looting

Aid agencies also state that even the aid that is being allowed into Gaza is not reaching people.

“Significant challenges in loading and dispatching goods remain due to insecurity, the risk of looting, delays in coordination approvals and inappropriate routes being provided by Israeli forces that are not viable for the movement of cargo,” the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said.

Hamas officials said on Friday that Israeli air strikes had killed at least six Palestinians guarding aid trucks against looters.

An umbrella network of Palestinian aid groups said that just 119 aid trucks have entered Gaza since Israel eased its blockade on Monday, and that distribution has been hampered by looting, including by armed groups of men.

“They stole food meant for children and families suffering from severe hunger,” the network said in a statement.

The UN’s World Food Programme said on Friday that 15 of its trucks were looted in southern Gaza while en route to WFP-supported bakeries.

‘Most people living off food scraps’

Inside Gaza, the situation continues to deteriorate.

Dr Ahmed al-Farrah of Nasser Hospital told Al Jazeera that the health system is overwhelmed.

“Most people now live off food scraps of what they had in stock,” he said. “I predict there will be many victims because of food insecurity.”

Palestinian Health Ministry officials said on Thursday that at least 29 children and elderly people have died in recent days from starvation-related causes, with thousands more at risk.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’s  spokesperson said aid is being distributed via UN mechanisms, but stressed the amount reaching Gaza “is not enough”.

The leaders of Britain, France and Canada warned Israel on Monday their countries would take action, including possible sanctions, if Israel did not lift aid restrictions.

“The Israeli Government’s denial of essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population is unacceptable and risks breaching International Humanitarian Law,” a joint statement released by the British government said.

“We will not hesitate to take further action, including targeted sanctions,” it added.

In response, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office accused the trio of being “on the wrong side of history” and “supporting “mass murderers, rapists, baby killers and kidnappers”.

East African rights groups condemn Tanzania, saying human right activists ‘abandoned’ at border show signs of torture.

A Ugandan human rights activist, arrested in Tanzania after travelling to the country to support an opposition politician at a trial for treason, has been tortured and dumped at the border, according to an NGO.

Ugandan rights group Agora Discourse said on Friday that activist and journalist Agather Atuhaire had been “abandoned at the border by Tanzanian authorities” and showed signs of torture.

The statement echoes reports regarding a Kenyan activist detained at the same time and released a day earlier, and supports complaints of a crackdown on democracy across East Africa.

Atuhaire had travelled to Tanzania alongside Kenyan anticorruption campaigner Boniface Mwangi to support opposition leader Tundu Lissu, who appeared in court on Monday.

Both were arrested shortly after the hearing and held incommunicado.

Tanzanian police had initially told local rights groups that the pair would be deported by air. However, Mwangi was discovered on Thursday on a roadside in northern Tanzania near the Kenyan border.

Agora Discourse said it was “relieved to inform the public that Agather has been found”. However, the rights group’s cofounder Jim Spire Ssentongo confirmed to the AFP news agency on Friday that there were “indications of torture”.

‘Worse than dogs’

Tanzanian President Samia Suluhu Hassan has been accused of increasing authoritarianism, amid rising concerns regarding democracy across East Africa.

Activists travelling to Lissu’s trail accused Tanzania of “collaborating” with Kenya and Uganda in their “total erosion of democratic principles”.

Several high-profile political arrests have highlighted the rights record of Hassan, who plans to seek re-election in October.

The Tanzanian leader has said that her government is committed to respecting human rights. However, she warned earlier this week that foreign activists would not be tolerated in the country as Lissu appeared in court.

“Do not allow ill-mannered individuals from other countries to cross the line here,” Hassan instructed security services.

Several activists from Kenya, including a former justice minister, said they were denied entry to Tanzania as they tried to travel to attend the trial.

Following his return to the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, Mwangi said that he and Atuhaire had suffered a brutal experience.

“We were both treated worse than dogs, chained, blindfolded and underwent a very gruesome torture,” he told reporters.

“The Government of Tanzania cannot hide behind national sovereignty to justify committing serious crimes and human rights violations against its own citizens and other East Africans,” the International Commission of Jurists in Kenya said in a statement.

Syrians are hoping sanctions relief will help boost investment, reconstruction after more than a decade of civil war.

Business owners in Syria have welcomed the European Union’s decision this week to lift sanctions on the country, in what observers say is the most significant easing of Western pressure on Damascus in more than a decade.

The EU’s move, which followed a similar announcement by the United States in mid-May, was praised by Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani as one that would bolster Syria’s security and stability.

For many Syrian entrepreneurs, it also brings the hope of rebuilding their livelihoods after years of economic isolation.

“Companies that were ousted from Syria and stopped dealing with us because of the sanctions are now in contact with us,” Hassan Bandakji, a local business owner, told Al Jazeera.

“Many companies and producers are telling us they are coming back and that they want to reserve a spot in our market.”

The EU and US sanctions had levied wide-ranging sanctions against the government of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who was removed from power in a rebel offensive in December of last year.

The economic curbs had severely limited trade, investment, and financial transactions in Syria, cutting businesses off from supplies and international banking.

“The main obstacle we faced was getting raw materials and automated lines,” said Ali Sheikh Kweider, who manages a factory in the countryside of the Syrian capital, Damascus.

“As for bank accounts, we weren’t able to send or receive any transactions,” Kweider told Al Jazeera.

Syria’s new government, led by ex-rebel leader and interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa, had called for the sanctions to be lifted as it seeks to rebuild the country.

US President Donald Trump said after a meeting with al-Sharaa in Saudi Arabia last week that he planned to order the lifting of American sanctions on Syria.

Reporting from Damascus, Al Jazeera’s Mahmoud Abdelwahed said the government is hoping the sanctions relief will help Syria reintegrate into the international community.

It also views the EU’s announcement as additional “recognition of the new political leadership” in the country, Abdelwahed added.

Russia and Ukraine are expected to each swap 1,000 prisoners of war as part of deal reached at recent talks in Istanbul.

Russia has received a list of names of prisoners of war (POWs) that Ukraine wants freed as part of an expected exchange between the two countries, a Kremlin spokesperson told the Russian news agency Interfax.

Dmitry Peskov told Interfax on Thursday that the list had been received after Moscow gave Kyiv its own list of prisoners it wants released.

The exchange – which will see each side free 1,000 POWs in what would be the largest swap of the war – was agreed to during talks last week in the Turkish capital, Istanbul.

Those discussions marked the first direct peace negotiations between Russian and Ukrainian delegations since 2022, the year the war began.

In advance of the meeting, Ukraine had called for a 30-day ceasefire, but Moscow rejected the proposal, agreeing only to the prisoner swap.

Ukrainian officials have since accused Russia of deliberately delaying peace talks while consolidating territorial gains on the battlefield.

The major prisoner swap is a “quite laborious process” that “requires some time”, said Peskov, adding that “the work is continuing at a quick pace.”

“Everybody is interested in doing it quickly,” the Kremlin spokesperson said.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Thursday that the deal “to release 1,000 of our people from Russian captivity was perhaps the only tangible result of the meeting in Turkiye”.

“We are working to ensure that this result is achieved,” he said in a post on X.

Zelenskyy added that Defence Minister Rustem Umerov is overseeing the exchange process, supported by several Ukrainian government ministries, intelligence agencies and the president’s own office.

“The return of all our people from Russian captivity is one of Ukraine’s key priorities,” Zelenskyy said. “I am grateful to everyone who is contributing to this effort.”

As Ukraine, the European Union, and the United States press Moscow to return to negotiations, Peskov dismissed reports about future peace talks taking place at the Vatican, saying, “There is no concrete agreement about the next meetings.”

US President Donald Trump spoke with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, on Monday and urged an end to the “bloodbath”.

Putin thanked Trump for supporting the resumption of direct talks between Russia and Ukraine, and said his government “will propose and is ready to work with the Ukrainian side on a memorandum on a possible future peace accord”.

Meanwhile, Russia’s defence ministry said on Thursday that its air defences shot down 105 Ukrainian drones overnight, including 35 over the Moscow region.

The ministry said it downed 485 Ukrainian drones over several regions and the Black Sea between late Tuesday and early Thursday.

In southern Ukraine, Kherson Governor Oleksandr Prokudin also said on Thursday that one person was killed in a Russian artillery attack on the region.

He said 35 areas in the Kherson region, including the city of Kherson, came under artillery shelling and air attacks over the past day, wounding 11 people.

Zelenskyy said the “most intense situation” remains in the Donetsk region, however, while Ukrainian forces continue “active operations in the Kursk and Belgorod regions” inside Russia.

Raipur, Chhattisgarh – Indian security forces have launched an all-out war against Maoist fighters in Chhattisgarh state, as the federal government aims to “wipe out” long-running armed rebellions in the mineral-rich tribal region of the country.

The Karrigatta hills forest, which straddles across Chhattisgarh and Telangana states, has turned into a “warzone” with more than 10,000 Indian soldiers deployed in the anti-Maoist operation – dubbed “Operation Zero or Kagar”.

The right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which runs both the state as well as the central government, has drastically escalated security operations, killing at least 201 Maoist rebels, also known as Naxals, this year.

At least 27 rebels were killed on Wednesday, including the leader of the Maoists. In the past 16 months, more than 400 alleged Maoist rebels have been killed in Chhattisgarh state, home to a sizable population of Adivasis (meaning original inhabitants or Indigenous people).

But activists are alarmed: They say many of those killed are innocent Adivasis. And campaigners and opposition leaders are urging the government to cease fire and hold talks with Maoist rebels to find a solution to the decades-old issue.

More than 11,000 civilians and security forces have been killed in clashes involving Maoist fighters between 2000 and 2024, according to official figures. Security forces have killed at least 6,160 Maoist fighters during the same period, according to police and Maoist figures.

So, will the government’s hardline approach help bring peace, or will it further alienate the Adivasis, who are already one of the most marginalised groups in the country?

Who are the Maoists, and why are they fighting against the Indian state?

The armed rebellion in India originated in a 1967 rural uprising in the small town of Naxalbari, located in West Bengal state. The word Naxal comes from the town’s name.

Led by communist leaders Kanu Sanyal, Charu Majumdar, and Jungle Santal, the armed uprising called for addressing the issues of landlessness and exploitation of the rural poor by landlords.

The three leaders founded the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (CPI(ML)) on April 22, 1969, to wage armed rebellion against the Indian state. They believed that their demands were not going to be met by the prevailing democratic set-up.

The Naxal rebels were also inspired by the revolutionary ideology of the Chinese leader Mao Zedong. Modelled on the Chinese communist party’s approach to capturing the state, they waged a violent rebellion against the Indian security forces in mineral-rich central and eastern India for decades. The West Bengal government, led by Congress leader Siddhartha Shankar Ray, launched a fierce campaign to suppress the Naxalite uprising.

I once again assure the countrymen that India is sure to be Naxal-free by 31 March 2026

by Amit Shah, home minister

Sanyal, one of the founding leaders of the movement, told this reporter in 2010 that “by 1973, at least 32,000 Naxalites or sympathisers had been jailed across India.”

“Many were killed in fake encounters. And when the Emergency was declared in June 1975, it was clear- the sun had almost set on the Naxalite movement,” he said. He died in 2010, aged 78, apparently by suicide in Siliguri.

Over the years, the CPI(ML) splintered into multiple parties, more than 20 of which still exist. The main CPI(ML) itself gave up armed struggle, expressed faith in the Indian Constitution and began participating in electoral politics. Currently, it is a legally recognised political organisation with several legislators.

Meanwhile, in 1980, one of the splinters, the Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) People’s War, was founded by Kondapalli Seetharamayya and Kolluri Chiranjeevi in Andhra Pradesh.

Another major breakaway faction, the Maoist Communist Centre (MCC), had a base in Bihar and West Bengal states. In September 2004, the MCC and CPI(ML) People’s War merged, resulting in the formation of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), the largest armed Maoist organisation in India today.

The organisation’s most recent general secretary, Nambala Keshava Rao, alias Basavaraj, was killed by security forces on Wednesday in Bastar, Chhattisgarh – the last stronghold of Maoists.

Has the BJP intensified the campaign against Maoists?

The BJP-run Chhattisgarh state government has adopted a more aggressive stance against Maoists compared with the previous government led by the Congress party.

At least 141 Maoists were killed between 2020 and 2023, when the Congress party was in power, but after the BJP came to power, security forces claimed to have killed 223 alleged Maoists in 2024 alone, according to government figures.

“For the past 15 months, our security personnel have been strongly fighting the Naxals,” Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Vishnu Deo Sai told Al Jazeera.

“This action is part of the broader efforts, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah, to make India free from Naxalism. This is a decisive phase, and we are advancing rapidly in that direction,” he said.

The security forces have currently surrounded suspected Maoist hideouts in Karigatta Hills, with the army’s helicopters assisting in the operation, according to authorities.

Whether it’s the Maoists or the DRG, the one who kills is tribal and the one who dies is also tribal

by Former Member of Parliament Arvind Netam

On May 14, India’s Home Minister Amit Shah announced the killing of 31 fighters in the Karrigatta Hills.

“I once again assure the countrymen that India is sure to be Naxal-free by 31 March 2026,” Shah reiterated in his post on X.

Overall, nearly 66,000 security personnel spanning a range of paramilitary and special forces have been deployed in Chhattisgarh.

The latest operation, which involves more than 10,000 soldiers, centres around the mineral-rich Bastar region of Chhattisgarh, which spans 38,932 square kilometres (15,032sq miles) – an area nearly the size of the US state of Kentucky.

The government has set up approximately 320 security camps in Bastar alone – home to three million people. The number of personnel at each security camp fluctuates depending on the requirement: It can be as low as 150 personnel and rise up to 1,200. They include security forces, as well as technical staff.

Security camps are often equipped with surveillance and communication equipment to assist in the operation against the rebels. The 20,000-strong local police force is also helping in the operations in Bastar.

The use of cutting-edge technology, such as advanced drones equipped with high-definition cameras and thermal imaging sensors, has helped security forces monitor Maoist activity in the region’s dense forests.

However, local villagers allege that security forces have carried out aerial bombings in various parts of Bastar using large drones. Maoist groups have also accused the forces of conducting air strikes.

Security forces have consistently denied these allegations.

Shah, the home minister, has made frequent visits to Chhattisgarh, even spending nights with security forces in Bastar.

But the federal government of former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who preceded Modi in India’s top executive office, had also taken a tough stance against Naxals.

Singh even called Naxalism the “greatest internal security threat” to India, and his government launched a major crackdown in 2009 under what it called “Operation Green Hunt” to quash the armed rebellion. Amid allegations of human rights violations, Indian security forces managed to reduce the terrain controlled by the Maoists.

In the 2000s, Naxals controlled nearly one-third of India’s mineral-rich tribal areas, known euphemistically as the Red Corridor, straddling the states of Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Odisha, Jharkhand and Maharashtra, among others. But the number of districts where Maoists wield significant influence had declined from 126 in 2013 to just 38 by April last year.

As the government claims success in its military offensive, human rights groups such as the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) accuse the security forces of carrying out fake encounters or extrajudicial killings.

“A large-scale military campaign is being carried out under the pretext of eliminating Maoists,” Junas Tirkey, the president of the PUCL in Chhattisgarh state, said.

“Since 2024, violence, human rights violations, and militarisation have increased sharply in Bastar. Innocent tribals are being killed in fake encounters,” he told Al Jazeera.

Since 2024, violence, human rights violations, and militarisation have increased sharply in Bastar. Innocent tribals are being killed in fake encounters

by  Junas Tirkey, president of the PUCL in Chhattisgarh

The PUCL has identified at least 11 incidents as fake encounters over the past one and a half years.

On March 25, police claimed it had killed Maoist rebels Sudhakar alias Sudhir, Pandru Atra, and Mannu Barsa in Bordga village, Bijapur, about 160km (100 miles) east of Bastar.

But villagers allege the police’s version is false. They claim that the police surrounded the village at night, took 17 people away, released seven, shot three, and took the remaining seven with them.

The government has denied the allegations, but no independent investigation has been conducted in this case. The regular magisterial inquiry, which is carried out after so-called encounters, is not considered credible by rights groups and tribal communities as it is largely based on the police version of events.

“It’s true that Sudhakar was a Maoist and came to visit someone in the village. But the police captured Sudhakar, my brother and others alive, took them away, and later shot them, falsely declaring it an encounter,” the brother of Mannu Barsa, Manesh Barsa, told Al Jazeera.

Inspector general of police of Bastar region, Pattilingam Sundarraj, disagreed with these allegations. He claimed that Maoists often pressure locals to fabricate accusations against the police following encounters.

However, multiple so-called encounters in Bastar have been proven fake in the past, and in most cases, justice has evaded victims.

Even if they are eliminated from Bastar, Maoism is an ideology that cannot be defeated through violence alone

by Former DGP Vishwaranjan

Out of thousands of so-called encounters in Bastar in the last 25 years, only two have faced judicial inquiry. On June 28, 2012, 17 Adivasis, including six minors, were killed in Sarkeguda village in Bijapur district. On May 17, 2013, four minors were among eight Adivasis killed in Edasmeta village in the same district.

The inquiries led by High Court judges found all victims to be innocent. The reports were released in 2022 during the previous Congress rule, though no police cases have been registered against any personnel to date.

Even peaceful protests against mining projects and the militarisation of the region have been met with harsh crackdowns.

The Moolvasi Bachao Manch (MBM), led by Adivasis, was banned last year for “opposing development” and “resisting security forces”.

Dozens of Adivasi youth associated with MBM have been arrested since 2021.

Why is the recruitment of former Maoists in government forces criticised?

The recruitment of Adivasis, many of them former Maoists, in recent years by the authorities seems to have turned the tide in favour of the government.

The then-BJP state government started to incorporate Adivasis, particularly former Maoists, in the District Reserve Guard (DRG) force in 2008 with the aim of using them in anti-Maoist operations. The idea: Former Maoists are better at navigating dense jungle terrain and know about Maoist hideouts.

But past records have raised concerns. Adivasis enlisted as Special Police Officers (SPOs), as they were called, have been accused of rights violations.

In 2005, the state government ruled by the Congress government launched a campaign against Maoists called Salwa Judum (meaning “peace march” in the local Gondi language). Salwa Judum members were armed and were later designated as SPOs and paid 1,500 rupees/month ($17/month).

On one hand, the government itself had proposed dialogue with the Maoists. But now, that same government has turned Bastar into a warzone

by Soni Sori, Adivasi activist

But Salwa Judum members faced accusations of rape, arson, torture and murder. In 2011, the Supreme Court declared Salwa Judum illegal and slammed the state for arming civilians. Subsequently, many SPOs were absorbed into the DRG.

DRG personnel have also been accused of rights abuses, but such cases have rarely been investigated.

Campaigners have also questioned the policy of using surrendered Maoists in combat instead of rehabilitating them.

“The manner in which SPOs were incorporated into the DRG is disturbing. It shows how tribal youth involved in violence were again handed guns under the pretext of rehabilitation,” lawyer and human rights activist Priyanka Shukla told Al Jazeera.

Former Member of Parliament Arvind Netam believes Bastar is “in a state of civil war”. In a situation like this, he says, it’s the tribals who suffer the most.

“Whether it’s the Maoists or the DRG, the one who kills is tribal and the one who dies is also tribal,” Netam, a tribal leader, told Al Jazeera.

Campaigners have argued that Chhattisgarh’s new rehabilitation policy, which promises bounties and cash rewards, incentivises people to turn on each other for money, often with allegations that may be legally untenable.

Why has the government resisted calls for a ceasefire?

Interestingly, while the government has intensified its offensive, it has also continued to offer peace talks to Maoists.

“We still reiterate, Maoists should come forward for dialogue after laying down their arms. Our doors for talks within the framework of the Indian Constitution are always open,” Chhattisgarh’s Home Minister Vijay Sharma told local media last week.

The Maoists, however, insist on a ceasefire and withdrawal of paramilitary forces as conditions for talks. They argue that peace talks and military operations cannot run simultaneously.

In a statement, CPI (Maoist) spokesperson Abhay said, “The right to life guaranteed by the Indian Constitution is being crushed by the government itself … On one hand, our party is trying to initiate unconditional dialogue, and on the other hand, ongoing killings of Maoists and tribals render the peace process meaningless.”

Activists have raised concerns regarding the plight of Adivasi communities.

Soni Sori, an Adivasi social activist from Bastar, believes the government must take the initiative for peace talks.

“On one hand, the government itself had proposed dialogue with the Maoists. But now, that same government has turned Bastar into a warzone,” Sori told Al Jazeera.

“Given the way these operations are being conducted, the government should halt them, foster an environment conducive to dialogue, and take meaningful steps toward initiating peace talks.”

Human rights activists, academics and students have been targeted after being dubbed Naxal sympathisers. A 90 percent disabled professor from Delhi University, GN Saibaba was jailed for backing Maoists. Last October, he died months after being acquitted by the country’s top court after a decade of incarceration.

But state Chief Minister Sai says there will be no leniency in this matter. “Naxal eradication is not just a campaign but a mission to secure Bastar and Chhattisgarh’s future,” he said.

Is Maoist support declining?

In 2011, then-Director General of Police of Chhattisgarh Vishwaranjan estimated approximately 10,000 armed Maoists and 40,000 militia members in the Bastar region. Accurate numbers are hard to determine.

The rebels were able to carry out deadly attacks against the security forces. In 2010, they killed 76 paramilitary troops in a forest ambush in Chhattisgarh. Three years later, dozens of people, including the Congress leader who founded the Salwa Judum, were killed in a rebel ambush.

Current Bastar IGP Sundarraj P estimates about 1,000 armed Maoists remain, along with 15,000 affiliated individuals.

Internal Maoist reports acknowledge declining recruitment, smaller units, and ammunition shortages. Of the 40 central committee and politburo members, only 18 remain free – the rest are either dead or arrested.

Meanwhile, security forces have expanded, built new camps, and improved intelligence and training, while Maoists’ base areas are shrinking.

While our government is running an anti-Naxal campaign, we are also actively working on development projects

by Vishnu Deo Sai, chief minister of Chhattisgarh

Former DGP Vishwaranjan says Maoists are weakened in Chhattisgarh, but they have expanded into neighbouring Madhya Pradesh.

“Even if they are eliminated from Bastar, Maoism is an ideology that cannot be defeated through violence alone,” he told Al Jazeera.

“As long as we build a society on economic inequality, the ideology may resurface in a new form.”

Defending his government’s policies, Chief Minister Sai said that “security and development go hand in hand.”

“While our government is running an anti-Naxal campaign, we are also actively working on development projects,” he said.

Is the real fight over iron ore?

Naxals have invoked the exploitation of natural resources, particularly through mining leases issued to global corporations, and the displacement of local communities, as their reasons for picking up guns in mineral-rich areas of the country. Thousands of Adivasis have been displaced and their local environments severely damaged due to mining activities.

Of the 51 mineral leases in Bastar, 36 are held by private firms, including global steel major ArcelorMittal.

Former MLA and tribal leader Manish Kunjam echoes a similar sentiment, arguing, “The real issue is iron ore.”

According to the Indian government, 19 percent of the country’s iron ore reserves are in Chhattisgarh, mainly in Bastar.

Chhattisgarh accounts for 18 percent of India’s railway freight revenue, largely from mineral transport – and this is growing.

Kunjam explained that when the corporations Tata and Essar began their projects in 2005 to mine iron ore, the state launched Salwa Judum, evacuating 644 villages under the pretext of Maoist fear. At least 350,000 people were displaced. However, strong tribal resistance forced the companies to withdraw.

“Learning from that failure, the government has now set up security camps in mining zones, preparing for renewed extraction,” he said.

“Without village council approval, mining cannot proceed. If tribals protest, they will be labelled as Maoists or sympathisers and dealt with accordingly.”

A closer look at his claims reveals that most camps are indeed in areas where mining has begun or is about to. In Bastar’s mining belt, there is one soldier for every nine tribals. Many of these camps are funded by mining companies.

But Chief Minister Sai believes that the mineral resources in tribal areas should be utilised.

The idea of generating revenue at the cost of tribal lives is dangerous and unconstitutional

by Sushil Anand Shukla, opposition Congress party spokesperson

“The lives of tribals will change with the beginning of mining and industrial activities,” he said. He boasted that Chhattisgarh ranks second among mineral-producing states [after Odisha], earning approximately 14.19 billion rupees ($1.71bn) last year.

This year, the state has allocated 48 major mineral blocks to private companies in the state.

But mass poverty and lack of basic health facilities expose the government’s claims.

Netam, the tribal leader, pointed out that the state has an infant mortality rate of nearly 38 per 1,000 live births, compared to the national infant mortality rate of 28 per 1,000 live births.

In Bastar, he said, poverty is 80 percent.

The opposition Congress spokesperson Sushil Anand Shukla claimed that under the guise of mining, preparations were under way to completely displace tribals from Bastar.

“Today, Bastar stands on the brink of war, and its answers cannot be found by looking to the past. The government must stop surrendering to corporate houses and mining companies at the cost of evicting tribals,” Sushil Anand Shukla says.

“The idea of generating revenue at the cost of tribal lives is dangerous and unconstitutional,” he told Al Jazeera.

The administration of President Donald Trump has begun the process of ending the federal government’s involvement in reforming local police departments, a civil rights effort that gained steam after the deaths of unarmed Black people like George Floyd and Breonna Taylor.

On Wednesday, the United States Department of Justice announced it would cancel two proposed settlements that would have seen the cities of Louisville, Kentucky, and Minneapolis, Minnesota, agree to federal oversight of their police departments.

Generally, those settlements — called consent decrees — involve a series of steps and goals that the two parties negotiate and that a federal court helps enforce.

In addition, the Justice Department said it would withdraw reports on six other local police departments which found patterns of discrimination and excessive violence.

The Trump administration framed the announcement as part of its efforts to transfer greater responsibility towards individual cities and states — and away from the federal government.

“It’s our view at the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division under the Trump administration that federal micromanagement of local police should be a rare exception, and not the norm,” said Harmeet Dhillon, an assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, said.

She argued that such federal oversight was a waste of taxpayer funds.

“There is a lack of accountability. There is a lack of local control. And there is an industry here that is, I think, ripping off the taxpayers and making citizens less safe,” Dhillon said.

But civil rights leaders and police reform advocates reacted with outrage over the news, which arrived just days before the fifth anniversary of Floyd’s murder.

Reverend Al Sharpton was among the leaders who called for police departments to take meaningful action after a viral video captured Floyd’s final moments. On May 25, 2020, a white police officer, Derek Chauvin, leaned his knee on Floyd’s neck for more than nine minutes, causing him to asphyxiate and die.

“This move isn’t just a policy reversal,” Sharpton said. “It’s a moral retreat that sends a chilling message that accountability is optional when it comes to Black and Brown victims.”

He warned that the Trump administration’s move sent a signal to police departments that they were “above scrutiny”.

The year of Floyd’s murder was also marked by a number of other high-profile deaths, including Taylor’s.

The 26-year-old medical worker was in bed late at night on March 13, 2020, when police used a battering ram to break into her apartment. Her boyfriend feared they were being attacked and fired his gun once. The police responded with a volley of bullets, killing Taylor, who was struck six times.

Her death and others stirred a period of nationwide unrest in the US, with millions of people protesting in the streets as part of social justice movements like Black Lives Matter. It is thought that the 2020 “racial reckoning” was one of the biggest mass demonstrations in US history.

Those protests unfolded in the waning months of Trump’s first term, and when Democrat Joe Biden succeeded him as president in 2021, the Justice Department embarked on a series of 12 investigations looking into allegations of police overreach and excessive violence on the local level.

Those investigations were called “pattern-or-practice” probes, designed to look into whether incidents of police brutality were one-offs or part of a larger trend in a given police department.

Floyd’s murder took place in Minneapolis and Taylor’s in Louisville — the two cities where the Trump Justice Department decided to drop its settlements on Wednesday. In both cities, under Biden, the Justice Department had found patterns of discriminatory policing.

“Police officers must often make split-second decisions and risk their lives to keep their communities safe,” the report on Minneapolis reads.

But, it adds, the local police department “used dangerous techniques and weapons against people who committed at most a petty offence and sometimes no offense at all”.

Other police departments scrutinised during this period included ones in Phoenix, Arizona; Memphis, Tennessee; Trenton, New Jersey; Mount Vernon, New York; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and the Louisiana State Police.

Dhillon, who now runs the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, positioned the retractions of those Biden-era findings as a policy pivot. She also condemned the consent decrees as an overused tool and indicated she would look into rescinding some agreements that were already in place.

That process would likely involve a judge’s approval, however.

And while some community advocates have expressed concerns that consent decrees could place a burden on already over-stretched law enforcement departments, others disagree with the Justice Department’s latest move, arguing that a retreat could strip resources and momentum from police reform.

At the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD), Chief Paul Humphrey said the commitment to better policing went beyond any settlement. He indicated he would look for an independent monitor to oversee reforms.

“It’s not about these words on this paper,” he said. “It’s about the work that the men and women of LMPD, the men and women of metro government and the community will do together in order to make us a safer, better place.”

And in Minneapolis, Mayor Jacob Frey doubled down, saying he could keep pushing forward with the police reform plan his city had agreed to.

“We will comply with every sentence of every paragraph of the 169-page consent decree that we signed this year,” he said at a news conference.

“We will make sure that we are moving forward with every sentence of every paragraph of both the settlement around the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, as well as the consent decree.”

A federal judge in the United States has told the administration of President Donald Trump that an alleged effort to deport migrants to South Sudan was “unquestionably violative” of his court injunction.

The announcement from US District Judge Brian Murphy on Wednesday tees up yet another judicial battle for the Trump administration, which has faced repeated criticism that it is ignoring court orders.

Judge Murphy, who is based in Boston, Massachusetts, has yet to announce what he plans to do about the apparent violation. He left that question to another day.

But he indicated that the people on board Tuesday’s flight had not been given enough time to challenge their deportations, in violation of their right to due process — and also in violation of Murphy’s April 18 injunction.

Murphy had ruled that migrants facing removal to a third-party country besides their own had the right to a reasonable amount of time to challenge their deportations.

But the Trump administration has repeatedly dismissed claims that it refuses to abide by decisions unfavourable to its policies, instead blasting judges like Murphy as “activist”.

During Wednesday’s court hearing, a lawyer for Trump’s Justice Department, Elainis Perez, refused to confirm where the deportation flight had landed, saying that divulging the information raised “very serious operational and safety concerns”.

Separately, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) held a news conference addressing the issue and defending the deportation flight.

Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons said the people on board had been accused of murder, armed robbery, rape and sexual assault.

In the case of one migrant, Lyons said, “his country would not take him back.” He called such countries “recalcitrant”.

Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), also framed the removals as a “diplomatic and military security operation”.

Standing in front of photos representing eight migrants, she said they were deported alone for safety reasons and confirmed they remain in DHS custody, although they had indeed left the US.

“We cannot tell you what the final destination for these individuals will be,” she added, again citing security issues.

But she did address the possibility that they might currently be in South Sudan, as their lawyers indicated in court filings.

“I would caution you to make the assumption that their final destination is South Sudan,” she said, later clarifying that the flight may make multiple stops: “We’re confirming the fact that that’s not their final destination.”

In Tuesday’s court filings, lawyers for the migrants said their clients hail from Myanmar, Vietnam and other countries. They also explained that their clients speak little English but were provided no translator to understand their removal notices.

They allegedly were deported with less than 24 hours’ notice. On Tuesday morning, as one lawyer tried to locate her client, she said she was informed he had been removed to South Sudan, a country with a turbulent history and a record of human rights abuses.

Judge Murphy had previously ordered the migrants to be given at least 15 days to challenge their removals on the grounds that they could face dangers in the countries they were deported to.

In the wake of Tuesday’s flight, he has also ruled that the US government must keep the migrants in its custody and ensure their safety while hearings proceed.

McLaughlin, however, accused the “activist judge” of “trying to protect” the migrants, which she described as “some of the most barbaric, violent individuals”.

“While we are fully compliant with the law and court orders, it is absolutely absurd for a district judge to try to dictate the foreign policy and national security of the United States of America,” she said.

McLaughlin and the other officials also argued that the Trump administration was exercising its right to find “safe third countries” to remove these individuals to.

“No country on earth wanted to accept them because their crimes are so uniquely monstrous and barbaric,” she said.

“Thanks to the courageous work of the State Department and ICE and the president’s national security team, we found a nation that was willing to accept custody of these vicious illegal aliens.”

The Trump administration has been accused of amping up fears of criminality among immigration populations, as part of its justification for its “mass deportation” campaign.

Police in South Sudan have told The Associated Press news agency that no migrants from the US have arrived in the country so far. The New York Times has reported that the plane is believed to have landed in the East African country of Djibouti.

A United States citizen has been transferred to the US after being held for nearly six months in Venezuela.

The family of US Air Force veteran Joseph St Clair confirmed his release on Tuesday, following his detention in November of last year.

“This news came suddenly, and we are still processing it, but we are overwhelmed with joy and gratitude,” St Clair’s parents, Scott and Patti, said in a statement.

US President Donald Trump’s envoy for special missions, Richard Grenell, later explained on social media that he had met with Venezuelan officials on the Caribbean island of Antigua to negotiate the release.

Grenell credited St Clair’s freedom to Trump’s “America First” political platform.

“Joe St. Clair is back in America,” he wrote. “I met Venezuelan officials in a neutral country today to negotiate an America First strategy. This is only possible because [Trump] puts Americans first. ”

Citing anonymous sources familiar with the negotiations, the Reuters news agency reported that Grenell discussed St Clair’s case on Tuesday with Jorge Rodriguez, the president of Venezuela’s National Assembly and an ally of President Nicolas Maduro.

Reuters and another news agency, Bloomberg, both reported that a deal was struck to extend a licence for the US oil company Chevron to operate in Venezuela by 60 days.

The Trump administration had previously announced it was revoking the licence in February, on the basis that Venezuela had not upheld its commitment to fair elections. The licence was due to end on May 27.

Any extension will likely need the approval of the US Department of State and the US Treasury.

The South American country relies on oil as the pillar of its economy. But since the mid-2010s, Venezuela has experienced an economic crisis that has pushed even basic supplies like food and medicine beyond what some families can afford.

That, combined with alleged political repression, has prompted an exodus of nearly 7.9 million people out of Venezuela, according to the United Nations.

In 2023, Venezuela committed to electoral reforms under the Barbados Agreement, a deal that the US applauded. Then-US President Joe Biden loosened restrictions on Venezuela’s oil industry in the aftermath of the agreement.

But Venezuela’s presidential election on July 28, 2024 was widely criticised for its lack of transparency. While Maduro and his allies claimed he had won a third term, the electoral authorities did not provide any proof of his victory.

Instead, the opposition coalition published voting tallies it said proved that its candidate had won by a landslide. That prompted widespread protests and a deadly crackdown from law enforcement.

During his first term in office, from 2017 to 2021, Trump had pursued a campaign of “maximum pressure” on Maduro’s government, even offering a $15m bounty for information that led to the Venezuelan leader’s arrest.

But critics have pointed out that Trump may need Venezuela’s cooperation to carry out his goal of “mass deportation” during his second term.

Since returning to office in January, Trump has signalled a willingness to negotiate with Maduro. In late January, he even sent Grenell to meet with Maduro in person in the capital of Caracas. Part of Grenell’s directive was to ensure all detained Americans in the country were returned home.

As Grenell left the country, he revealed he was returning with six Americans who had previously been imprisoned in Venezuela.

In March, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio estimated that nine Americans remained in Venezuela’s custody.

Venezuela, for its part, has started to accept deportation flights from the US, although in the past it has refused to accept migrants removed from the US.

St Clair’s family has said that the military veteran was a language specialist who was seeking treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder in South America.

A United States judge has rebuked the administration of President Donald Trump, saying that reports of deportations to South Sudan appear to violate his previous court order.

On Tuesday in Boston, Massachusetts, US District Court Judge Brian Murphy held a virtual hearing to weigh an emergency motion on behalf of deported migrants reportedly on board a flight to South Sudan.

He asked lawyers for the Trump administration to identify where the migrants were. He also indicated that he could ask for the flight to be turned around.

“Based on what I have been told, this seems like it may be contempt,” Judge Murphy told Elianis Perez, a lawyer for the Trump Justice Department.

In a recent annual report, the US Department of State accused South Sudan of “significant human rights issues”, including torture and extrajudicial killings.

But the Trump administration has been looking abroad for destinations to send undocumented immigrants currently detained in the US, particularly those whose home countries will not accept them.

In Tuesday’s hearing, Judge Murphy said the flight to South Sudan appeared to violate a preliminary injunction he issued on April 18, which prohibited migrants from being deported to third-party countries that were not their own.

That injunction required the Trump administration to give the migrants an adequate opportunity to appeal their removal.

The migrants, Judge Murphy ruled, were simply seeking “an opportunity to explain why such a deportation will likely result in their persecution, torture, and/or death”.

He cited the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees the right to due process: in other words, a fair hearing in the US court system.

Earlier this month, on May 7, lawyers for the migrants had indicated that their clients were slated to be sent to Libya, another country with significant human rights concerns.

Judge Murphy, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, ruled that such a deportation would be in violation of his injunction.

In Tuesday’s emergency court filing, the lawyers for those migrants emphasised how close a call that incident was. The migrants in question were already on a bus, sitting on the tarmac of an airport, when they were ordered to be returned.

The emergency motion identifies the migrants only by their initials and countries of origin, Myanmar and Vietnam among them.

But it explains what allegedly happened to them over the last 24 hours and seeks immediate action from the court.

The lawyers allege that one migrant from Myanmar, called NM in the court filings, received a notice of removal on Monday. It identified the destination as South Africa. Within 10 minutes, the court filing said the email was recalled by its sender.

A couple of hours later, a new notice of removal was sent, this time naming South Sudan as the destination.

In both instances, NM refused to sign the document. Lawyers in the emergency petition indicate that NM has “limited English proficiency” and was not provided a translator to understand the English-language document.

While one of NM’s lawyers stated her intention to meet with him on Tuesday morning, by the time their appointment time came, she was informed he had already been removed from his detention facility, en route to South Sudan.

The emergency filing includes a copy of an email sent to the lawyers from the family members of those deported.

“I believe my husband [name redacted] and 10 other individuals that were sent to Port Isabel Detention Center in Los Fresnos, TX were deported to South Africa or Sudan,” the email begins.

“This is not right! I fear my husband and his group, which consist of people from Laos, Thailand, Pakistan, Korea, and Mexico are being sent to South Africa or Sudan against their will. Please help! They cannot be allowed to do this.”

President Yoweri Museveni’s government has frequently defended military trials, citing national security concerns.

Uganda’s parliament has passed a controversial bill authorising military tribunals for civilians, drawing condemnation from opposition figures and rights groups, who accuse the government of trying to silence opponents, which it denies.

The practice has long been used in Uganda, but was struck down by the country’s top court in January. The Supreme Court had ruled that the military tribunals lacked legal competence to try civilians and failed to meet fair trial standards.

Despite that ruling, lawmakers moved ahead Tuesday with the legislation, which permits civilians to be tried in military courts.

“Today, you proved you are fearless patriots! Uganda will remember your courage and commitment,” said General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, head of the military and son of President Yoweri Museveni, in a post on X.

Earlier this month, Kainerugaba said that he was holding a missing opposition activist in his basement and threatened violence against him, after the man’s party said he was abducted.

Museveni’s government has frequently defended military trials as necessary for national security amid concerns about armed opposition and alleged threats to state stability.

Military spokesperson Chris Magezi said the legislation would “deal decisively with armed violent criminals, deter the formation of militant political groups that seek to subvert democratic processes, and ensure national security is bound on a firm foundational base”.

But critics say the move is part of a broader pattern of repression. “There’s no legal basis to provide for the trial of civilians in the military court,” opposition MP Jonathan Odur told parliament during debate on the bill. He described the legislation as “shallow, unreasonable and unconstitutional”.

Uganda has for years used military courts to prosecute opposition politicians and government critics.

In 2018, pop star-turned-opposition-leader Bobi Wine was charged in a military court with illegal possession of firearms. The charges were later dropped.

Kizza Besigye, a veteran opposition figure who has challenged Museveni in multiple elections, was arrested in Kenya last year and returned to Uganda to face a military tribunal.

Following the Supreme Court’s January ruling, his trial was moved to a civilian court. His party, the People’s Front for Freedom (PFF), has denounced the charges as politically motivated.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) has previously criticised Uganda’s military courts for failing to meet international standards of judicial independence and fairness.

Oryem Nyeko, senior Africa researcher at HRW, said earlier this year: “The Ugandan authorities have for years misused military courts to crack down on opponents and critics”.

The UN says 100 aid trucks were approved Tuesday to enter Gaza Tuesday, far below the 600 needed daily. Despite Israel easing a 2.5-month blockade, aid remains stalled. Medicine sits unused in Jordan as Gaza faces worsening hunger and critical shortages.

Venezuela’s aviation authority said flights will resume a day after Sunday’s parliamentary elections.

Venezuela has suspended flights from neighbouring Colombia after authorities detained more than 30 people allegedly plotting activities to destabilise the country before Sunday’s parliamentary election.

Venezuelan Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello announced on state television on Monday that the flight ban was “immediate” and would last for a week.

The arrests were announced just as an independent panel of experts released a report documenting serious human rights abuses committed in Venezuela in the aftermath of the July 28, 2024 presidential election.

Cabello said the antigovernment plans involved placing explosives at embassies, hospitals and police stations in Venezuela. He said authorities had detained 21 Venezuelans and 17 foreigners, some of whom hold Colombian, Mexican and Ukrainian citizenship. Cabello said those detained arrived from Colombia, some by plane, others over land, but had set out originally from other – unnamed – countries.

Cabello, without offering any evidence, said the group included experts in explosive devices, human smugglers and mercenaries, and was working with members of Venezuela’s political opposition.

“The scenario they want to present is that there are no conditions in Venezuela for holding an election,” Cabello said, referring to the opposition.

Colombia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement it had not received any information from Venezuela’s government regarding the detention of Colombian citizens.

Colombia’s civil aviation authority confirmed that commercial flights between the countries had been suspended, while Venezuela’s aviation authority said the measure will last until Monday, May 26 at 6pm local time.

‘Political repression’

The government of President Nicolas Maduro, whose re-election in July 2024 to a third term was rejected by much of the international community as fraudulent, frequently claims to be the target of US and Colombian-backed coup plots.

In an interview over Zoom with the AFP news agency last week, opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, who went into hiding after last year’s presidential election, pledged a voter boycott on Sunday that would leave “all the [voting] centres empty”.

The opposition says its tally of results from the July vote showed a clear victory for its candidate, former diplomat Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia, who went into exile in Spain after a crackdown on dissent.

The independent panel of experts backed by the Organization of American States on Monday wrote in their report that Venezuela’s post-election period has seen “the most severe and sophisticated phase of political repression in Venezuela’s modern history”. This included the execution of unarmed protesters, enforced disappearances and an increase in arbitrary detentions. They also noted that the state had expanded its repression targets beyond political opponents and human rights defenders to include poll workers, election witnesses, relatives of opposition members, minors and others.

The diplomatic outcry that followed last year’s election saw Venezuela break off ties and flight routes with several countries. Some airlines have also cancelled operations to and from the country due to unpaid debts.

Venezuela and Colombia reopened flight routes in November 2022, after the election of Colombia’s first-ever leftist President Gustavo Petro, who reinstated bilateral ties broken off in 2019 when then-leader Ivan Duque refused to acknowledge Maduro’s re-election to a second term.

Ruth Eleonora López has defended Venezuelan immigrants deported to El Salvador by US President Trump’s administration.

A prominent human rights lawyer known for defending immigrants deported amid United States President Donald Trump’s hardline anti-immigration policies has been arrested in El Salvador.

Ruth Eleonora López, 47, a senior figure at the rights group Cristosal and a vocal critic of El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele, a Trump ally, was detained late on Sunday.

The arrest was confirmed by the country’s attorney general’s office, which in an online post accused López of embezzling state funds during her time at El Salvador’s electoral court more than a decade ago.

“Neither her family nor her legal team has managed to find out her whereabouts,” Cristosal said in a statement, calling the refusal to disclose her location or allow access to lawyers “a blatant violation of due process”.

The group said her arrest “raises serious concerns about the increasing risks faced by human rights defenders in El Salvador”.

López has publicly criticised the government’s mass incarceration of alleged gang members, many of whom have not been charged.

Cristosal, one of the most prominent human rights groups in Latin America, has assisted Salvadoran families caught in Bukele’s security policies, as well as more than 250 Venezuelan immigrants who have been deported to El Salvador under Trump’s administration.

Bukele, who has called himself “the world’s coolest dictator” and has cultivated close ties with Trump, said earlier this year that El Salvador is ready to house US prisoners in a sprawling mega-prison opened last year.

In March, Trump used rarely invoked wartime powers to send dozens of Venezuelans to El Salvador without trial, alleging ties to the Tren de Aragua gang – a charge their families and lawyers deny.

The US Supreme Court on Friday barred the Trump administration from quickly resuming swift deportations of Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

In April, Cristosal reported that police had entered its offices during a news conference to film and photograph journalists and staff members – part of what observers say is a broader campaign of harassment and intimidation against civil society organisations and independent media.

López was recognised by the BBC as one of the world’s 100 most inspiring and influential women for her commitment to justice and the rule of law.

A joint statement signed by more than a dozen rights organisations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, demanded her immediate release.

“El Salvador’s state of exception has not only been used to address gang-related violence but also as a tool to silence critical voices,” the statement said.

“Authoritarianism has increased in recent years as President Nayib Bukele has undermined institutions and the rule of law, and persecuted civil society organizations and independent journalists,” it added.

The Baltic nation is seeking damages, including compensation for border reinforcement costs.

Lithuania has initiated legal proceedings against Belarus at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), accusing its neighbour of orchestrating a refugee and migrant crisis by facilitating the smuggling of people across their border.

“The Belarusian regime must be held legally accountable for orchestrating the wave of illegal migration and the resulting human rights violations,” Lithuanian Justice Minister Rimantas Mockus said in a statement on Monday.

“We are taking this case to the International Court of Justice to send a clear message: no state can use vulnerable people as political pawns without facing consequences under international law.”

The case, submitted to the ICJ in The Hague, centres on alleged violations by Belarus of the United Nations Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air.

Lithuania’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said attempts to resolve the issue through bilateral talks failed and it has evidence showing direct involvement by the Belarusian state in organising refugee and migrant flows, including a surge in flights from the Middle East operated by Belarusian state-owned airlines.

After landing in Belarus, many of the passengers were escorted to the Lithuanian border by Belarusian security forces and forced to cross illegally, Lithuanian officials said.

Lithuania also accused Belarus of refusing to cooperate with its border services in preventing irregular crossings and said it is seeking compensation through the ICJ for alleged damages caused, including costs related to border reinforcement.

Tensions between the two countries have simmered since 2021 when thousands of people – mostly from the Middle East and Africa – began arriving at the borders of Lithuania, Poland and Latvia from Belarus.

Belarus had previously deported Middle Eastern refugees and migrants with more than 400 Iraqis repatriated to Baghdad on a charter flight from Minsk in November 2021.

That same year, a Human Rights Watch report accused Belarus of manufacturing the crisis, finding that “accounts of violence, inhuman and degrading treatment and coercion by Belarusian border guards were commonplace”.

European Union officials have also accused Minsk of “weaponising” migration in an effort to destabilise the bloc. The claims are strongly denied by Belarus.

In December, the EU approved emergency measures allowing member states bordering Belarus and Russia to temporarily suspend asylum rights in cases in which migration is being manipulated for political ends.

The United States Supreme Court has granted an emergency petition from a group of migrants in Texas, barring the use of an 18th-century wartime law to expedite their removals.

Friday’s unsigned decision (PDF) is yet another blow to the administration of President Donald Trump, who has sought to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to swiftly deport undocumented immigrants out of the US.

Only two conservative justices dissented: Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

While the high court has yet to rule on the merits of Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, it did issue “injunctive relief” to Venezuelan migrants faced with expulsion under the centuries-old law.

“We have long held that ‘no person shall be’ removed from the United States ‘without opportunity, at some time, to be heard’,” the court majority wrote in its ruling.

It reaffirmed a previous opinion that migrants in the US are entitled to due process – in other words, they are entitled to a fair hearing in the judicial system – before their deportation.

Friday’s case was brought by two unnamed migrants from Venezuela, identified only by initials. They are being held in a detention centre in north Texas as they face deportation.

The Trump administration has accused them, and others from Venezuela, of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang. It has further sought to paint undocumented migration into the US as an “invasion” and link Tren de Aragua’s activities in the US to the Venezuelan government, an assertion that a recently declassified intelligence memo disputes.

That, the Trump administration has argued, justifies its use of the Alien Enemies Act, which has only been used three times prior in US history – and only during periods of war.

But Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act has spurred a legal backlash, with several US district courts hearing petitions from migrants fearing expulsion under the law.

Multiple judges have barred the law’s use for expedited removals. But one judge in Pennsylvania ruled the Trump administration could deploy the law – provided it offer appropriate notice to those facing deportation. She suggested 21 days.

The Supreme Court on Friday did not weigh in on whether Trump’s use of the law was merited. Instead, its ruling – 24 pages in total, including a dissent – hewed closely to the issue of whether the Venezuelans in question deserved relief from their imminent deportation under the law.

The majority of the nine-justice bench noted that “evidence” it had seen in the case suggested “the Government had in fact taken steps on the afternoon of April 18” to invoke the Alien Enemies Act, even transporting the migrants “from their detention facility to an airport and later returning them”.

The justices asserted that they had a right to weigh in on the case, in order to prevent “irreparable harm” to the migrants and assert their jurisdiction in the case. Otherwise, they pointed out a deportation could put the migrants beyond their reach.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh went a step further in a separate opinion, calling on the Supreme Court to issue a final and binding ruling in the matter, rather than simply grant this one petition.

“The circumstances call for a prompt and final resolution, which likely can be provided only by this Court,” he said, agreeing with the majority’s decision.

Thomas and Alito, in their dissent, argued the Supreme Court had not afforded enough time to a lower court to rule on the emergency petition.

In the aftermath of the ruling, Trump lashed out on Truth Social, portraying the Supreme Court’s majority as overly lax towards migrants.

“THE SUPREME COURT WON’T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!” Trump wrote in the first of two consecutive posts.

In the second, he called Friday’s decision the mark of a “bad and dangerous day in America”. He complained that affirming the right to due process would result in “a long, protracted, and expensive Legal Process, one that will take, possibly, many years for each person”.

He also argued that the high court was preventing him from exercising his executive authority.

“The Supreme Court of the United States is not allowing me to do what I was elected to do,” he wrote, imagining a circumstance where extended deportation hearings would lead to “bedlam” in the US.

His administration has long accused the courts of interference in his agenda. But critics have warned that Trump’s actions – particularly, alleged efforts to ignore court orders – are eroding the US’s constitutional system of checks and balances.

In a statement after the ruling, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) praised the court’s decision as a bulwark against human rights abuses.

“The court’s decision to stay removals is a powerful rebuke to the government’s attempt to hurry people away to a Gulag-type prison in El Salvador,” said Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project.

“The use of a wartime authority during peacetime, without even affording due process, raises issues of profound importance.”

The Supreme Court currently boasts a conservative supermajority, with six right-leaning judges and three left-leaning ones.

Three among them were appointed by Trump himself. Those three sided with the majority.

ICC says Karim Khan will take a leave of absence pending the conclusion of UN-led investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct, which he denies.

The chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Karim Khan, has taken a leave of absence pending the conclusion of UN-led investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct against him.

Khan’s office said on Friday that he had informed colleagues he would step aside until the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) wraps up its probe. The OIOS has been conducting the external investigation since December, following complaints raised with the ICC’s oversight body.

Khan has denied the allegations, which were first reported in October last year. The court said that he would remain on leave until the inquiry concludes, though a timeline for its completion remains unclear. During his absence, the court’s two deputy prosecutors will assume his responsibilities.

Khan’s decision to step aside temporarily follows months of growing pressure from human rights groups and some court officials, who had urged him to withdraw while the investigation was ongoing.

“Stepping aside helps protect the court’s credibility and the trust of victims, staff, and the public. For the alleged victim and whistleblowers, this is also a moment of recognition and dignity,” said Danya Chaikel of human rights watchdog FIDH.

The court has not confirmed when the OIOS investigation will conclude, but the case comes at a time of rising global scrutiny of the ICC’s role and credibility.

High-profile investigations

The decision comes as the court is pursuing high-profile investigations, including into Russia’s assault on Ukraine and Israel’s war on Gaza.

Khan requested arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin for the alleged unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children, and for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes in Gaza.

The United States, a vocal critic of the court’s recent moves, imposed sanctions on Khan over his pursuit of Israeli officials. ICC leadership has since warned that such political attacks could endanger the institution’s survival.