By Alfred de Zayas* – Article sent to Other News by the author
Antigone is a timeless Greek tragedy by Sophocles (497-406 BC), a drama of abuse of power and moral pushback. Antigone, daughter of Oedipus, defies the arbitrary decrees of King Creon and asserts the superiority of divine law over royal caprices. Creon doubles down on his authority. Sentenced to death, Antigone commits suicide. Creon’s son Haemon, who had been engaged to Antigone, kills himself, then Haemon’s heartbroken mother kills herself. The message of the drama is that resistance against injustice is noble. Escalating force ultimately brings tragedy to everybody. Stubbornness and intransigence prove counterproductive.
While Antigone appealed to the unwritten laws of humanity and was crushed by Creon’s brutality, in today’s world there are written treaties and laws such as the UN Charter, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the Geneva Red Cross Conventions, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention against Torture, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU), the American Convention on Human Rights, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, etc. These laws reflect millennia of civilisational evolution, an expression of our cultural heritage.
The Antigone moment means that today’s growing authoritarianism in the EU and US demand pushback from us. We cannot remain indifferent. The authorities responsible for our safety are actually trying to dismantle existing international law and human rights regime. Autocrats and bureaucrats today are at war with the UN Charter, unleash aggressive wars, commit gross violations of human rights treaties, the Geneva Conventions, perpetrate genocide.
Meanwhile the Council of the European Union censors the media, persecutes journalists and researchers, including Swiss intelligence officer Jacques Baud and German newsman Hüseyin Dogru. US President Donald Trump sanctions the judges of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and imposes draconian sanctions on the UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine, Professor Francesca Albanese. More than a mere Antigone moment, this situation raises Juvenal’s fundamental question quis custodiet Ipsos custodes? (6th Satire, verses 347-48). Who will guard over the guardians? What can we do when the institutions created to defend our rights betray us? Only we can be the guardians. EU and US authoritarians have betrayed our trust.
Sanctions by the Council of the European Union
On 1 March 2022 the Council of the European Union adopted two non-legislative acts: Council Regulation (EU) 2022/350 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 and Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/351 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine. It effectively banned Russian news services1 including RT, Sputnik and Tass2, thus depriving EU citizens the opportunity to inform themselves and formulate their own opinions.
Notwithstanding the frivolous justifications formulated by EU lawyers, both the regulation and the decision are deeply undemocratic and demonstrably incompatible with EU law. They infringe not only the rights of the media, but also the right to information of all citizens in Europe who want to know how the Russian authorities perceive their relationship with its European neighbours, how Russian society views the options, what kind of modus vivendi they envisage to advance sustainable peace in the continent. Common sense tells that whoever wants to live in harmony with his neighbours should endeavour to know with whom he is dealing. Information and a plurality of narratives are key.
After banning Russian media outlets, the EU expanded the scope of its sanctions to target independent journalists within the EU, dissenters who do not toe the official EU line and are therefore accused of “disinformation” or “information manipulation” – concepts which remain imprecise. Journalists do not know what they can report and what could be interpreted by EU bureaucrats as “disinformation” rather than the legitimate expression of different perspectives or the necessary contextualization of events. The world has seen this kind of manipulation of public opinion before. The Nazi government did this: proclaim official truths, censure inconvenient facts, demonize dissenters as traitors, blame the victims. The EU today invokes democracy to destroy democracy, human rights to destroy human rights.
On 8 October 2024 the Council of the European Union adopted Regulation (EU) 2024/2642 instituting extra-judicial “restrictive measures”, which the CEU calls “sanctions” against individuals suspected of being involved in so-called “destabilizing activities” in Europe. The sanctions are draconian and essentially render individuals “non-persons” – they are not unlike banishment in the Roman empire or being declared “anathema” by the Inquisition.
We recall that the CEU is a political institution, not a court. Without any judicial investigation, indictment or trial, the EU labels targeted persons “responsible for, implementing, supporting, or benefitting from actions or policies by the Government of the Russian Federation which undermine or threaten democracy, the rule of law, stability or security in the Union (…)”3 Proof is not proffered. “Sanctions” are classified as administrative acts.
The CEU has sanctioned 5769 entities of 85 nationalities4, and since May 2025 at least six citizens of the EU and other European countries: Swiss retired army colonel and geopolitical analyst Jacques Baud; Swiss anti-colonial advocate Nathalie Yamb; French Russian businessman and geopolitical analyst Xavier Moreau; and German journalists Huseyin Dogru, Alina Lipp and Thomas Röper.
Jacques Baud
On 15 December 2025, the European Union slapped sanctions on former Swiss intelligence officer and ex-NATO employee Jacques Baud. Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett commented: “No day in court, no charges filed, just abrupt, suffocating, sanctions.”5 Baud was sanctioned supposedly for ‘Russian propaganda’ notwithstanding the fact that 90% of his sources are Western sources, and he has systematically declined interview invitations from Russian media, precisely because he deliberately wanted to avoid any appearance of sympathy with Russia. As a Swiss intelligence officer, Baud has been jealous about his neutrality and his books demonstrate solid scholarship and reliable scientific methodology. Books like Governing by Fake News6, Covert Wars in Ukraine7 and Ukraine between War and Peace8, are masterpieces of scholarly research and conscientious judgment. All of his sources are verifiable.
I have shared panels with Jacques Baud at the Université Ouvrière de Genève9, discussed peace scenarios with him. I have watched his interviews with Professor Glenn Diesen and others. The man is integrity in person. And that is precisely why the CEU has defamed him and tried, thus far unsuccessfully, to discredit his scholarship.
Baud is widely respected and quoted for his deep knowledge and analysis, much of which is based on his own research while working with NATO. As Eva Bartlett writes “What is interesting about Baud is he does not use Russian sources to back his claims and he has not taken a public position in favour of either Russia or Ukraine. He has simply analyzed the situation”.
As to the human impact of the EU sanctions Eva Bartlett reports: “Baud lives in Brussels, and now as a result of the sanctions is unable to even buy food for himself. Nor can well-intending people do so on his behalf. In an interview on Dialogue Works at the end of December, 2025, Baud said: ‘Yesterday, a friend of mine tried from Switzerland to buy food for me, to be delivered to my home. She could order, but the payment was blocked. Any delivery to my home is prohibited, even if the funds come from Switzerland.’ People who are aware of his unjust situation have been physically bringing him food, to alleviate his inability to purchase it himself. In a more recent interview Judging Freedom10, Baud highlighted that his case was a foreign policy decision, denying him due process: ‘This is not a decision that has been taken by any court. I was not judged by anybody. In fact I was not in front of a jury. I could not present my case. I could not defend my case. This decision was not taken by a court but by the council of the foreign ministers of the European union.’ The most he can do, Baud explained, is, ‘go to the European Court of Justice and try to make my case saying that the decision was not just, and the court of justice may then study the case and have an assessment on that.’ Even if the court concludes the sanctions are not justified, all it can then do is ‘advise the council of foreign ministers to change their mind.’11
Absence of robust diplomatic protection
It is a disgrace that the Swiss government did not immediately protest in Brussels and exercise diplomatic protection12 on behalf of Jacques Baud. Switzerland is evidently intimidated by the EU and behaves cowardly. As a Swiss citizen since 2017, I have publicly protested against Swiss inaction.
The first mention of the EU sanctions was in the semi-official Swissinfo channel with an ambiguous, almost complicit commentary: “So far Switzerland has followed EU on sanctions on Russia which apply to over 2,600 individuals and entities. Switzerland, however, does not apply the EU measures targeting so-called “destabilising activities”. This did not signal the readiness to activate diplomatic protection, as would be expected when the human rights of a citizen are being grossly violated, but suggested that Switzerland itself would not actively apply sanctions on Baud. The Swiss Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) external link noted on 17 December 2025: “Switzerland joined the EU sanctions linked to Russia’s war against Ukraine but did not adopt the EU sanctions regime on Russia’s hybrid threats…”13.
It was only more than three weeks later that the Swiss Ambassador in Brussels made a formal statement. Swissobserver reported: ”The Swiss ambassador intervened directly in Brussels on January 9, 2026. This move underscores a growing tension: while Switzerland has previously aligned with EU sanctions against Russia—such as in the case of businessman Artem Yurievich Chaika in 2023—it has not adopted this specific regime targeting disinformation… the ambassador’s intervention proves that Bern is navigating a delicate tightrope. The government is forced to balance its traditional neutrality and protection of its citizens against its relationship with the European Union. Unlike the clear-cut financial sanctions related to the war in Ukraine, these new measures target speech and influence, areas where Swiss law and EU directives diverge.”14
This hesitant and insufficient action by Switzerland is reminiscent of the culpable inaction of Australia when its citizen Julian Assange was being persecuted, subjected to arbitrary detention and torture for nearly 14 years15. It was only thanks to the moral stand of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese16 that Assange was finally released in 2024 as a result of an opaque “deal”. Albanese’s predecessors had essentially abandoned Assange and kept silent so as not to ruffle relations with the United States. Back in 2016 in my function as UN Independent Expert on International Order, I called upon the US and UK to return to the rule of law and stop Assange’s persecution17. UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Professor Nils Melzer visited Assange at Belmarsh Prison18 in the UK and denounced the conditions of his detention as torture. He wrote a famous book The Trial of Julian Assange (Verso Books 2022) revealing the breakdown of the rule of law in the US, UK, Sweden and Ecuador and calling for Assange’s immediate release. In a very real sense, Professor Melzer is the Emile Zola of the 21st century. The corruption of values he reveals is worse than the corruption of military justice revealed by Zola during the Dreyfus affair of 1898.19 Today we need another Melzer to condemn the CEU sanctions as illegal and inacceptable in any democratic society.
Hüseyin Dogru
The first European citizen to be hit by EU sanctions was Hüseyin Dogru, a German citizen born in Berlin of Turkish origin, an independent journalist committed to the truth of our time and the defense of human rights. What is his crime? None, he has not been charged with any offence, and has not been given an opportunity to respond in court to those accusing him of pro-Russian bias. In an article published on 31 March 2026 in Consortium News, Patrick Lawrence, an American journalist, describes the gross violations of the human rights of Hüseyin Dogru,20 whose story “reads like something out of Dostoyevsky or Kafka… We are talking about a family of five going hungry in the capital of the Federal Republic of Germany as punishment for… what?… for seeing with his eyes open, for thinking about what he sees, then commenting on what he sees? I would love to suggest various ways readers could support the Dogru family, but there are none. Were someone to donate so much as a loaf of bread to help sustain them the German authorities would count it a criminal offense punishable by a prison term of up to several years. I discussed this question of assistance with a German friend over the weekend. The only way to come to the aid of Hüseyin Dogru, we determined, would be to hand him, in person, an envelope of euros or a bag of groceries. And this would be to take a risk, of course.”
On 15 March 2026 the Berliner Zeitung21 published an interview with Alexander Gorski, Dogru’s attorney:
“The impact on him and his family is devastating. From one day to the next, his accounts were frozen. He is not permitted to conduct any financial transactions and must have every use of his assets approved by the Bundesbank. Currently, only €506 per month are authorized, with which he must make ends meet…. Furthermore, his bank, Comdirect, repeatedly imposes additional restrictions on the use of these €506…. The risk of committing a criminal offense by having financial contact with my client is very high…. Leading a normal family life under these circumstances is virtually impossible. This situation is often described as ‘civil death’ — and that is exactly what applies here….”
When the Berliner Zeitung asked Dogru’s attorney, why the EU singled him out, he replied, “We don’t know that. What we observe, however, is that the German government, in particular, is cracking down on people who express dissenting opinions on the Russia–Ukraine war or the issue of Palestine.” Just parenthetically, Dogru opposed the Russian intervention in Ukraine…
The EU revolt against the rule of law and human rights is only possible because government lawyers, “pens for hire”, concoct frivolous legalisms to legitimize the gross violations of the ICCPR and ECHR by European countries imposing or enforcing sanctions. In Germany one speaks of a “pro-active sanctions policy”.22
Hans-Georg Maaßen, former chief of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Verfassungsschutz, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency) from 2012 to 2018, has argued that the use of “sanctions” against individuals in the media sector raises serious concerns regarding proportionality and civil liberties, especially when the measures are imposed without prior judicial review and generate effects comparable to severe economic penalties. Maaßen wrote on X: “The EU sanctions are, in substance, punitive measures. They are imposed by politicians without a legal basis, without a court hearing… This violates the principle of ‘nulla poena sine lege’ and fundamental procedural rights of the accused. The name ‘sanction’ changes nothing …The German government’s and the EU Commission’s claim that it is ‘only a sanction and not a punishment’ is a misguided excuse. It would be just as well to rename the penal code the ‘Good Sanctions Act’ – that wouldn’t change a punishment into a sanction. The obligation to a fair trial under the Basic Law and the European Convention on Human Rights remains. The rule of law tradition in Europe places great value on procedural guarantees, transparency, and the right to be heard. When sanctions interfere with the lives of individuals within the EU, these two principles clash.”
The EU is attempting to silence journalists it dislikes through sanctions – including the risk that these sanctions could endanger the lives of those affected. The case of Hüseyin Doğru has now led to an extremely courageous criminal complaint against the German Minister of Finance, Lars Klingbeil, who is responsible for the enforcement of EU sanctions. On March 29, 2026, Fred Schumacher, a German author living in Spain, filed the criminal complaint against Klingbeil. The charge: “Deliberate killing of people by starvation. The complaint reads in part: Facts/Crime: Mr. Klingbeil is the superior officer of the German customs authorities; he is therefore responsible for criminal offenses committed by the authority or a division thereof, as it can be assumed that they are carried out on the basis of his orders. On March 27, 2026, the customs sanctions enforcement agency froze the accounts of the wife of German journalist Hüseyin Doğru, who is himself sanctioned by the EU and has no money left. The family of five reportedly has only 104 euros remaining.”
There is no indictment and no verdict against Doğru. He was not heard and had no legal representation. He is no longer allowed to work or travel. No one is allowed to give him or his family any money or anything else. There is no specific paragraph in German criminal law that criminalizes the killing of people by deliberate starvation, but Sections 211 (murder) or 212 (manslaughter) of the German Criminal Code (StGB) may apply if death by starvation is accepted as a likely consequence. Section 227 (bodily harm resulting in death) or at least Section 222 (negligent homicide) may also apply.
The Geneva International Peace Research Institute (GIPRI)23
GIPRI, a Geneva-based Swiss non-governmental organization with consultative status with the United Nations, is devoted to promoting world peace through law. Civilization rests on agreed principles and laws that make communal life possible, promote economic and social development and facilitate commerce and cultural exchange.
GIPRI is alarmed by the gradual abandonment of fundamental principles of the rule of law in the European Union and the United States, as reflected in the totalitarian EU legislation and US presidential decrees that can only be qualified as undemocratic and authoritarian. We observe retrogression in the promotion and respect of human rights, the heritage of Western civilization, built over centuries and anchored in UN and regional treaties. We are confronted by State terrorism.
GIPRI has more than forty years experience interacting with the United Nations and other international organizations, has hosted international conferences, issued numerous reports on matters of the rule of law, academic freedom, conflict-prevention, mediation, multilateralism, promotion of sustainable development. It has submitted legal briefs to the International Criminal Court24, formal complaints to the European Commission and European Council25, addressed communications to Swiss federal authorities, demanded transparency and accountability from all stakeholders. GIPRI calls on civil society to engage all UN and EU mechanisms to promote and protect human rights worldwide, to protest to the competent authorities, write to elected officials, submit cases to the UN Human Rights Committee and European Court of Human Rights.
GIPRI’s formal letter of protest to the CEU President
On 26 February 2026 GIPRI expressed its grave concern over the disregard by the CEU of fundamental principles of European law, as well as the acquis of European law in the field of human rights, the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, research, information, movement and due process affecting six European nationals and their families. Their rights are enshrined in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 2 of the Treaty of Lisbon, and numerous United Nations conventions. These rights and liberties are part of the “aims and core values” of the EU, notably human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, non-discrimination and fair trial guarantees26.
The targeted individuals have been sanctioned solely for their opinions, statements, articles or analysis which differ from the current foreign policy of the European Union. Their views, expressed in publications, at conferences, or in various media, include critical assessments of the war in Ukraine, its roots causes and consequences; analysis of US, NATO, EU and Russian politics in that conflict, the genocide in Gaza, the Israel/Iran conflict, and other important issues of international relations and geopolitics, involving war and peace. Their views were arbitrarily denounced as “pro-Russian” without, however, adducing any evidence to demonstrate that these persons were in the service of any foreign entity or that they had been paid to frame their analyses in a biased way.
GIPRI contends and documents that their views have been expressed in a peaceful manner and have never constituted incitement to hatred or discrimination against any group. Their ideas reflect their personal beliefs and convictions and are similar to the analyses published by prominent US and UK professors, including John Mearsheimer (University of Chicago), Jeffrey Sachs (Columbia University), Norman Finkelstein (formerly DePaul University), Ilan Pappe (University of Exeter), retired US Colonel Douglas MacGregor, retired US Colonel Larry Wilkerson, former CIA analysts Larry Johnson, and Ray McGovern. Even if all of these experts and the sanctioned European journalists were wrong, the UN Human Rights Committee has asserted in its general comment Nr. 34 concerning freedom of opinion and expression27 that opinions must never be censored, as civilization and democracy entail the recognition that there is a right to be wrong. That is what freedom of opinion and expression means, not just the right to regurgitate what the mainstream media disseminates, but most importantly the right to dissent28.
Moreover, it is evident that in a democratic society access to information is essential as well as the freedom to exchange views on a plurality of opinions. When a person is censored or sanctioned, it is not only the right of that person that is being violated, but also the right of society, the right of each one of us, to know what that person wanted to tell us.
GIPRI continued in its letter to the President of the CEU delineating how the sanctioning of six European citizens “has dire consequences for them and their families: it deprives them of their resources and means livelihood and amounts to a social and economic death sentence; they cannot access to their bank accounts any longer, and thus are unable to ensure their daily subsistence; they can’t receive salaries nor pay their rent, bills, or medical care and can’t even defend themselves against these sanctions, since this requires resources to hire a lawyer. Anyone transferring or providing money to help them may face up to five years in prison. In addition, they have lost their right to freedom of movement inside the EU and are de facto assigned to residence in the country where they live: Belgium, Switzerland, France or Germany. Should they travel outside the EU, they would not be able to return home…”
“The CEU states that its sanctions are compliant with EU obligations under international law, including human rights and fundamental freedoms. And yet, they violate articles 9 and 10 of the ECHR; and Articles 10 11, 13 and 45 of the CFREU. They violate Articles 8, 10, 12, 13, 17, 18 and 19 of the UDHR; and articles 12, 18, 19, 26 of the ICPPR. The UN Human Rights Committee has stated in its general comment 34 that ‘all forms of opinion are protected, including opinions of a political, scientific, historic, moral or religious nature’29 . The peaceful public expression of an opinion cannot be a crime in a democratic environment, unless it incites to violence or hate….These sanctions are politically motivated, arbitrary and extra-judicial.”
GIPRI denounces that these sanctions are decreed outside any legal framework and violate the most basic principles of due process, in particular the rights to be presumed innocent, the principle of nulla poena sine lege, the right to defend oneself against accusations, and the right to a fair hearing before an independent civilian tribunal. The sanctions also violate the right to non-discrimination for one’s opinions and constitute an attack on the honour and reputation of the persons concerned.
The announced intent of the sanctions is to pressure, intimidate and scare targeted persons, and through them to dissuade others – in particular journalists, researchers, academics – from venturing to freely express their views. This is the classic “chilling effect”30 that has been described by Amnesty International31 and Human Rights Watch32 with regard to many countries. Yet, Amnesty and HRW have been curiously silent about the massive violation of human rights resulting from these EU sanctions aimed at preventing independent journalists from producing information and participating in public debates about matters of public interest, national and international relations, war and peace.
The UN Human Rights Committee has stressed that “the harassment, intimidation or stigmatization of persons for reasons of the opinions they may hold constitutes a violation of article 19, paragraph 1 of the ICCPR33. Every effort to coerce the holding or not holding of any opinion is prohibited”. As the EU itself admits, the sanctions intend to silence these persons or to force them to change their opinions. This is explicitly stated by the CEU, in an Orwellian twist of thought: “These sanctions are not punitive and instead seek to bring about a change in the policy or conduct of those targeted, with a view to promoting the objectives of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy”34.
The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has stressed the obligation of states to ensure “robust protection of freedom of research”, which includes “the protection of researchers from undue influence on their judgment; the possibility for researchers to set up autonomous research institutions and to define the aims and objectives of the research and the methods to be adopted; the freedom of researchers to freely and openly question the ethical value of certain projects and the right to withdraw from those projects if their conscience so dictates; the freedom of researchers to cooperate with other researchers, both nationally and internationally; and the sharing of scientific data and analysis with policymakers, and with the public wherever possible”35
GIPRI continues: “These sanctions undermine academic freedom, which ‘protects the ability of individuals to question and test received knowledge, to think outside conventional ideas and received opinions and to propose new concepts, including controversial or unpopular opinions, for the benefit of societies.’36 The UN Human Rights Council has highlighted in its 2025 Resolution concerning the right to education that ‘members of academic communities (…) should be free to conduct activities involving the discovery and transmission of knowledge and ideas, and to do so with the full protection of human rights law.’”37
It bears repeating that pursuant to ICCPR’s Article 19 the only limitations to freedom of expression, academic and scientific freedoms, are those deemed necessary for the respect of the rights or reputations of others or for the protection of national security or public order, with the burden of proof of the necessity and proportionality of such restrictions lying strictly with the State. GIPRI asks: “Can the EU explain in what way the views expressed by these persons undermine EU’s national security or public order? The Human Rights Committee has explicitly stated that research that does not harm national security or public order may not be suppressed. In its jurisprudence it has time and again rejected the abuse of the concept of ‘national security’ by States and reaffirmed the imperative to respect freedom of opinion and research as a crucial component of democracy.”38 Last but not least, GIPRI emphasized in its letter that any unilateral sanctions decreed by states or groups of states, outside the framework of the United Nations Security Council, are illegal and prohibited under international law39.
GIPRI concludes: “Premising itself on international human rights law, which is at the foundation of the EU and the UN, we are contesting the legality and legitimacy of these sanctions. We urge the CEU to rescind these decisions and restore the rights and freedoms to which these persons are entitled under European and international law. We also urge the members of the European Parliament to remind the Council of the EU of its obligations to effectively protect the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, information, movement and due process of these persons, which are the corner stones of the rule of a just law, of a healthy democratic process, and which are conducive to dignity, justice and peace.” As of the writing of this essay, GIPRI has not received a response from the CEU.
UN Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestine Occupied Territories, Francesca Albanese40
It is not only the Council of the European Union that acts ultra vires and contrary to its mandate. The United States has always been an “exceptionalist”41 country, characterized by its aggressive unilateral policies laid down in the Monroe Doctrine, “Manifest Destiny” and the Project for the New American Century42.
On 9 July 2025, in the spirit of American exceptionalism, the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio43 imposed sanctions on the UN Rapporteur on Palestine cutting her and her family off from U.S. banking, credit cards, travel and technology. “She is under constraints normally reserved for narco-barons and terrorists.”44 This is a first in the history of UN rapporteurs. Rubio’s text is worth quoting: “I am imposing sanctions on Francesca Paola Albanese, the United Nations Human Rights Council ‘Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occupied since 1967,’ pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Order 14203, ‘Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court.’ Albanese has directly engaged with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in efforts to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute nationals of the United States or Israel, without the consent of those two countries. Neither the United States nor Israel is party to the Rome Statute, making this action a gross infringement on the sovereignty of both countries. The United States has repeatedly condemned and objected to the biased and malicious activities of Albanese that have long made her unfit for service as a Special Rapporteur….” Such a totalitarian statement is so outrageous that it was immediately condemned by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights45 the other Rapporteurs expressing solidarity with Albanese.46 It was also denounced by Amnesty International47 and HRW48.
In an article in the March edition of the Monde Diplomatique49 Francesca Albanese wrote: “What is unprecedented and corrosive about this attack on an independent expert who works for the UN is not only the violence of the accusations and the deliberate fabrication of lies. It’s also – and especially – the fact that the strategy was directed and endorsed at the highest levels of the state. It is therefore no longer simply a controversy, but indicative of the failure of a system: one built on solemn promises and international treaties, which are invoked in peacetime, but which get buried when applying them is inconvenient…. The energy expended to slander me contrasts sharply with the silence surrounding the ongoing crimes in Gaza.” Further: “My work consists of establishing and legally classifying facts in the occupied territories, where an institutionalized legal dualism reigns: civil law applies to Israeli settlers and military law to Palestinians, including children….One can flee from the truth, but it is much harder to hide it. It is only a matter of time before justice comes knocking on the door of the perpetrators of crimes in Gaza and their accomplices. The destruction of Gaza has awakened consciences that were thought to be numb and has made visible what many refused to see: not only the brutality of the occupation but also the active complicity of our Western democracies in its perpetuation. For Israel is not an anomaly in the world order: in many respects, it is the mirror in which we discover the logic of exceptionalism and colonial hierarchies between lives worthy of mourning and lives expendable, a rhetoric of security that guarantees impunity.”
On 23 March 2026 Albanese presented her eighth report to the UN Human Rights Council, where she documents that “Torture has become a defining characteristic of Israel’s conduct in the Palestinian territories. It is used to break people, destroy communities, and force the population to leave.”50
Challenging the legality of EU and US sanctions
The US is not a State party to the Rome Statute, nor does it recognize the jurisdiction of the UN Human Rights Committee under the first Optional Protocol to the ICCPR. It does, however, recognize the jurisdiction of the HR Committee to examine inter-State complaints under article 41 ICCPR. This provides other States parties to the ICCPR an opportunity to challenge the multiple violations of the ICCPR by the US government, including sanctions. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights51 could also examine the compatibility of US sanctions with its obligations under the OAS Charter and the American Convention on Human Rights.
EU sanctions can be challenged before the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg as contrary to article 2 of the Treaty of Lisbon and incompatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union. They can also be challenged before the European Court of Human Rights because of violations of the European Convention on Human Rights and its Protocols. Since all EU countries are states parties to the ICCPR, and most of them are parties to its Optional Protocol on individual petitions, European citizens can submit cases to the Human Rights Committee following the exhaustion of domestic remedies, if such remedies are available and effective. In 2008 the HR Committee had the opportunity to examine human rights violations resulting from the application of UN sanctions on individuals placed on a “sanctions list”. The Committee affirmed its jurisdiction and found multiple violations of the ICCPR by Belgium, which bore responsibility for placing the names of innocent persons on a sanctions list without due diligence or due process52. The Committee’s inter-State complaints procedure should also be engaged, since the human rights commitments under the ICCPR are erga omnes. Indeed, if there is a violation of human rights in one country, repercussions follow in other states.
The gross violations of human rights directly and indirectly caused by EU and US sanctions have been documented by two UN Special Rapporteurs on Unilateral Coercive Measures53 (UCMs). The UN reports show in detail the adverse human rights impacts on the populations of countries under sanctions, but also the concrete impacts on individuals who have been personally sanctioned, including threats to their rights to life, health, employment, education, etc. The lethal impact of sanctions has been demonstrated by medical journals, including The Lancet54. Every year the UN General Assembly adopts a resolution condemning UCMs (wrongly referred to as “sanctions”55), the most recent resolution 80/209 was adopted on 18 December 202556.
On 25 March 2024, before the UN Security Council, I was given the opportunity to analyse the violations and demonstrate their incompatibility with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter57. I made reference to the “supremacy clause”, Article 103 of the UN Charter, which stipulates: “In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.” Since the promotion and protection of human rights are UN Charter priorities, it follows that other State obligations, e.g. under European treaties and decrees, must be in conformity with the UN Charter.
It is time for the UN General Assembly to adopt a resolution requesting the International Court of Justice to issue an Advisory Opinion on the illegality of UCMs and, in particular, the US presidential decrees sanctioning UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese and members of the International Criminal Court. The Trump decrees are tantamount to rejecting the whole philosophy of international law over domestic law, the supremacy of law over power. This is nothing less than a revolt against the United Nations, against international morals, against civilization itself. The ICJ should quantify the damage done to millions of human beings and specify the legal consequences and liabilities of the States imposing or implementing UCMs.
Conclusion
GIPRI is alarmed by the relentless attacks on the rule of law and human rights in the EU and US. We denounce the abandonment of fundamental principles and the brazen destruction of language, the Orwellian jargon that accompanies EU and US statements to justify the unjustifiable. GIPRI redoubles its efforts to expand the shrinking space of civil society and calls on individuals and institutions to mobilize and push back against the deliberate destruction of our civil liberties, the dismantlement of the protection of the individual from authoritarian legislation and abuse of power by governments.
GIPRI does not underestimate the obstacles to reestablishing the rule of law. The betrayal of our values comes from our own governments and the institutions created to defend our rights. Therefore, GIPRI challenges the European Council and submits legal briefs to the International Criminal Court aimed at vindicating the validity of international norms, including the UN Charter and the Statute of Rome. We will not surrender our rights without a fight. That is why GIPRI persists in informing the public, the authorities, the institutions of their obligations under the law.
Most importantly, we must prevail in the struggle for freedom of research, freedom of opinion and the media. We reject the indoctrination by the formidable propaganda machine of the European Union and the US government. We reject the mendacious public relations campaigns aimed at convincing us that the EU and US are paragons of law and human rights. We cannot act effectively unless and until we liberate ourselves from the brainwashing of the mainstream media.
A democratic society depends on access to all pertinent information and a plurality of interpretations. Groupthink is an enemy of democracy and incompatible with the values of the treaties of Maastricht and Lisbon, with the constitutions of European States and with the US Constitution. This is an Antigone moment, time to push back against the King Creon-style EU and US sanctions.
GIPRI is ready to join with other civil society institutions in documenting how international and regional human rights treaties have been and are being violated in total impunity. The mainstream media has been complicit by suppressing crucial information and dissenting views, by actively participating in the defamation of Jacques Baud, Hüseyin Dogru, Francesca Albanese and others.
GIPRI demands the immediate lifting of all illegal extra-judicial sanctions, the rehabilitation of and compensation for the victims. GIPRI calls on all governments to rigorously observe the rule of law, enforce the human rights treaty regime, including the ICCPR and ECHR especially with regard to access to information, freedom of academic research, freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of movement and fair trial guarantees.
The rule of law is our mandate, our heritage, our civilization.
References
[1] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2022:065:FULL&from=EN
https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-rt-sputnik-illegal-europe/
[2] https://rm.coe.int/note-rt-sputnik/1680a5dd5d
[3] Article 2(3)(a)(iv). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/2642/oj/eng
[4] https://data.europa.eu/apps/eusanctionstracker/
https://www.globalresearch.ca/eu-starves-dissenting-experts-jacques-baud/5914149
[6] https://www.amazon.com/Governing-fake-news-International-conflicts/dp/2315010713
[10] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbHG9BNNgsM
[12] https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1028
[14] https://swissobserver.ch/fr/news/swiss-nationals-sanctioned-by-eu-for-disinformation/
[17] https://news.un.org/en/audio/2016/02/609372
[18] https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/five-years-at-belmarsh-a-chronicle-of-julian-assanges-imprisonment/
[20] https://consortiumnews.com/2026/03/31/patrick-lawrence-a-german-journalists-civil-death/
[23] https://gipri.ch/ I am a member of GIPRI’s Conseil de Fondation, whose President is Professor Gabriel Galice.
[25] https://www.counterpunch.org/author/gnvntpc9211/
[26] 1 Aims and values of the European Union : https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/principles-and-values/aims-and-values_en
[27] UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment 34 on ICCPR article 19 on freedom of expression. https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/general-comments-and-recommendations/general-comment-no34-article-19-freedoms-opinion-and
[28] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1017/S0165070X12000289
[29] https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/general-comments-and-recommendations/general-comment-no34-article-19-freedoms-opinion-and, HRC General Comment 34, para. 9.
[31] https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/EUR4448642021ENGLISH.pdf
[33] Ibid., para 10.
[34] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/why-sanctions/
[35] Ibid.
[36] https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/56/58, para. 2
[37] https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/RES/59/9
[38] HRC, General Comment Nr. 34, para 30.
[39] HRC, resolution 15/24 of 6 October 2010, paras. 13; HRC, resolution 45/5 of 6 October 2020, preamble; HRC, resolution 49/6 of 31 March 2022, preamble, paras. 13; HRC, resolution 52/13 of 17 April 2023, paras. 16; HRC, resolution 55/7 of 5 April 2024, paras. 16; HRC, resolution 58/3 of 2 April 2025, paras. 17; UNGA, resolution 69/180 of 18 December 2014, paras. 56; UNGA, resolution 75/181 of 16 December 2020, paras. 16; UNGA, resolution 76/161 of 7 January 2022, paras. 16; UNGA, resolution 77/214 of 5 January 2023, paras. 16; UNGA, resolution 78/202 of 23 December 2023, paras. 16; UNGA, resolution 79/167 of 17 December 2024, paras. 16. UNGA, resolution 80/209 of 18 December 2025. See also ARRIA Formula discussion of unilateral coercive measures before the UN Security Council, 25 March 2024.
[40] https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-palestine
[41] https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/09/25/exceptionalism-and-international-law/
[44] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/03/30/gaza-israel-un-criticize-us-sanction-00850477
[48] https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/07/10/us-imposes-sanctions-on-un-special-rapporteur
[49] https://mondediplo.com/2026/03/01albanese, reprinted in Le Courrier de Genève 6 March 2026, pp. 17-18.
[50] https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/03/un-expert-warns-torture-has-become-state-doctrine-israel-making-prisons. See article in Le Courrier de Genève. 25 March 2026. p. 3
[51] https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/jsForm/?File=/en/iachr/mandate/functions.asp
[52] https://www.worldcourts.com/hrc/eng/decisions/2008.10.22_Sayadi_v_Belgium.htm. The individual concurring opinions of HRC members Sir Nigel Rodley and Yuji Iwasawa (today president of the ICJ) are particularly relevant to the case of Jacques Baud.
[53] https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-unilateral-coercive-measures
[54] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(25)00189-5/fulltext
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40712600
[55] https://worldbeyondwar.org/alfred-de-zayas-theyre-not-sanctions-and-theyre-not-legal/
[56] https://docs.un.org/A/RES/80/209
*Professor of international law and history at the Geneva School of Diplomacy, has been a visiting professor at numerous universities in the US, Canada, Germany, Spain and Switzerland. From 2012 to 2018 he was the UN’s Independent Expert on International Order and produced 14 reports for the UN General Assembly and Human Rights Council, formulating “ 25 Principles of International Order”. From 1980 to 2003 he was a senior lawyer with the UN Human Rights Office in Geneva, served as Secretary of the UN Human Rights Committee and Chief of the Petitions Department.