Survivors of torture from multiple regions are advocating for the adoption of a new international framework aimed at strengthening accountability, rehabilitation, and recognition, as the United Nations intensifies efforts to address gaps in justice systems worldwide.

The proposed Charter of Rights of Victims and Survivors of Torture, developed over three years through consultations and regional hearings, was presented at the 61st session of the Human Rights Council in March 2026 by UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Alice Edwards.

The document outlines standards intended to guide states in addressing the long-term consequences of torture, with a focus on survivor participation and access to justice.The charter draws on more than 120 submissions from survivors globally and reflects recurring patterns identified across different regions.

According to Edwards, survivors frequently face a second phase of hardship after the abuse itself, marked by difficulties in securing recognition, accessing healthcare, and navigating complex legal systems.“Many described a second struggle: to be believed, to access care, to navigate complex institutions, and to obtain legal recognition,” Edwards said, adding that institutional barriers often prolong suffering rather than alleviate it.

The initiative has been supported by organizations working with survivors, including those funded through the UN Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. It seeks to shift the focus of anti-torture frameworks toward long-term recovery and systemic reform, rather than solely prohibition and punishment.

For survivors such as Shireen Khudeeda, a Yazidi woman abducted during the 2014 attacks by Islamic State in Iraq’s Sinjar region, the consequences of torture extend far beyond physical harm. Held in captivity for three years and subjected to severe abuse, Khudeeda now advocates for justice, including the identification of mass graves and support for affected communities.

“Sometimes when it’s physical you can treat it, but torture in your soul you can never heal it,” she said, reflecting on the enduring psychological impact of her experience.More than a decade after the attacks, many Yazidi families remain without closure, with missing relatives yet to be accounted for.

Khudeeda said that even when answers emerge, they can reignite trauma, citing the identification of her father’s remains as a moment that brought both confirmation and renewed grief.In Mexico, Italia Méndez, a survivor of sexual torture during a 2006 police operation in San Salvador Atenco, continues to pursue justice nearly two decades after the events. Her case, along with those of other women, was recognized by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in 2018.

Despite this ruling, Méndez said access to adequate medical care and reparations remains limited.“We have a binding judgment and yet we still have not been able to access even the most basic thing, which is dignified and specialised medical care,” she said, describing ongoing challenges in receiving treatment for the long-term effects of torture.

Méndez emphasized that her advocacy is collective, reflecting a broader effort by survivors to prevent recurrence and address systemic impunity. She said continued legal action remains necessary to secure accountability and meaningful redress.In Burundi, Donatien Ndabigeze, a survivor of political violence linked to the 2015 crisis, has pursued justice through international mechanisms.

His case was recognized by the UN Committee Against Torture, which found the state responsible for violations. Ndabigeze said the decision affirmed the severity of the abuses and underscored the importance of international accountability mechanisms.“My case is not only personal; it reflects the situation of many Burundians,” he said, adding that access to justice often requires engagement beyond national systems when domestic remedies are unavailable.

The experiences of these survivors illustrate broader structural challenges identified in the charter. Edwards noted that justice processes are often fragmented and slow, with accountability typically achieved through cumulative efforts involving documentation, litigation, and sustained advocacy.“Accountability rarely happens through a single dramatic moment. It is usually cumulative,” she said.

The charter emphasizes that survivors should play an active role in shaping policies and institutions designed to address torture. It calls for their inclusion not only as witnesses but as stakeholders in decision-making processes, reflecting a shift toward participatory approaches in human rights governance.“Survivors are not merely witnesses to atrocity.

They are rights-holders, advocates and architects of positive change,” Edwards said, cautioning against tokenistic engagement that limits participation to symbolic gestures.For Méndez, the initiative represents a significant step toward recognizing the expertise of survivors. She said incorporating their perspectives into policy design is essential to ensuring that justice mechanisms are responsive and effective.

The charter outlines key areas for reform, including ensuring access to rehabilitation services, strengthening legal recognition, preventing re-traumatization, and establishing safeguards to avoid recurrence. It also underscores the need for systems that restore dignity and rebuild trust between individuals and institutions.

Khudeeda said that speaking out is a necessary part of that process, particularly for communities that have experienced large-scale atrocities. “Because we lost everything, there is nothing else to lose,” she said, describing advocacy as a means of demanding accountability and recognition.

Ndabigeze similarly highlighted the importance of visibility, noting that survivor testimony can challenge societal silence and bring attention to the human impact behind statistical data.The charter is intended as a practical framework for states, with proponents urging governments to adopt and implement its provisions.

Edwards said that embedding survivor perspectives into policy design could improve both prevention and response mechanisms.“If the Charter were implemented, survivors would no longer feel invisible,” she said, adding that timely access to rehabilitation and meaningful participation would strengthen trust in institutions.The initiative comes amid broader international efforts to enhance accountability for human rights violations and improve support systems for victims. By centring the experiences of survivors, the charter aims to address longstanding gaps in justice systems and reinforce global commitments to preventing torture and supporting those affected by it.

“Justice after torture restores dignity — and only when trust is rebuilt can societies prosper and thrive,” Edwards said.

Women survivors of Nepal’s decade-long internal conflict are increasingly shaping the country’s transitional justice process, as advocacy efforts led by survivors push for accountability, legal reform, and recognition of conflict-related sexual violence.

The conflict between government forces and Maoist insurgents from 1996 to 2006 left at least 13,000 people dead and more than 1,300 missing, according to United Nations estimates. Women were among those most affected, facing arbitrary detention, torture, rape, forced displacement, and other violations, while also playing significant roles as combatants and political actors.

Devi Khadka, a former member of Nepal’s Constituent Assembly and a prominent women’s rights activist, is among those who have transformed personal trauma into sustained advocacy. Detained at the age of 17, she was tortured and subjected to gang rape by police who accused her of aiding her brother, a Maoist activist.

Reflecting on her experience, Khadka said a lack of understanding about trauma at the time shaped her response. “I didn’t understand why I suffered this,” she said, describing how she later joined the Maoist movement during a period marked by psychological distress and a desire to confront her circumstances.

Years later, the public disclosure of her rape by Maoist leaders compounded the trauma, exposing her to further harm and reinforcing the challenges faced by survivors in seeking dignity and privacy.The 2006 Comprehensive Peace Agreement formally ended the conflict and initiated Nepal’s transition toward democratic governance. Transitional justice mechanisms, including the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons, were established to investigate violations and promote reconciliation.

However, progress has been slow, and transitional justice remains one of the agreement’s unresolved commitments.Women survivors have faced systemic barriers in accessing justice, including stigma, social exclusion, and institutional limitations. Many lost family members who were primary earners, leaving them to assume economic responsibilities while also dealing with long-term psychological and physical impacts of violence.

Official data underscores the extent of underreporting. Of more than 63,000 complaints filed with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, only 314 were classified as cases of sexual violence prior to legal reforms in 2024. Analysts attribute this gap to fear of retaliation, social stigma, and a lack of trust in institutions.

In response, Khadka and a group of survivors established Aparajit, meaning “the Undefeated,” a network aimed at supporting victims and advocating for systemic change. The organization has facilitated access to medical and legal services while promoting collective action among survivors.Khadka said the initiative initially faced resistance and accusations of undermining national reputation.

However, support from media organizations helped bring visibility to the issue, enabling the movement to expand and gain broader recognition.Advocacy efforts have contributed to tangible legal reforms. In August 2024, Nepal amended its transitional justice law to address longstanding gaps in the treatment of sexual violence cases.

The revised legislation includes provisions to classify sexual violence more comprehensively, remove statutes of limitation, and ensure that serious crimes are not subject to sentence commutation.Khadka said previous legal definitions were inadequate, narrowly interpreting rape and excluding various forms of sexual violence. “We brought up almost 75 percent of cases where the victim herself doesn’t call it sexual violence, and society doesn’t either,” she said, highlighting the need for broader recognition of such crimes.

The amended law also reopened the process for filing complaints, allowing survivors who had previously been unable or unwilling to come forward to seek redress. These changes reflect a shift toward a more inclusive and survivor-centered approach, though implementation challenges remain.At the international level, Khadka and other survivors have engaged with United Nations platforms to advocate for reforms.

Speaking at a Human Rights Council panel in Geneva in September 2025, she emphasized the importance of including survivors in designing justice mechanisms.“Especially in the case of sexual violence… it should be done with the involvement of the survivors themselves,” she said, noting that legal frameworks often fail to capture the lived realities of victims.

UN Human Rights has supported Nepal’s transitional justice process through technical assistance, policy advice, and engagement with government institutions, civil society, and victims’ groups. The organization has emphasized the need for a victim-centered approach that aligns with international legal standards and addresses root causes of conflict.

Efforts also focus on integrating gender considerations into justice mechanisms. The UN’s Women’s Rights and Gender Section has worked to highlight issues such as gender-based violence and women’s participation in post-conflict governance, aiming to ensure that survivors’ experiences inform policy decisions.Khadka said international support has been critical in advancing reforms and amplifying survivor voices.

Representing more than 3,800 individuals in her network, she noted that access to global platforms has strengthened advocacy efforts and contributed to legislative progress.For many survivors, participation in these processes carries both practical and symbolic significance. Public testimony, particularly in the presence of state authorities, can serve as a form of recognition and validation, helping to restore dignity.

Khadka described this recognition as central to recovery. “If a person’s lived experience becomes untrue… then there is no meaning to a life,” she said, underscoring the role of acknowledgment in the pursuit of justice.Nepal’s experience reflects broader challenges in post-conflict societies, where balancing accountability, reconciliation, and institutional reform requires sustained political commitment and inclusive approaches.

The increasing involvement of women survivors in shaping policy marks a shift toward more participatory models of transitional justice.As reforms continue, the emphasis on survivor-led advocacy highlights the role of lived experience in addressing systemic gaps and advancing accountability within complex post-conflict environments.

Kyrgyzstan has reaffirmed its commitment to abolishing the death penalty following a period of intense public debate triggered by a high-profile criminal case, with authorities and international partners emphasizing prevention and rule-of-law reforms as more effective responses to violent crime.

The debate emerged after the rape and murder of a young girl in September 2025, which prompted widespread public outrage and calls for the reinstatement of capital punishment. The issue quickly gained political traction, culminating in a formal proposal by President Sadyr Japarov to seek a constitutional review of whether the death penalty could be reintroduced.

The Constitutional Court delivered its ruling on 10 December 2025, concluding that reinstating capital punishment would violate Kyrgyzstan’s international treaty obligations, which are embedded within its constitutional framework. The decision effectively blocked any immediate return to the death penalty and reinforced the country’s legal commitments under international law.

Kyrgyzstan has maintained a moratorium on executions since 1998 and formally abolished the death penalty in 2010 following its ratification of the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The protocol obliges signatory states to take all necessary measures to prevent the reintroduction of capital punishment.

The United Nations human rights office played a consultative role throughout the process. According to Matilda Bogner, Regional Representative for Central Asia, the office engaged with both executive and judicial authorities to provide guidance on international legal standards and treaty obligations.

“It is positive to see that despite an initiative that appeared to have strong public backing but did not comply with international obligations, the rule of law approach ultimately prevailed in Kyrgyzstan,” Bogner said.The episode has also prompted broader discussions within the country about the nature of justice, particularly in cases involving serious violent crime.

While public sentiment in the aftermath of the incident favored harsher punitive measures, international human rights officials have argued that such approaches are not supported by evidence as effective deterrents.UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk said that while the crimes cited by authorities were “clearly appalling” and required accountability, there is no empirical basis to conclude that capital punishment reduces the incidence of serious offenses.

He called instead for responses grounded in prevention, victim protection, and institutional strengthening.Türk emphasized the need for a “well-resourced, victim-centred approach” to tackling violence, particularly sexual and gender-based violence.

This approach, he said, should focus on improving access to justice and ensuring that systems are capable of responding effectively to early warning signs.Bogner echoed this perspective, noting that a predictable and consistent rule-of-law framework is more effective in preventing violence than reintroducing capital punishment into a system that may lack uniformity in enforcement. “A rule of law process that is predictable is a better form of prevention of egregious cases,” she said.

The focus on prevention has translated into ongoing institutional reforms. The UN human rights office is working with Kyrgyzstan’s Ministry of Internal Affairs to develop a new risk assessment system aimed at strengthening early intervention in cases of gender-based violence. The system is intended to enable law enforcement agencies to identify potential risks, monitor evolving situations, and take timely action to prevent escalation.

Authorities in Kyrgyzstan have also reiterated their commitment to upholding international legal standards following the Constitutional Court’s decision. Officials, including representatives from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, have emphasized the importance of maintaining adherence to the rule of law while addressing public concerns over safety and justice.

The case highlights the challenges faced by governments in balancing public demand for punitive measures with international legal obligations and evidence-based policy approaches. It also underscores the broader shift in international human rights discourse toward prevention-focused strategies, particularly in addressing gender-based violence.

Efforts to strengthen legal and institutional frameworks are seen as critical to improving outcomes for victims. This includes ensuring that police and judicial systems are adequately resourced, capable of responding promptly to complaints, and equipped to handle sensitive cases involving women and girls.

The UN human rights office has indicated that its engagement with Kyrgyz authorities will continue, with a focus on building systems that prioritize accountability and prevention. The approach aligns with broader international efforts to address gender-based violence through structural reforms rather than punitive escalation.

The developments in Kyrgyzstan reflect an evolving policy stance in which adherence to international obligations and evidence-based approaches are being prioritized over retributive measures, even in the face of strong public pressure following serious criminal incidents.

Voters will decide on a proposal to separate the careers of judges and public prosecutors, splitting the self-governing High Council of the Judiciary (CSM) into two distinct bodies.

Though focused on institutional reform, the vote has evolved into a broader political contest between the government-backed “Yes” campaign and opposition forces advocating “No.” No turnout quorum is required for the referendum to be valid.

Analysts say the campaign has been marked by sharp rhetoric and limited public understanding of the legal changes at stake.

Fabrizio Masia, head of pollster EMG, said most voters were likely to base their choice on political loyalties rather than the substance of the reform.“Only a small minority of Italians knows much about the issue,” Masia said, adding that party leaders on both sides were focused on mobilising supporters to secure a narrow win.

Opinion polls released before a mandated two-week blackout period showed a closely contested race, with the “No” camp gaining ground amid indications that some right-wing voters may abstain. Meloni has ruled out resigning if the referendum fails, a move widely interpreted as an effort to dampen opposition turnout driven by the prospect of weakening her government.

Her ruling coalition, which includes Brothers of Italy, the League and Forza Italia, continues to poll ahead of the left, which has struggled to consolidate around the Democratic Party and the 5-Star Movement.

A rejection of the reform could inject momentum into efforts to unite centre-left forces and potentially expose internal strains within the governing bloc, Masia said. Conversely, approval of the measure would strengthen Meloni’s political standing as she approaches the latter part of her term.

Political scientist Emanuele Massetti said a government victory would reinforce its longer-term agenda, particularly with an eye on the 2027 election, as Italy navigates external geopolitical pressures and a sluggish domestic economy.

After an AI-generated filing error, U.S. law firm Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani embraces transparency, strengthens its AI policies, and sets a new standard for responsible technology use in the legal industry.

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, one of the largest and most established law firms in the United States, recently faced a significant challenge that tested its values of accuracy, professionalism, and ethics.

A filing error caused by the use of artificial intelligence in an Alabama bankruptcy case brought national attention to how AI is changing the practice of law.

Yet instead of concealing the issue or shifting blame, the firm responded with honesty and accountability — turning a difficult situation into an opportunity for reform and leadership.

The firm was representing a creditor in a hospital bankruptcy proceeding when one of its lawyers submitted a filing that included several inaccurate and even fabricated citations generated by an AI tool.

Once this came to light, Gordon Rees immediately withdrew the filing and issued a formal apology to the court, the opposing parties, and the bankruptcy judge.

The firm expressed that it was “profoundly embarrassed” by the oversight and assured that it would take every possible measure to prevent such incidents from happening again.

Rather than treating the situation as a mere embarrassment, Gordon Rees viewed it as a wake-up call. The firm recognized the need to establish stronger internal controls on how AI tools are used within the organization.

As part of its response, it implemented a new set of AI usage policies, introduced comprehensive training programs for all attorneys, and created a “cite checking policy” that ensures every AI-assisted document undergoes rigorous human review before submission.

This incident has shed light on the broader challenges that law firms face as artificial intelligence becomes increasingly integrated into legal work.

Many firms, large and small, rely on AI for research, drafting, and document review — yet the technology’s limitations and occasional inaccuracies can have serious consequences when not properly monitored.

Gordon Rees’ response stands out because it turned a technological error into a moment of ethical reflection and practical reform.

The firm also demonstrated integrity through its willingness to take financial responsibility. It agreed to pay more than $35,000 in attorney fees to the bankruptcy lender and an additional $20,000 to the debtor’s lawyers to compensate for the time spent addressing the issue.

This gesture showed the firm’s commitment to fairness and accountability, even when it came at a cost.

In its statement, Gordon Rees reaffirmed its belief in balancing technological innovation with human judgment.

The firm made clear that while AI can assist lawyers in conducting faster research and improving efficiency, it cannot replace the critical thinking, analysis, and professional ethics that define good legal practice.

To strengthen its internal systems, Gordon Rees has introduced mandatory AI training sessions across all its 50 state offices. These sessions aim to educate lawyers on the benefits, risks, and limitations of generative AI.

Attorneys are now required to verify every AI-generated citation manually, ensuring that only accurate and reliable information makes it into official court filings.

Legal experts have praised the firm’s proactive response, calling it an example of “ethical resilience” in the age of digital transformation. Instead of damaging its reputation, the firm’s transparency and quick corrective action have earned it respect from peers and clients alike.

By publicly acknowledging the issue and addressing it with concrete solutions, Gordon Rees has positioned itself as a responsible leader in managing the evolving relationship between technology and law.

The incident also highlights the growing importance of AI literacy within the legal profession. As AI tools become more advanced and accessible, understanding how to use them responsibly has become a core skill for modern lawyers.

Gordon Rees’ reforms reflect a broader trend toward developing ethical frameworks for AI usage, ensuring that technological progress enhances — rather than undermines — the integrity of the justice system.

At its heart, this story is not about an error, but about transformation. Gordon Rees turned a moment of embarrassment into a demonstration of strength, humility, and leadership.

The firm’s decision to publicly confront the issue, compensate affected parties, and implement systemic changes reflects a deep respect for the values that define the legal profession — truth, diligence, and accountability.

As the boundaries between technology and human judgment continue to blur, Gordon Rees’ experience serves as an important reminder that ethical practice must remain at the center of innovation.

By facing its challenges directly and reforming from within, the firm has set a new benchmark for how legal institutions can evolve responsibly in the age of artificial intelligence.

Through honesty, reform, and education, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani has not only regained trust but also led the conversation on responsible AI use in the legal world.

What began as a misstep has transformed into a moment of progress — proving that integrity, when paired with innovation, can guide the law into a future where technology serves justice, not the other way around.