The Weekly Round-up: UN institutions react to Gaza conflict, High Court seeks assurances regarding Assange

1 April 2024 by Emilia Cieslak

In international news

This week multiple UN institutions responded to the deteriorating humanitarian conditions in Gaza. The UN Security Council passed a resolution, with the USA abstaining, demanding “an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan…leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire” and the release of all Israeli hostages taken by Hamas during the 07 October attack. The UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian Territory has released a report critical of Israel’s military operation in Gaza, which argues that “there are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating Israel’s commission of genocide is met”.

Meanwhile, South Africa’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) continues. The ICJ has imposed further provisional measures in response to the “famine setting in”. The ICJ’s order requires Israel to cooperate with the UN to ensure “the unhindered provision at scale” of humanitarian assistance including food, water, medical supplies etc. Micheál Martin TD, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Defence for the Republic of Ireland, has announced that Ireland will intervene in South Africa’s case at the ICJ.

This week the US Supreme Court heard what may be the most significant case regarding reproductive rights since Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organisation, which overturned Roe v Wade. The case is about whether the abortion medication Mifepristone was correctly approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It was brought by several individual doctors and doctors’ groups opposed to abortion. The arguments this week focused on whether these individuals and groups had standing to sue, i.e. that they have a close enough connection to the issue to bring the case. 

In UK news

The government has responded to the part one report of the Angiolini Inquiry. The inquiry was established in response to the murder of Sarah Everard by an off-duty police officer. Its terms of reference are: to investigate the career and conduct of the killer, to identify any missed opportunities, and to make recommendations. The part one report made a range of recommendations regarding the policing and criminal justice response to “masturbatory indecent exposure”, as well as regarding recruitment and vetting in the police force. The government has accepted the following recommendations:

• To conduct a fundamental review of the way masturbatory incident exposure is treated within the criminal justice system;
• To commission research to establish if there is an evidence-based link between masturbatory indecent exposure and subsequent contact offending; and
• To launch a public campaign to raise awareness that indecent exposure and sending unsolicited photographs of genitals amounts to criminality and boost victims’ confidence to report such crimes. 

In the courts

Julian Assange’s application for leave to appeal his extradition to the USA will be granted, subject to assurances by the US government. The High Court held that if extradited Mr Assange might be prejudiced at his trial by reason of his nationality and as a consequence of this the extradition is incompatible with article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of expression). This is because he may not be able to avail himself of the protections provided by the First Amendment of the US Constitution which are provided to US citizens. The High Court also held that there is an arguable case that the extradition is barred due to inadequate death penalty protection. The High Court has provided the US government until 16 April 2024 to provide assurances that Mr Assange will be afforded the same First Amendment protections as a US citizen and that the death penalty will not be imposed. If the assurances are not provided, Mr Assange’s application for leave to appeal will be granted. If the assurances are provided, the High Court will allow the parties to make final representations before deciding whether to grant leave to appeal.