By Bill Frelick, Martina Rapido Ragozzino, and Michael Garcia Bochenek

Between February 12 and 15, 2025, the US government expelled 299 third-country nationals to Panama after they crossed the US-Mexico border, most of whom were seeking asylum, following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on January 20, 2025. Many of these people had fled persecution due to ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, family ties, and political views. “Nobody Cared, Nobody Listened”: The US Expulsion of Third-Country Nationals to Panama documents this abusive mass expulsion, exposing the harsh detention conditions and mistreatment in the United States, beyond being denied due process and the right to seek asylum there. It also details their incommunicado detention in Panama, where authorities confiscated their phones, blocked visitors, and isolated them from the outside world. Of the 299 expelled, 179 were later returned to their home countries under the International Organization for Migration’s “assisted voluntary return” program—though the conditions of their confinement and the limited options they were given raise serious doubts about the voluntariness of those returns. The United States should allow those wrongfully removed to return and seek asylum in accordance with its international legal obligations. It should stop violating the principle of nonrefoulement by processing asylum claims of those arriving at the US border, rather than outsourcing responsibility to countries with far less capacity to examine asylum claims or to provide protection to those needing it. Panama should ensure that those it agreed to take can fairly access asylum and avoid complicity in US abuses

New York: Human Rights Watch, 2025. 45p.

By Taylor Koehler

Throughout the last decade, international human rights experts and monitoring bodies have expressed deep concern over States’ increased use of immigration detention. A primary reason for this concern is that States regularly impose immigration detention arbitrarily, and in so doing, render detained persons more vulnerable to violations of the prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. As U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer explained in his 2018 report to the U.N. Security Council on migration-related torture and ill-treatment: “While not every case of arbitrary detention will automatically amount to torture or ill-treatment, there is an undeniable link between both prohibitions … experience shows that any form of arbitrary detention exposes migrants to increased risks of torture and ill-treatment.” While considerable analysis of components of the immigration detention system in the U.S. under international law, particularly the prohibition on torture and other ill treatment, have been completed, there have been few attempts to bring all these different analyses together to look at the U.S. immigration system as a complete whole. This backgrounder, and the more in-depth legal analysis on which it is based (linked above), attempt to fill this gap. The report analyzes the U.N. Convention against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and Punishment (Convention against Torture) and other international and regional legal authorities. It draws on CVT’s decades-long clinical experience providing care to survivors of torture, including formerly detained asylum seekers, and highlights reports of wide-ranging abuses at immigration detention centers such as Stewart and Irwin County Detention Centers, located in Georgia where CVT has operated a survivor of torture program for the past five years. The report ultimately concludes both that the system is arbitrary and that U.S. immigration detention systematically exposes detained migrants to violations of the prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. Indeed, it finds that the current system’s defects are structural and pervasive to a degree that the system must be phased out entirely to bring the United States into compliance with its international legal obligations.

Center for Victims of Torture, 2021. 21p

By European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex)

The following scenarios are based mainly on Serious Incidents Reports received by the Frontex' Fundamental Rights Office, concerning violations that allegedly took place at border areas where the Agency is operating. All cases refer to situations where third country nationals are under the jurisdiction of the authorities of the host state participating in a joint activity. In 2022-23, the Fundamental Rights Office launched approximately 100 Serious Incident Reports related to fundamental rights, matching the scenarios outlined below. This indicates that they represent potential violations of a widespread nature. Outlined scenarios, regardless of the direct or indirect involvement of Frontex staff and/or assets, may negatively impact the Agency and have potential legal implications, including for the broader European Border and Coast Guard community and respective national authorities. Active involvement by participants in joint activities in practices presented below, such as collective expulsions, amounts to a violation of EU and international law as well as a breach of the Frontex Code of Conduct. To ensure Frontex' full compliance with fundamental rights, it is necessary that the Agency makes clear to all operational participants that practices and policies as the ones described below are in violation of EU and international law and may result in Frontex' disengagement, triggering of Article 46 of the European Border and Coast Guard Regulation, or other forms of administrative, financial and operational consequences. Frontex' Fundamental Rights Office recognises that similar cases often form part of broader systemic issues, identified through its monitoring. The Office is mandated to provide recommendations to the Agency, relevant also for national authorities. The following scenarios are complementary to these efforts and aim to provide basic guidance for officers deployed at the borders as well as other staff tasked with related duties. Seven different scenarios of fundamental rights violations are briefly presented. While presented scenarios have been developed on the basis of most frequently alleged violations, it is important to note that this is a non-exhaustive list. While this document includes basic references to violated rights, it is not intended to be a legal analysis. Outside of the official border crossing point. based on real-life Serious Incident Reports (SIR) Category 1, and includes a list of potentially violated rights. The last section of the document outlines "dos" and "don'ts" for border guards in case of witnessing or learning about similar cases in the performance of their duties.

Warsaw • Poland : European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), 2024 . 16p

By Iryna Bogdanova

Are unilateral economic sanctions legal under public international law? How do they relate to the existing international legal principles and norms? Can unilateral economic sanctions imposed to redress grave human rights violations be subjected to the same legal contestations as other unilateral sanctions? What potential contribution can the recently formulated doctrine of Common Concern of Humankind make by introducing substantive and procedural prerequisites to legitimize unilateral human rights sanctions? Unilateral Sanctions in International Law and the Enforcement of Human Rights by Iryna Bogdanova addresses these complex questions while taking account of the burgeoning state practice of employing unilateral economic sanctions.

Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2022. 378p.

Edited by Herbert R. Reginbogin, ‎Christoph Safferling

60 years after the trials of the main German war criminals, the articles in this book attempt to assess the Nuremberg Trials from a historical and legal point of view, and to illustrate connections, contradictions and consequences. In view of constantly recurring reports of mass crimes from all over the world, we have only reached the halfway point in the quest for an effective system of international criminal justice. With the legacy of Nuremberg in mind, this volume is a contribution to the search for answers to questions of how the law can be applied effectively and those committing crimes against humanity be brought to justice for their actions.

Berlin: De Gruyter Saur, 2006. 320p.

Edited by Jeffrey S. Bachman.

This book explores concepts of Cultural genocide, its definitions,　place in international law, the systems and methods that contribute to its manifestations, and its occurrences. Through a systematic approach and comprehensive analysis, international and interdisciplinary contributors from the fields of genocide studies, legal studies, criminology, sociology, archaeology, human rights, colonial studies, and anthropology examine the legal, structural, and political issues associated with cultural genocide. This includes a series of geographically representative case studies from the USA, Brazil, Australia, West Papua, Iraq, Palestine, Iran, and Canada. This volume is unique in its interdisciplinarity, regional coverage, and the various methods of cultural genocide represented, and will be of interest to scholars of genocide studies, cultural studies and human rights, international law, international relations, indigenous studies, anthropology, and history.

London; New York: Routledge, 2019. 303p.