News & Reports
Reports and analysis on torture prevention, OPCAT ratifications, UN treaty body sessions, and human rights documentation, sourced from OHCHR, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the Coalition monitoring work.
Liberia Agreed in September 2025. Liberians Were Told in August 2026.
The agreement under which people are flown from the United States to Liberia was published by the Department of State in March 2026 and announced to Liberians in August. It sets no limit on numbers, provides nothing about lawyers, detention or monitoring, and makes signed operating procedures a condition of any transfer. No such procedures have been produced.
Fourteen People Won Protection in American Courts. Now They Are Before the African Commission.
On 5 June 2026 five organisations filed a complaint against Equatorial Guinea at the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, for fourteen people sent there from the United States. Every one of them had been granted protection by an American immigration judge. Three months on, the Commission has announced nothing.
The Plane Landed in Monrovia at 12:45. By Evening It Was in Malabo.
Six people refused to get off a United States removal flight in Liberia, saying it was not their country and that they would face danger there. They were told they would be flown back to the United States. The same aircraft landed that evening in Equatorial Guinea.
Twenty Were Flown to Liberia on 20 August. Five Were Put Back on the Plane.
Roughly twenty people landed at Monrovia on 20 August. Five refused to leave the aircraft and, Reuters reported, were taken on to Equatorial Guinea. Most of the fifteen who remained had already won an order from an American court forbidding their return to their own countries.
The Rules Say the Country Must Be Named. Two Courts Said So in 1998 and 1999.
Two provisions of the removal regulations require the immigration judge to identify the alternative countries on the record, and to tell a person who fears one of them that he may apply for protection against being sent there. Courts of appeals said the same in 1998 and 1999. In O.C.G.'s hearing no alternative country was identified, and when he raised Mexico himself he was told it could not happen.
A Man With Protection From Guatemala Was Put on a Bus to Mexico. Mexico Sent Him Back to Guatemala.
An immigration judge found he would more likely than not suffer serious harm in Guatemala. Two days later he was removed to Mexico without notice, and Mexico sent him to Guatemala. A federal judge ordered the government to bring him back, and the court has since recorded that the government did.
Withholding and CAT Deferral: What the Protection Covers, and What It Does Not
Withholding of removal and deferral under the Convention Against Torture are findings about one named country. Understanding that limit is essential when a transfer to a different country is proposed.
Convention against Torture, art. 3; 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2)-(3); 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16, 208.17, 208.18; Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, § 2242; American Immigration Council, third-country removals fact sheet.
Special Rapporteur on Torture: Assessments Must Cover the Whole Chain of Transfer
On 28 July 2026 the UN Special Rapporteur on torture addressed states overhauling their removal systems, emphasising individualised assessment and analysis of the entire chain of transfer.
OHCHR, 'No shortcuts around torture ban as governments overhaul removal systems, UN expert warns', Special Rapporteur on torture, 28 July 2026.
UN Experts Urge Torture-Risk Assessment Before Any Transfer to a Third Country
Seven United Nations special procedures mandates issued a joint statement on 8 July 2025 urging that torture risks be assessed before any person is transferred to a country other than their own.
OHCHR, 'UN experts alarmed by resumption of US deportations to third countries, warn authorities to assess risks of torture', joint statement of seven special procedures mandates, 8 July 2025.
Constructive Refoulement: When a Return Recorded as Voluntary Is Not a Free Choice
International law prohibits achieving by pressure what a state may not order directly. Where detention, destitution or indefinite limbo leave a protected person no real alternative to returning, the departure is not voluntary in law.
International Law Commission, Draft Articles on the Expulsion of Aliens (2014), art. 10(1); UNHCR, Voluntary Repatriation: International Protection; Committee against Torture, general comment on the implementation of article 3; EJIL:Talk!, 'Does international law prohibit constructive refoulement?'; International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 35, no. 4, p. 419.