The Weekly Round Up: Germany to spurn ICC, human rights abuses in DRC, Strasbourg finds against Cyprus, and Articles 8 and 10 in the UK courts
3 March 2025
In the news
Friedrich Merz, the presumed incoming chancellor of Germany, has declared that he will invite Benjamin Netanyahu to the country, despite the arrest warrant issued for the latter by the International Criminal Court (ICC). Merz, whose Christian Democratic Union won the largest share of votes in Germany’s general election on 23 February, announced shortly after his victory that he had already spoken with the Israeli Prime Minister, and pledged to find “ways and means” of arranging his visit to the state. The ICC issued its warrant in November last year, after its Pre-Trial Chamber found “reasonable grounds to believe” that Netanyahu and his then defence minister Yoav Gallant “bear criminal responsibility for… the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare, and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.” As a signatory of the Rome Statute, Germany is obliged under domestic and international law to detain ICC suspects facing arrest warrants should they enter its territory. A spokesperson for Netanyahu praised Germany’s “overt defiance of the scandalous International Criminal Court decision”.
The UN Human Rights Office has publicised further details of the rapidly deteriorating human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Speaking in Geneva on 24 February, DRC Prime Minister Judith Suminwa Tuluka claimed that around 7,000 people had died since the renewal of the country’s internal conflict at the beginning of the year, with 3,000 killed in the eastern city of Goma alone. Around half a million people are understood to be without shelter after the destruction of almost 100 displacement camps, while over 40,000 refugees have entered neighbouring Burundi over the past month. The conflict centres around the 8,000-strong rebel militia M23, who are seeking to advance to the DRC capital of Kinshasa and seize power. The UN Human Rights Council last month adopted a resolution to establish a fact-finding mission into the ongoing conflict, “to investigate… the alleged violations and abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law, including those affecting women and children, and which include sexual or gender-based violence committed against internally displaced persons or refugees, and of potential international crimes.” The Council has condemned Rwanda’s support for the rebels.
In the courts
The European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg has held Cyprus to have been in violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention (ECHR) for its handling of a rape complaint by a British national in 2019. X v Cyprus (application no. 40733/22) concerned a resident of Derbyshire who, then aged nineteen, had reported a gang-rape in Ayia Napa to the Cypriot police. Following ten days of intensive questioning – without access to a lawyer, psychologist, or welfare officer – the claimant retracted her statement, only to be prosecuted for public mischief, for which she was found guilty at first instance (she was later acquitted on appeal by Cyprus’ Supreme Court). In its judgment handed down on 27 February, the Strasbourg court held unanimously that the authorities’ treatment of the claimant “fell short of the State’s positive obligation to apply the relevant criminal provisions in practice through effective investigation and prosecution”, thus violating ECHR Articles 3 (prohibition of degrading treatment or punishment) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life). The court has ordered Cyprus to pay the applicant €25,000 in damages and costs. Its judgment did not address the alleged rape itself, which remains unprosecuted.
In the UK, the Upper Tribunal has overturned a decision by the Home Office to deport an NHS doctor it accused of having “supported an act of terrorism” on social media. In R (on the application of Elwan) v Secretary of State for Home Department, the Tribunal undertook judicial review of the Home Secretary’s decision in November 2023 to refuse an application for indefinite leave to remain, and cancel the existing leave to remain, of Dr Menatalla Elwan, an Egyptian national working in Liverpool. Dr Elwan had published three anti-Israeli posts on her Twitter/X account within hours of the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023. While the Home Secretary “was rationally entitled to reach the conclusion that the posts were likely to cause community tensions within the UK and foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence” and were “capable of crossing the line into conduct which was not conducive to the public good”, the Tribunal considered the Home Office’s exercise of powers disproportionate, taking into account Dr Elwan’s ECHR rights under Articles 8 (respect for private and family life – she had lived outside Egypt for nine years) and 10 (freedom of expression). Judge Stephen Davies held that Dr Elwan’s claim for judicial review of her refused application for indefinite leave to remain failed, but the review of the cancellation of her temporary leave to remain was successful. The latter decision was quashed, with the Home Secretary instructed to consider Dr Elwan’s case afresh.
An appeal to Article 8 rights has meanwhile failed in the case of S v F and M [2025] EWHC 439 (Fam). In its judgment handed down on 27 February, the High Court dismissed the application of S – a fourteen-year-old UK national whose parents had sent him to a boarding school in Ghana against his will – to be returned to the jurisdiction of England and Wales. Mr Justice Hayden held that, while “the Family Court, in its domestic case law, has long emphasised the obligation to comply with both Article 12 [of the United Nations Convention of Rights of the Child: “the views of the child [must be] given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child”] and Article 8 [ECHR]”, the views of the parents, that S was at high risk of gang “grooming” in London, were of persuasive force. “The decision falls within what I regard as the generous ambit of parental decision making, in which the State has no dominion… I share their view of where their son’s best interests lie.”
