In a very welcome move and an example to other countries, the Nigerian government has finally confirmed it will end military detention of children.

It’s a critical step to end a terrible abuse.

We’ve reported, for example, on how children in northeast Nigeria were detained in horrific conditions in a military prison for alleged association with the armed group Boko Haram. The kids described beatings, overwhelming heat, frequent hunger, and being packed tightly in cells with hundreds of others.

Most were never charged with any crime and held for months or years with no outside contact.

Our report, published in late 2019, helped prompt the release of 333 children from prison, but authorities still refused to allow the UN access to the prison or to ensure children were not detained by the military.

Now, the government has finally signed a “handover protocol” with the UN, agreeing that children in military custody should be transferred within seven days to civilian authorities for reintegration into society.

Handover protocols are practical measures to ensure that instead of prison, children affected by conflict can, with support, eventually return to their communities.

This is huge news for these children in Nigeria, but Nigeria is not the only country where kids have been detained for alleged involvement with armed groups.

Last year, the UN reported that 2,864 children were detained on such suspicions in 16 countries, including the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, and Syria. These governments should follow Nigeria’s example.

Children affected by conflict need rehabilitation and schooling, not prison.

Holding a debate…

It doesn’t seem like much, does it?

But for Beijing, any public discussion of the recent report from the UN high commissioner for human rights on abuses in Xinjiang is anathema, let alone a possible debate at the UN Human Rights Council.

Chinese diplomats have made every effort to suppress the high commissioner’s report and prevent discussion of its contents.

Council member states now have to decide whether to vote to hold a debate or crumble under pressure from Beijing to keep quiet about a report that talks of possible “crimes against humanity” requiring “urgent attention by the United Nations intergovernmental bodies and human rights system.”

It’s hard to exaggerate how extraordinarily modest the request to hold a debate is. Member states would not even be obliged to take a position in a debate or seek a particular outcome.

This is bare minimum stuff. A debate might help draw some attention to the serious crimes in Xinjiang. That’s it. No action.

That even a milquetoast debate is contested has disturbing implications for rights worldwide.

If one powerful country is allowed to be beyond international scrutiny and essentially guaranteed impunity – if the Council can’t even discuss that country – then the integrity of the Human Rights Council itself is at stake. 

Sometimes I look at our work, and I think, do we really have to even say this?

Isn’t it obvious, for example, that Honduras should choose its new Supreme Court members, “based on their qualifications, experience, and integrity”? Shouldn’t everyone know that such selections, “should be based on clear criteria, and the process should be transparent”? 

And then I read further, and I understand that, no, such fundamental things are not obvious to everyone – or at least, not accepted as obviously good – especially not to those in power.

Flawed selection of judges is a key factor behind some of the serious ills facing Central America, where we often see justice systems used to protect the powerful and persecute human rights defenders and journalists.

That’s why, looking at the selection process for top judges in Honduras, we’re calling on President Xiomara Castro to reject the temptation of choosing a Supreme Court pliant to her and her political allies’ interests.

Castro’s November 2021 electoral victory on a pro-human rights platform created enormous expectations for change, but she has been slow to deliver. We’re hoping that what’s obvious to us is still obvious to her.

(curated today by Lisa Maier)

• Afghan women protest school attack that killed dozens of young women as Taliban cracks down (Al Jazeera) 
• Will open-source intelligence liberate Palestine from digital occupation? (Foreign Policy) 
• US government has opportunity to assist Liberia in establishment of "war crimes court" (HRW) 
• Report finds widespread abuse in US womens' soccer league (DW)

In yesterday’s newsletter, I wrote about the incredible courage of Afghanistan’s women, continuing to protest and demand that their right to education be recognized, even after repeated abuse and attacks on schools, like last week’s bombing of the Kaaj center in Kabul.

Today, our experts are going to discuss that horrific attack and its aftermath in a Twitter Space at 16h30 CET (10h30 ET). Join us! (and if you can’t make it at that time exactly, the link will bring you to the recording afterward)

I’ve had a few people get in touch with me this morning about fresh reports that North Korea has launched an intermediate-range ballistic missile over northern Japan, with the Japanese government warning people to take shelter. It’s the first such launch in five years.

Quick reaction: North Korea’s lack of human rights facilitates the government’s ability to divert scarce resources away from basic needs to arms, including nuclear weapons. This is why attention to human rights abuses in the country need to be an essential part of the outside world’s dealings with it.

As Tomás Ojea Quintana, UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said earlier this year, the international community and the UN should, “take a bold approach to integrate human rights, denuclearization and peace initiatives in its engagement with the DPRK.”

(Please email me or contact me on Twitter with your suggestions for this newsletter.)