Accordingly, the very fact of the use of physical force, and in a number of cases its excessive use, raises the question of the legality and compliance with international standards of the practice of concealing their faces by TRC employees when carrying out coercive actions.

Here, we can leave aside the legal assessment of the legality of the detention of citizens by TRC employees as such. This issue has been sufficiently researched, and the answer is clear: TRC employees do not have such powers.

Instead, the key aspect is that the very fact of using physical force during the detention of persons transforms the legal status of TRC employees (who are, by their nature, military personnel) into a status functionally identical to that of law enforcement officers, as they effectively assume the relevant law enforcement powers.

In this regard, it is worth noting the provisions of Article 1 of the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by Resolution 34/169 of the UN General Assembly on December 17, 1979, according to which the term “law enforcement officials” covers all appointed or elected officials who exercise police powers, including the power to arrest or detain. Thus, when a TRC employee, while in the status of a military serviceman, resorts to detention with the use of physical force, this indicates that he has effectively assumed the powers of law enforcement officials within the meaning of the aforementioned international act, which, in turn, raises questions both about the legality of such actions and about legal responsibility for them.

At the same time, in the context of preventing torture and inhuman treatment, given the practice of detentions carried out by TRC employees, the standards of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) are of particular importance. The relevant CPT standards contain an unambiguous requirement: every state agent — regardless of their institutional affiliation (police officer, prison service officer, or other state official) — who exercises powers to detain persons is required to wear clear and unambiguous means of identification. Such means may include an individual number, surname, or appropriate markings on the uniform or protective equipment (in particular, a helmet).

In cases where officials perform their duties wearing balaclavas or helmets that cover their faces, the relevant identification numbers must be of sufficient size to ensure the unimpeded identification of the specific official exercising the power of detention and using physical force.

Thus, even if the actions of TRC employees in detaining citizens are illegal in nature, the obligation to have clear and unambiguous means of identification on uniforms remains relevant and important. Compliance with this requirement is a necessary prerequisite for ensuring the prompt identification of a specific individual who has used force and, where there are grounds for doing so, bringing them to justice.

Here we would like to recall certain ECHR standards regarding the wearing of balaclavas by law enforcement officers.

The CPT would also like to express its misgivings about the practice of law enforcement officials wearing masks when apprehending persons […] since this will hamper the identification of those responsible if and when instances of ill-treatment arise. The Committee considers that only exceptional circumstances can justify measures to conceal the identity of law enforcement officials [carrying out their duties]. Where such measures are applied, appropriate safeguards must be in place in order to ensure that the officials concerned are accountable for their actions (e.g. by means of a clearly visible number on the uniform) (Estonia, 2007, para 15).

The CPT considers that appropriate safeguards must be in place in order to ensure that police officers may be identified and can be held accountable for their actions (e.g. by way of a clearly visible means of individual identification on the uniform, such as a name or a number). This concerns in particular those police officers wearing masks/balaclavas or other equipment that may hamper their identification. Such a requirement is also likely to have a preventive effect and significantly reduce the risk of excessive use of force and other forms of ill-treatment (Austria, 2021, para 19).

The wearing of balaclavas (in addition to protective helmets) by members of specialised forces may exceptionally be justified in the context of high-risk operations (for instance, when dangerous arrests are necessary). However, the routine wearing of balaclavas during public order operations should be seriously reconsidered. Further, any pre-planned interventions should be videorecorded (e.g. with tactical cameras as part of the equipment of the officers concerned). Action must also be taken to ensure that plainclothes law enforcement officials effecting an apprehension and/or questioning an apprehended person in the context of public order operations clearly identify themselves (including by giving evidence of their status and professional identity as soon as is practicable) (Ukraine, February 2014, para 36).

The practical arrangements in place, in particular the display of a number on the back of helmets, did not generally allow persons apprehended in the context of the demonstrations to identify the law enforcement officials involved in their arrest. The CPT recommends that the  authorities take measures to ensure that all police officers involved in public order operations, whether they wear personal protection equipment or not, display a clearly visible means of individual identification (such as a name or a number) on the front of their uniforms or helmets (Türkiye, April 2025, para 36).

The Committee recommends that steps be taken to ensure that prison staff are always identifiable, preferably by wearing name tags [or short] identification numbers in a visible manner at all times whilst on duty (Hungary, 2013, para. 49).

The CPT also wishes to emphasise that it is opposed to the wearing of balaclavas by special-purpose forces within penitentiary establishments. The Committee recognises that, for operational and/or security reasons, the wearing of protective helmets may be necessary. However, it should be ensured that subsequent identification of the officers concerned is always possible by the relevant authorities and by prisoners through not only a clearly distinctive badge but also a prominent identification number on each uniform/helmet. In addition, interventions of this type should be videorecorded (e.g. with tactical cameras as part of the equipment of the penitentiary officers concerned) (Ukraine, 2012, para 21).

Further, in the context of border control activities at both land and sea borders, all law enforcement officials or state agents involved should display clearly visible identification numbers or tags on their uniforms. There can be no justification for balaclavas to be systematically worn. Border control activities should also be video recorded to prevent both ill-treatment and false accusations and be systematically monitored. In this regard, the authorities should guarantee the operation of effective and independent monitoring mechanisms for systematically monitoring border control activities (Greece, 2023, para 162).

The two-day intensive programme formed part of the DIGNITY project, an initiative co-funded by the European Union and dedicated to bridging perspectives for a rights-based approach to pre-trial detention across member states.

Under the expert guidance of Ms. Marina Daliani, distinguished criminal and human rights lawyer and Vice President of the Hellenic League of Human Rights, the training brought together legal practitioners, human rights defenders, and detention monitoring experts from Greece, Portugal, and Ukraine.

The programme addressed critical contemporary challenges in pre-trial detention practices, including vulnerabilities of detained persons, barriers to effective legal representation, and the application of international human rights standards. Participants engaged in practical exercises encompassing UN complaint mechanisms, European Arrest Warrant simulations, and strategic litigation before the European Court of Human Rights.

The Spark: Mayor’s Assassination

The protests were catalyzed by the November 1st assassination of Uruapan Mayor Carlos Manzo, who was shot while attending a Day of the Dead festival. Manzo had been vocal about demanding tough action against drug cartels terrorizing Mexican communities. Demonstrators honored his memory by carrying banners reading “We are all Carlos Manzo” and wearing cowboy hats in tribute.

Escalating Violence

The situation deteriorated when protesters dismantled barriers protecting the National Palace, where Sheinbaum resides. Police responded with tear gas, and authorities arrested 20 people on charges including robbery and assault, according to Mexico City security chief Pablo Vazquez.

Political Tensions

President Sheinbaum has attributed the protests to right-wing political opposition, claiming they were funded by her critics. Days before the march, she suggested the demonstration was being promoted by bots online, questioning the authenticity of the grassroots movement while affirming support for freedom of expression.

Sheinbaum’s Balancing Act

Despite maintaining approval ratings above 70% in her first year, Sheinbaum faces mounting pressure. She has made progress on fentanyl-trafficking enforcement—a priority for U.S. President Donald Trump—but resists calls for an all-out drug war, citing the bloody failures of previous administrations’ approaches.

The protests highlight growing frustration with Mexico’s ongoing security crisis, even as the president attempts to chart a different course than her predecessors in addressing cartel violence.

Election and Unrest

On October 29, President Samia Suluhu Hassan secured a second term with an overwhelming 97–98% of the vote, in an election widely criticized as undemocratic. Key opposition leaders, including Tundu Lissu, were barred from running and later detained on treason charges. Protests erupted across major cities such as Dar es Salaam, Arusha, and Mbeya, fueled by anger over the exclusion of opposition candidates and allegations of ballot stuffing.

Authorities responded with curfews, an internet blackout, and a heavy security presence. Witnesses and rights groups report that security forces used live ammunition and tear gas against demonstrators, resulting in widespread casualties.

Allegations of Secret Disposal

Chadema says it has documented 2,000 deaths, including more than 100 party members, and accuses police of dumping hundreds of bodies at undisclosed locations. “Most bodies are still at hospitals, and the police are stopping people from taking them away,” said Brenda Rupia, Chadema’s communications director. “The police have thrown away over 400 bodies. We don’t even know where they’ve taken them.”
Independent verification remains difficult due to the six-day internet shutdown and restrictions on media coverage. However, reports from local lawyers and human rights defenders suggest targeted killings in politically active regions, with some victims allegedly taken from their homes and executed.

International Reaction

The African Union (AU) condemned the election as failing to meet democratic standards, citing ballot stuffing, politically motivated abductions, and the internet blackout. Its observation mission concluded that the environment was “not conducive to peaceful conduct and acceptance of electoral outcomes.”
Human Rights Watch described the government’s response as “violent and repressive,” urging authorities to end the use of lethal force and ensure accountability. The organization documented reports of point-blank shootings and arbitrary killings in multiple regions.

Foreign governments, including Canada, Norway, and the UK, issued a joint statement expressing concern over “credible reports of a large number of fatalities and significant injuries.”

Government’s Position

President Hassan acknowledged “loss of life” during her inauguration but provided no figures. Officials have warned citizens against sharing images that “cause panic,” threatening treason charges for those circulating photos of bodies online.

On October 28, 2025, a large-scale police operation took place in the Complexo do Alemão and Complexo da Penha communities, reportedly aimed at enforcing some 100 judicial warrants against individuals linked to organized criminal groups. According to official information, at least 121 people were killed, including four police officers. Some 81 people were detained.

For decades, the high lethality associated with policing in Brazil has become normalized, particularly in areas like Rio de Janeiro, where it has recently increased significantly. Brazil must break the cycle of extreme brutality and ensure that law enforcement operations comply with international standards regarding the use of force.

Türk called for prompt, independent, and effective investigations into Tuesday’s events and for a comprehensive policing reform.

Independent mechanisms should also be established to support the families and communities affected to help them access justice and reparation.

Türk urged the authorities to adopt a national policing strategy rooted in a human rights-based approach. Any use of potentially lethal force must be aligned with the principles of legality, necessity, proportionality, and non-discrimination. Lethal force may only be used when strictly necessary to protect life or prevent serious injury from an imminent threat.

Addressing systemic racism against people of African descent in Brazil is paramount.

According to the International Independent Expert Mechanism to Advance Racial Justice and Equality in Law Enforcement (EMLER), the killing of people of African descent by law enforcement in Brazil is not only generalized but is also carried out in a systematic way. An estimated 5,000 people of African descent are killed by the police each year. Young men of African descent living in impoverished areas are the main victims.

“It is time to end a system that perpetuates racism, discrimination, and injustice,” said the UN Human Rights Chief.

“Reforms are urgently needed to avoid repetition. Violations cannot go unpunished. Proper accountability processes must lead to truth and justice to avoid further impunity and violence.”

We cordially invite all experts in the fields of criminal law, criminology, sociology, political science, and other areas and disciplines to discuss current issues related to the impact of Russian aggression on the state and society.

Date: 28 November 2025

Time: 11:00 (Kyiv time)

Format: online

Access: via the link