

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

International Press Office
Phone : +44 (0) 20 7413 5566
24 hrs Phone : +44 (0) 7778 472 126
Fax : +44 (0) 20 7413 5835
Email : press@amnesty.org
Peter Benenson House
1 Easton Street
London
WC1X 0DW
UK
Ten years after the US-led invasion that toppled the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein, Iraq remains enmeshed in a grim cycle of human rights abuses, including attacks on civilians, torture of detainees and unfair trials, said Amnesty International in a new report out today.
A decade of abuses exposes a chronology of torture and other ill-treatment of detainees committed by Iraqi security forces and by foreign troops in the wake of the 2003 invasion.
Ten years after the US-led invasion that toppled the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein, Iraq remains enmeshed in a grim cycle of human rights abuses, including attacks on civilians, torture of detainees and unfair trials, said Amnesty International in a new report out today.
A decade of abuses exposes a chronology of torture and other ill-treatment of detainees committed by Iraqi security forces and by foreign troops in the wake of the 2003 invasion.
It highlights the Iraqi authorities' continuing failure to observe their obligations to uphold human rights and respect the rule of law in the face of persistent deadly attacks by armed groups, who show callous disregard for civilian life.
"Ten years after the end of Saddam Hussein's repressive rule, many Iraqis today enjoy greater freedoms than they did under his Ba'athist regime, but the fundamental human rights gains that should have been achieved during the past decade have signally failed to materialize," said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Middle East and North Africa Deputy Director at Amnesty International.
"Neither the Iraqi government nor the former occupying powers have adhered to the standards required of them under international law and the people of Iraq are still paying a heavy price for their failure."
Torture is rife and committed with impunity by government security forces, particularly against detainees suspected of offences under anti-terrorism legislation while they are held incommunicado for interrogation.
Detainees have alleged that they were tortured to force them to "confess" to serious crimes or to incriminate others while held in these conditions. Many have repudiated their confessions at trial only to see the courts admit them as evidence of their guilt, without investigating their torture allegations, sentencing them to long term imprisonment or death.
Adding to the injustice, the authorities have paraded detainees before press conferences or arranged for their "confessions" to be broadcast on local television in advance of their trials or trial verdicts in gross breach of the presumption of innocence and of the right of every accused to receive a fair trial.
The death penalty was suspended after the 2003 invasion but quickly restored by the first Iraqi government on coming to power, and executions resumed in 2005.
Since then, at least 447 prisoners have been executed, including Saddam Hussein, some of his main associates, and alleged members of armed groups.
Hundreds of prisoners await execution on death row. Iraq, where 129 prisoners were hanged in 2012, is now one of the world's leading executioners.
"Death sentences and executions are being used on a horrendous scale," said Hadj Sahraoui, "It is particularly abhorrent that many prisoners have been sentenced to death after unfair trials and on the basis of confessions they say they were forced to make under torture.
"It is high time that the Iraqi authorities end this appalling cycle of abuse and declare a moratorium on executions as a first step towards abolishing the death penalty for all crimes."
Since December, thousands of demonstrators have taken to the streets in areas where Sunni Muslims are in the majority, to protest against arbitrary detention, abuses of detainees, the use of the anti-terror law, and an end to what they see as government discrimination against the Sunni population.
Meanwhile, Sunni armed groups continue to attack not only government targets but Shi'a civilians, including religious pilgrims.
Although the Kurdistan Region in north-east Iraq has remained largely free of the violence that has engulfed the rest of the country, its two ruling Kurdish political parties maintain a tight grip on power and incidents of detainee abuses have also been reported.
The removal of Saddam Hussein in 2003 should have been followed by a process of fundamental human rights reform but almost from day one the occupying forces began committing torture and other serious violations against prisoners, as the Abu Ghraib scandal involving US forces and the beating to death of Baha Mousa in the custody of British soldiers in Basra graphically demonstrated," said Hadj Sahraoui.
In the UK and the USA, despite investigations into individual cases, there has been a failure to investigate systematically the widespread human rights violations committed by forces from those countries, and to hold those responsible to account at all levels. Iraqi victims of US human rights violations have found the route to remedy in the US courts blocked.
The Iraqi authorities have periodically acknowledged torture and other ill-treatment but they have generally sought to explain them away as isolated occurrences or, in a few high profile cases, have announced official inquiries whose outcomes, if any, subsequently were never revealed.
Yet, as Amnesty International's report shows, torture and other abuse of detainees has been one of the most persistent and widespread features of Iraq's human rights landscape, and the government shows little inclination either to recognize its extent or take the measures necessary to consign such grave abuses to the past.
Methods of torture reported by detainees include, electric shocks applied to the genitals and other parts of the body, partial suffocation by having a bag placed tightly over the head, beatings while suspended in contorted positions, deprivation of food, water and sleep, and threats of rape or that their female relatives will be detained and raped. Women detainees are particularly vulnerable and the report cites several cases in which women have alleged that they were sexually abused in detention.
"Iraq remains caught in a cycle of torture and impunity that should long ago have been broken," said Hadj Sahraoui. "It is high time that the Iraqi authorities take the concrete steps needed to entrench a culture of human rights protection, and do so without further prevarication or delay."
About this report:
Amnesty International's report is based on information gathered from multiple sources, including interviews with detainees, victims' families, refugees, lawyers, human rights activists and others, plus reviews of court papers and other official documents. Some of this was obtained through field research in the Kurdistan Region, as well as a visit to Baghdad last September when the organization met officials of the Ministry of Human Rights and the Supreme Judicial Council. Amnesty International sent its latest findings to the government in December 2012 but has yet to receive any response.
Amnesty International is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights for all. Our supporters are outraged by human rights abuses but inspired by hope for a better world - so we work to improve human rights through campaigning and international solidarity. We have more than 2.2 million members and subscribers in more than 150 countries and regions and we coordinate this support to act for justice on a wide range of issues.
“The Trump administration has chosen to prioritize maintaining rock-bottom taxes for big corporations to the detriment of ordinary Americans and our allies across the globe," said one critic.
The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development is facing criticism for buckling under US demands when finalizing an update to the global minimum corporate tax agreement.
As reported by Reuters on Monday, the OECD agreed to amend a 2021 deal to enforce a 15% global minimum corporate tax to include "simplifications and carve-outs to align US minimum tax laws with global standards, accommodating earlier objections raised by the Trump administration."
Under the original framework, OECD members agreed to apply a 15% corporate tax on multinational corporations that book profits in jurisdictions that have lower tax rates.
President Donald Trump objected to this, however, and insisted that some US corporations be given exemptions that have subsequently been granted by OECD states.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that the revised deal "represents a historic victory in preserving US sovereignty and protecting American workers and businesses from extraterritorial overreach," while noting that it allowed for US-headquartered firms to be subject only to US global minimum taxes.
Some critics, though, accused the OECD of letting the US get away with robbery.
Zorka Milin, policy director at the Financial Accountability and Corporate Transparency Coalition, warned that the deal "risks nearly a decade of global progress on corporate taxation" by allowing "the largest, most profitable American companies to keep parking profits in tax havens."
“The Trump administration has chosen to prioritize maintaining rock-bottom taxes for big corporations to the detriment of ordinary Americans and our allies across the globe," Milin added.
Alex Cobham, chief executive at Tax Justice Network, said other OECD members were only hurting themselves by caving to Trump's demands.
"By the Tax Justice Network’s assessment, France for example is already losing $14 billion a year to tax cheating US firms, Germany is losing $16 billion, and the UK is losing $9 billion," Cobham explained. "Today’s bending of the knee to Trump will cost countries billions more. But how much more? Tellingly, the OECD, which has delivered this shameful result, and OECD members have not put a number on the scale of tax losses that will result."
An analysis published last month by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) made the case that global minimum corporate taxes were needed to prevent US companies from sheltering vast profits by reporting them in nations that serve as offshore tax havens.
As an example, ITEP pointed to data showing that the profits US companies reported in notorious tax havens such as Barbados and the British Virgin Islands were more than 100% of those territories' gross domestic product, which the report noted "is obviously impossible."
ITEP went on to state that full implementation of this global minimum tax is "the best hope for blocking the types of tax avoidance that have weakened corporate income taxes all over the world" by making it "difficult for any single government (even one as powerful as the US) to ignore or weaken it."
"International law is not 'dead' just because the most powerful no longer respect it," one expert stressed. "To preserve the rules-based international order, all states need to call out breaches of the law when they occur."
Protests have erupted in the US and around the world following President Donald Trump's attack on Venezuela and abduction of President Nicolás Maduro, and international law experts on Monday joined in rebuking the deadly military operation, with several outlining exactly how Trump's actions were unlawful.
At Just Security, University of Reading professor of international law Michael Schmitt, New York University law professor Ryan Goodman, and NYU Reiss Center on Law and Security senior fellow Tess Bridgeman explained that the US military's bombing of Venezuela and kidnapping of Maduro differs legally from the dozens of boat strikes the US has carried out in the past four months.
The attacks in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific have killed more than 100 people and have also been violations of international law, according to numerous legal experts—but they "have occurred in international waters against stateless vessels," wrote Schmitt, Goodman, and Bridgeman.
In contrast, the operation in the early morning hours on Saturday took place within Venezuelan borders and "is clearly a violation of the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter," they wrote. "That prohibition is the bedrock rule of the international system that separates the rule of law from anarchy, safeguards small states from their more powerful neighbors, and protects civilians from the devastation of war."
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, to which both the US and Venezuela are parties, states:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
The scholars vehemently rejected the narrative the Trump administration has put forward for months about its escalation in the Caribbean and Venezuela: that the White House simply aims to protect Americans from drug trafficking, a claim that officials have repeated despite the fact that US and international law enforcement agencies have not identified the South American country as a significant player in the drug trade.
For Trump's assertions that drug cartels in Venezuela pose an imminent threat to Americans "to make any sense," wrote the authors, "the drug activity must be characterized as an 'armed attack' against the United States... Drug trafficking simply does not qualify as, and has never been considered, an 'armed attack.' In brief, the relationship between drug trafficking and the deaths that eventually result from drugs being purchased and used in the United States is far too attenuated to qualify as an armed attack."
"It is indisputable that drug trafficking is condemnable criminal activity, but it is not the type of activity that triggers the right of self-defense in international law," they continued, adding that any possible involvement by Maduro's government in the drug trade also does not rise "to the level of an armed attack against the United States."
Schmitt, Goodman, and Bridgeman wrote that "Operation Absolute Resolve," as the administration has termed the Saturday attack that killed more than 80 people, "amounts to an unlawful intervention into Venezuela’s internal affairs," and that while officials including Secretary of State Marco Rubio have claimed the kidnapping of Maduro was simply a law enforcement operation and not an act of war, the US does not have jurisdiction to carry out such an action in Venezuela without the government's consent.
"The United States has engaged in governmental activity in Venezuela—law enforcement—that is exclusively the domain of the Venezuelan government," wrote the authors. "Even though the United States does not recognize the Maduro government as legitimate, international law provides that the relevant officials to grant consent are those of the government that exercises 'effective control' over the territory; in this case, officials in the Maduro administration."
As a head of state, Maduro is also subject to protections from enforcement jurisdiction by another state, they wrote, under "customary international law."
"The United States has engaged in governmental activity in Venezuela—law enforcement—that is exclusively the domain of the Venezuelan government."
The authors wrote that, as Maduro said in a statement Monday, the president may be considered a prisoner of war and be "entitled to the extensive protections of the Third Geneva Convention," given his status as commander-in-chief of Venezuela's armed forces. His wife is also "entitled to a robust set of protections afforded to captured civilians" under the Fourth Geneva Convention, they wrote.
The explanation by Schmitt, Goodman, and Bridgeman bolstered remarks by other international law experts including Ben Saul, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism.
Saul on Saturday condemned Trump's "illegal aggression against Venezuela and the illegal abduction of its leader and his wife," and said the president "should be impeached and investigated for the alleged killings," of dozens of Venezuelans in the attack.
“Every Venezuelan life lost is a violation of the right to life," he said.
At the Conversation, Australian National University international law professor Sarah Heathcote emphasized that the UN Security Council, which held an emergency meeting Monday in response to the US strike, had not authorized the attack. Such an authorization, along with consent by Venezuela's government or a credible claim that the US was acting in self-defense, would have made the Trump administration's actions lawful.
Instead, she wrote, "the US intervention in Venezuela was as brazen and unlawful as its military strike on Iran in June last year."
"But international law is not 'dead' just because the most powerful no longer respect it," she said. "To preserve the rules-based international order, all states need to call out breaches of the law when they occur, including in the current instance."
At the Security Council meeting, UN Secretary-General António Guterres emphasized "the imperative of full respect, by all, for international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, which provides the foundation for the maintenance of international peace and security."
"Venezuela has experienced decades of internal instability and social and economic turmoil. Democracy has been undermined. Millions of its people have fled the country," he said. "In situations as confused and complex as the one we now face, it is important to stick to principles. Respect for the UN Charter and all other applicable legal frameworks to safeguard peace and security."
"International law contains tools to address issues such as illicit traffic in narcotics, disputes about resources, and human rights concerns," he added. "This is the route we need to take."
"I am not guilty. I am a decent man. I remain the president of my country."
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro called himself a "prisoner of war" while pleading not guilty to narco-terrorism charges in a US court in New York City on Monday, after the Trump administration abducted him and his wife in an overnight raid that killed dozens of people.
"I am the president of Venezuela, and I consider myself a prisoner of war. They captured me in my house in Caracas," Maduro said in Spanish at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan US Courthouse. "I am not guilty. I am a decent man. I remain the president of my country."
After being seized by US forces before dawn on Saturday, Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were moved to a Brooklyn jail, over the objections of New York City's recently inaugurated mayor, Zohran Mamdani, who called President Donald Trump after the military operation.
The Associated Press reported on the couple's transfer to the Manhattan courthouse early Monday:
A motorcade carrying Maduro left jail around 7:15 am and made its way to a nearby athletic field, where Maduro slowly made his way to a waiting helicopter. The chopper flew across New York Harbor and landed at a Manhattan heliport, where Maduro, limping, was loaded into an armored vehicle.
A few minutes later, the law enforcement caravan was inside a garage at the courthouse complex, just around the corner from the one where Donald Trump was convicted in 2024 of falsifying business records. Across the street from the courthouse, the police separated a small but growing group of protesters from about a dozen pro-intervention demonstrators, including one man who pulled a Venezuelan flag away from those protesting the US action.
The 25-page US indictment released Saturday claims that Maduro, who previously served in Venezuela's National Assembly and as the South American country's minister of foreign affairs, "has partnered with his co-conspirators to use his illegally obtained authority and the institutions he corroded to transport thousands of tons of cocaine to the United States."
Maduro "now sits atop a corrupt, illegitimate government that, for decades, has leveraged government power to protect and promote illegal activity, including drug trafficking," the document continues. "That drug trafficking has enriched and entrenched Venezuela's political and military elite."
Like her husband, Flores pleaded "not guilty, completely innocent," during the Monday arraignment. According to CNN, reporters observed bandages on Flores' head and her attorney, Mark Donnelly, told the presiding judge that she sustained "significant injuries during her abduction," including possibly bruised or fractured ribs.
The presiding judge is Alvin Hellerstein, a 92-year-old appointed to the Southern District of New York by former President Bill Clinton. Al Jazeera noted that he "has overseen numerous high-profile cases in his career, including relating to the 9/11 attacks and the Sudanese genocide."
"It's my job to assure this is a fair trial," said Hellerstein, who scheduled the next hearing for March 17.
The weekend abduction has sparked global protests, comparisons to the US invasion of Iraq, demands for Trump's impeachment, concerns about the involvement of American oil companies, and fears of the White House's threats of more military action elsewhere.