

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.
Kate Fried, Kate.fried@earthrights.org, (202) 257.0057, EarthRights International
On October 21, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights sent case number 11.754 U'wa Indigenous People vs.
On October 21, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights sent case number 11.754 U'wa Indigenous People vs. Colombia to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights after finding the State of Colombia responsible for violating the U'wa's rights to collective property, culture, freedom of thought and expression, participation in government, fair trial, and judicial protection as enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights. EarthRights International applauds this development.
This landmark victory comes after centuries of resistance and territorial defense. For more than 25 years, the U'Wa Nation has fought for justice in national courts and the Inter-American system, seeking truth, justice, and full reparation for the systematic violations of their rights caused by militarization, the imposition of extractive projects, and the lack of recognition of their ancestral territory, kera shikara.
"For the U'wa Nation, led by AsoU'wa and the traditional authorities, this has been a process of millennial struggle and resistance," said U'Wa leader Daris Cristancho. "We have lost many leaders who worked tirelessly during this struggle. They endured pain and sadness but never got to see progress. We remember, among others, Lluviana Cobaria, Busico Tegria, and Abuela Vana, who demanded the recognition of our rights, our culture, and our ancestral territory. We have been stigmatized for asserting our rights through protest and demanding the return of our ancestral and millennial territory. But the U'wa prefer to die with dignity protecting our customs, our cosmovision, and our ability to leave a legacy for our future generations, so that they continue maintaining the sense of life, of harmony, and of balance between mother earth and all that exists in her, safeguarding all the species of the Blue Planet. This purpose is something that we carry in our hearts, not only for and on behalf of the U'wa Nation but also for all of the world's Indigenous communities and all people (who we call our younger siblings). Because of this, this struggle should be a struggle of all humanity."
The U'wa Nation is an Indigenous community that has lived for generations in what is now known as the departments of Santander, North Santander, Boyaca, Casanare, and Arauca in Colombia. As a consequence of the internal armed conflict and the effects of extractive industries in their territory, the U'wa Nation was recognized by the Colombian Constitutional Court in 2009's Decision 004 as an Indigenous group at risk of physical or cultural extermination.
Armando Tegria, president of the Association of Traditional Authorities and Cabildos U'wa (AsoU'wa), referred to this important step by highlighting that despite the "many years of struggle by the U'wa Nation, the national government continues infringing upon our rights. This includes our historical, cultural, territorial, human, and collective rights, breaking the agreements signed between the U'wa Nation and the Colombian state. We reiterate that now the case of the U'wa Nation will be reviewed, studied, and judged by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, for the violation of our rights."
That this case is going to the Inter-American Court also represents an opportunity for the Colombian State to be held responsible at an international level for not complying with its obligations regarding free, prior, and informed consultation and consent by Indigenous people, and for the systematic violation of the rights of ethnic groups and communities in Colombia to ancestral territory and their own culture and identity.
In this sense, the Counsel of Territory, Natural Resources, and Biodiversity of the National Indigenous Organization of Colombia stressed "the importance of the Indigenous movement in Colombia, which asserts the rights of the country's ancestral people, who have now achieved this important milestone in the international litigation. This victory will highlight the historic struggle carried out by the U'wa--with dignity and courage. The decision by the Inter-American Commission on October 21 reinforces our commitment to supporting the U'wa Nation in their struggle to consolidate their territory and to live following their own traditional cosmovision and Law of Origin."
The U'wa Nation, the Association of Traditional Authorities and Cabildos U'wa (AsoU'wa), the National Indigenous Organization of Colombia (ONIC), the Jose Alvear Restrepo Lawyers Collective (CAJAR), and EarthRights International, as petitioners in this case, reiterate their commitment to the defense and recognition of the territorial rights of the Indigenous peoples of Colombia. The groups hope that the decision of the Inter-American Court will achieve truth, justice, and full reparation in this case and that it contributes to clear standards that enable the effective guarantee of the rights of the Indigenous peoples, who have been waiting for centuries.
The Inter-American system is part of the Organization of American States. It is composed of the Inter-American Commission, a body that promotes the defense of human rights through the analysis of individual petitions for violations of human rights by States in the Americas; and the Inter-American Court, a judicial body that determines the international responsibility of the States of the Americas for human rights violations.
EarthRights International (ERI) is a nongovernmental, nonprofit organization that combines the power of law and the power of people in defense of human rights and the environment, which we define as "earth rights." We specialize in fact-finding, legal actions against perpetrators of earth rights abuses, training grassroots and community leaders, and advocacy campaigns. Through these strategies, EarthRights International seeks to end earth rights abuses, to provide real solutions for real people, and to promote and protect human rights and the environment in the communities where we work.
The State Department said the women were related to the assassinated Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani, but Iranian media said they had no connection to him.
With a majority of Americans including President Donald Trump's own base demanding a swift end to the war in Iran—and Iran's military capabilities proving difficult to overpower—observers suggested on Saturday that the White House was looking elsewhere to score "victories," as Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that federal agents had arrested relatives of the late Major General Qasem Soleimani, the Iranian military commander who the US assassinated in 2020 during President Donald Trump's first term.
Rubio accused Soleimani's niece, Hamideh Soleimani Afshar, of promoting "regime propaganda" and voicing support for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and said she had been living a "lavish lifestyle" in the US. Afshar's husband has been barred from entering the US and the lawful permanent resident status she and her daughter had has been terminated, said the State Department.
"Are we losing so badly we need to arrest the distant relatives of long-since-dead Iranian commanders?" asked Ryan Grim of Drop Site News.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick of the American Immigration Council noted that the administration had used the same legal authority to arrest Soleimani's reported family members as it did to detain former Columbia University student organizer Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts University scholar Rümeysa Öztürk for speaking out against US support for Israel—a tactic which is being challenged in court as unconstitutional.
Far-right conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer, who has wielded influence in the White House during the second Trump administration, claimed credit for the arrest of the two women, saying that in communications with the State Department, she had "exposed the fact that Qasem Soleimani’s Niece Hamideh Soleimani Afshar has been living in the United States (Los Angeles, California) where she posts pro-Iranian regime and pro-IRGC content on her social media while she lives a life of luxury."
"She has been arrested and will be deported back to Iran!" she added. "Over the last few months, I have quietly been documenting all of Hamideh Soleimani Afshar’s social media activity. I uploaded it all to a secure file and shared it with [the Department of Homeland Security] and Department of State, and now she has been arrested and she will be deported from our country."
In Iran on Saturday, media outlets were reporting that the two women arrested by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement were not related to Soleimani—who had no nieces, according to journalist Kourosh Ziabari.
Soleimani's daughter told the news outlet Jamaran that "none" of her extended family has ever lived in the US.
Regardless of the women's relation to Soleimani or lack thereof, journalist Ryan Grim said the arbitrary arrest "actively puts innocent Americans around the world at risk."
Rubio's explanation for the detention and his move to revoke the women's green cards is the latest evidence that "the US is now deporting people for thought crimes," said historian Zachary Foster.
Journalist Sana Saeed said the case shows that constitutional protections for due process and free speech, which are supposed to apply to green card holders, "no longer mean anything."
"People cannot lose their green card status simply because of familial relationships, so the justification shifts here to their alleged support for the Iranian government," said Saeed. "But supporting a foreign government is not a criminal offense. And if you begin to treat it as one—as the US government effectively is in this case—then expect a lot more of this."
"It will not stop here, and it will not remain limited to Iranians," she said. "The logic does not contain itself, it expands."
The president demanded once again that Iran open the Strait of Hormuz and said that "all Hell will reign down" on the country if officials don't "make a deal."
As the US military's frantic search continued Saturday for an airman who was aboard an F-15E fighter jet when it was downed by Iranian forces a day earlier, and analysts and Iranian media alike suggested the Trump administration has lost control of its war against Iran, President Donald Trump issued his latest threat against the country—once again appearing to threaten tens of millions of Iranians with war crimes.
Renewing his demand that Iran "MAKE A DEAL or OPEN UP THE HORMUZ STRAIT," the president said he was giving the Iranian government "48 hours before all Hell will reign down on them," appearing to confuse the word "reign" with "rain."
"Time is running out," said Trump in a post on his social media platform, Truth Social.
In his post, Trump did not directly address the ongoing search for the airman, who was one of two who ejected from the fighter jet when Iran reportedly used new air defense systems to shoot down the plane. One crew member was found and rescued on Friday.
Iranian officials were also looking for the missing airman on Saturday, raising concerns that the service member could be taken as a hostage and used as leverage.
The president has said little about the ongoing search, but spoke briefly to The Independent in a phone call Saturday about the possibility that Iran could find the service member first.
"We hope that’s not going to happen,” he said.
Trump's comments on social media, meanwhile, appeared to signal "a countdown to massive war crimes," said New York University law professor Ryan Goodman.
The president has also previously warned Iran with an ultimatum, only to delay the threatened action. He said on March 22 that the US would "hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!" if officials did not reopen the strait—prompting critics to condemn him as a "maniacal tyrant."
The March 22 threat was likely a reference to Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, the vicinity of which was struck by a projectile on Saturday, prompting condemnation from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Human rights experts have repeated warnings in recent weeks that striking power plants would constitute war crimes.
At least five people were killed and 170 were injured in airstrikes on a petrochemical hub in Iran's Khuzestan province on Saturday morning, in addition to the Bushehr attack.
After his initial threat, Trump later said direct strikes on energy infrastructure would not be launched until April 6, and demanded that Iran open the key waterway before then.
Despite Trump's increasingly belligerent threats of "hell" and destruction of civilian infrastructure, a number of media critics noted on Saturday that mainstream Western news outlets including The New York Times, The Economist, and Bloomberg described Iran's use of air defense systems to shoot down US war planes involved in the invasion as an "escalation from Iran's leadership."
"Does Iran have a right to defend itself? Does Palestine? Does Lebanon?" asked commentator Hasan Piker, noting that the US and Israel have claimed they launched the invasion of Iran to "defend" themselves against an imminent attack, contrary to US intelligence analysis. "Or is it just Israel and America who get to claim self-defense as they engage in wars of conquest?"
The International Atomic Energy Agency warned of "the paramount importance of adhering to the seven pillars for ensuring nuclear safety and security during a conflict."
The director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency on Saturday demanded "maximum military restraint" from the US and Israel as it confirmed reports that strikes had targeted a location close to Iran's Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, killing at least one person.
In a statement released via social media, the IAEA relayed a message from Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi, who expressed "deep concern about the reported incident."
Grossi warned that nuclear power plants or nearby areas "must never be attacked, noting that auxiliary site buildings may contain vital safety equipment" and stressed "the paramount importance of adhering to the seven pillars for ensuring nuclear safety and security during a conflict."
The IAEA said the attack near the Bushehr plant, Iran's only operational nuclear power facility, was the fourth such attack since Israel and the US began its invasion of Iran on February 28. The plant lies in a city inhabited by about 250,000 people.
A security staff member was killed by a projectile fragment and a building on the Bushehr site was impacted by shockwaves and fragments. Grossi said that no increase in radiation levels was reported.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi also condemned the Bushehr strike and issued a reminder of the "Western outrage about hostilities near Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine" when Russia attacked the site.
"Israel-US have bombed our Bushehr plant four times now. Radioactive fallout will end life in [Gulf Cooperation Council] capitals, not Tehran. Attacks on our petrochemicals also convey real objectives," said Araghchi.
Al Jazeera reported that at least two petrochemical facilities had been hit by the US and Israel in southern Iran’s Khuzestan province, an energy hub in the country. At least five people were injured in those attacks,
Iranian news agency Mehr reported that the state-run Bandar Imam petrochemical complex, which produces liquefied petroleum gas and chemicals as well as other products, sustained damage.
President Donald Trump said late last month that he would delay any attacks on Iran's energy infrastructure until April 6 and said the delay was "subject to the success of the ongoing meetings and discussions.”
He has threatened to destroy Iran's power plants and other civilian infrastructure if Iranian leaders don't end the blockade on the oil export waterway the Strait of Hormuz, which they began in retaliation for the US-Israeli strikes that started more than a month ago and which has fueled skyrocketing global energy prices.
The threat amounted to Trump warning that he could soon commit a war crime, said international law experts.