Nicaragua Crimes Against Humanity: What the 2026 UN Report Adds
Introduction
A United Nations investigation released on September 22, 2026, adds to the evidence concerning crimes against humanity in Nicaragua. The Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua documented at least 161 enforced disappearances since April 2018, with 29 people whose whereabouts remain unknown. It also attributed responsibility to the government for at least eight deaths in state custody, while acknowledging that the circumstances of some deaths could not be fully verified. The experts identified coordinated conduct by state institutions operating under the centralized control of co-presidents Daniel Ortega and Rosario Murillo (Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, 2026).
These findings build on an earlier legal assessment. In 2023, the same UN group found reasonable grounds to believe that serious human rights violations had been committed in a widespread and systematic manner for political reasons and constituted evidence of crimes against humanity, including persecution on political grounds. The September 2026 investigation provides further detail about prolonged disappearances, detention conditions, deaths in custody, and the institutions involved in repression (Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, 2023; 2026).
Under Article 7 of the Rome Statute, crimes against humanity encompass specified acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population, with knowledge of the attack (Rome Statute, 1998, Article 7). The UN findings raise separate questions about Nicaragua’s international responsibility for conduct attributable to the state and the potential criminal liability of individual officials. An investigative finding is not a criminal conviction. Individual guilt must be established under the substantive and evidentiary rules applicable before a court with jurisdiction.
Nicaragua is not a party to the Rome Statute, so the International Criminal Court cannot exercise jurisdiction solely on the basis of the UN investigation. Proceedings before the Court would require an applicable jurisdictional basis under the Statute; national courts may offer other avenues where their laws permit prosecution. The September 2026 findings could assist future investigations, although the admissibility and weight of the underlying material would have to be determined in any resulting proceedings (Rome Statute, 1998, Articles 12–13).
1. What the 2026 UN Report Adds
The United Nations Human Rights Council established the Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua in March 2022 to investigate alleged human rights violations and abuses committed since April 2018 and provide guidance on accountability. Its mandate was subsequently extended. The Group is an independent investigative mechanism, not a court, and its findings do not themselves establish individual criminal guilt (Human Rights Council, 2022, Resolution 49/3).
The investigation followed the repression of nationwide protests that began in April 2018. In March 2023, the Group found reasonable grounds to believe that serious violations had been committed against actual or perceived government opponents and their relatives. It concluded that some of this conduct constituted, prima facie, crimes against humanity. Its February 2026 report subsequently documented the persistence of violations and the expansion of repression to people previously associated with the government (Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, 2023, A/HRC/52/63; 2026a, A/HRC/61/56).
On September 22, 2026, the Group announced the findings of The Anatomy of State Cruelty, an investigation concentrating on enforced disappearance and deaths in custody. It reported 161 documented disappearances since 2018, including 29 people whose fate or whereabouts remained undisclosed, and presented 17 illustrative cases. The experts also attributed responsibility to the government for eight deaths in state custody. The investigation adds information about prolonged concealment, detention conditions, medical care, and institutional coordination to the Group’s earlier findings (Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, 2026b).
1.1 Enforced Disappearances and the Changing Pattern of Repression
The 161 disappearances documented in the September investigation form a cumulative record extending back to April 2018. They do not represent 161 people newly disappeared in September 2026. The 29 unresolved cases identify people whose fate or whereabouts had not been established at the time of the Group’s announcement. Both figures describe documented cases rather than a definitive account of every disappearance that may have occurred (Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, 2026b).
Enforced disappearance involves a deprivation of liberty connected to state authorities, followed by refusal to acknowledge the detention or concealment of the person’s fate or whereabouts. The concealment prevents the detainee and their relatives from exercising protections that depend on knowing where the person is held. International human rights mechanisms have clarified that disappearance need not continue for a specified minimum period to constitute a violation (Committee on Enforced Disappearances and Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, 2024, CED/C/11).
The duration of disappearances documented in Nicaragua has changed. By February 2026, the Group had verified 75 cases involving periods ranging from several weeks to more than two years. Nine of those people remained disappeared when that report was prepared. The September investigation’s larger cumulative total and 29 unresolved cases provide a later account; the difference between the figures must not automatically be interpreted as the number of new disappearances occurring between the two publications (Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, 2026a, A/HRC/61/56, para. 59; 2026b).
The February report described police and prison authorities refusing to confirm that particular detainees were held in their facilities. It also found that courts had failed to admit habeas corpus petitions, leaving relatives without an effective means of establishing where their family members were being held. Fear of reprisals discouraged some families from reporting cases, creating a further obstacle to determining the full extent of the practice (Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, 2026a, A/HRC/61/56, para. 60).
For the missing person, concealment can prevent contact with counsel, access to medical treatment, and judicial scrutiny of detention. Relatives may be unable to establish whether the person is alive, has been transferred, or has died. Disappearance is generally treated as a continuing violation while the person’s fate or whereabouts remain concealed. Disclosure can end that continuing concealment without extinguishing obligations to investigate earlier conduct or provide effective remedies (Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, 2010).
1.2 Deaths in Custody and the Case of Brooklyn Rivera
The September investigation attributed responsibility to the Nicaraguan government for eight deaths involving people detained on political grounds since 2018. Its findings concern conditions of confinement, access to health care, and the circumstances surrounding custodial deaths. They do not establish that every death resulted from an intentional killing or that the individual medical cause of each death has been conclusively determined (Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, 2026b).
Brooklyn Rivera, a Miskito Indigenous leader, former legislator, and founder of the YATAMA political movement, was detained in September 2023. He remained in custody for approximately 32 months, including two prolonged periods of enforced disappearance. His detention and restricted contact with relatives had already attracted international attention before the authorities announced his death on May 31, 2026 (Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, 2026b; Associated Press, 2026).
The government maintained that Rivera had received medical care and family support. Its public explanation connected his deteriorating condition to complications associated with an earlier COVID-19 infection. The UN experts examined five government statements concerning his final illness and death, together with an independent medical review by Physicians for Human Rights. They reported significant inconsistencies among the official accounts and identified medical questions that those statements did not satisfactorily resolve (Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, 2026b).
The medical review challenged the coherence of the government’s explanation and raised questions about whether infections described by the authorities had been acquired during detention or hospitalization. An independent autopsy or investigation was not undertaken. Consequently, the available material does not establish a complete clinical account of the events leading to Rivera’s death, despite the serious concerns identified by the investigators (Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, 2026b; Associated Press, 2026).
The Group considered that the presumption of state responsibility arising from Rivera’s death in custody had not been rebutted. It also called for his remains to be returned to his family and community for burial according to Miskito tradition. Those findings concern the state’s treatment of Rivera, its explanation of his death, and its obligations toward his relatives. They do not constitute a judicial finding that a particular official committed murder (Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, 2026b).
The investigation also includes Humberto Ortega, the co-president’s brother, among the people who died in state custody. The circumstances of individual deaths must nevertheless be assessed separately, particularly where medical evidence or independent examination is incomplete. Under international human rights law, a death in custody may engage the state’s duty to protect life and investigate potentially unlawful deaths. Establishing murder as a crime against humanity requires additional proof of the underlying offense, the relevant mental element, and its connection to the broader attack against civilians (Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, 2026b; Rome Statute, 1998, Article 7).
1.3 State Institutions and the Organization of Repression
The September investigation identifies centralized control over the police, penitentiary system, and courts as part of its account of repression. The Group reported that its findings include diagrams tracing institutional chains of command. According to the experts, Daniel Ortega and Rosario Murillo exercise centralized control over institutions whose functions would ordinarily include protecting detainees and providing remedies against unlawful state conduct (Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, 2026b).
Earlier investigations provide further detail about the wider institutional structure. The February 2026 report examined the involvement of state and party bodies in surveillance, politically motivated proceedings, and the financing of repression. Its account of intelligence activities also identified connections among security institutions and other public authorities. These earlier findings provide context for the September investigation without constituting evidence that every institution participated in each disappearance or custodial death (Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, 2026a, A/HRC/61/56).
The interaction between institutions is significant because an enforced disappearance may extend beyond the officers who initially deprive someone of liberty. Concealment can continue through decisions about detention records, family access, transfers, and responses to judicial applications. The Group’s findings concerning police and prison authorities, alongside the failure of courts to admit habeas corpus petitions documented in February, illustrate how conduct by different institutions may contribute to the same continuing violation (Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, 2026a, A/HRC/61/56, para. 60).
Institutional coordination may also provide evidence of the organized character of a broader course of conduct. It does not establish that every official within a chain of command possessed the same knowledge, issued the same instructions, or exercised effective control over individual perpetrators. Those questions belong to the separate inquiry into personal criminal responsibility.
2. The Evidentiary Status of the UN Investigation
The Group of Human Rights Experts reports to the Human Rights Council under an investigative mandate. It examines allegations, evaluates information, identifies patterns, and makes findings and recommendations concerning accountability. It cannot issue criminal convictions, impose sentences, or compel a domestic prosecutor to bring charges. Its reports have an investigative and institutional status distinct from the judgments of international or national courts (Human Rights Council, 2022, Resolution 49/3).
In its February 2026 report, the Group applied a reasonable-grounds-to-believe standard. That threshold permits an investigative conclusion when sufficiently reliable information supports the finding. It is different from proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is required for a criminal conviction before the International Criminal Court. The conclusions of an investigative mechanism cannot be treated as findings of guilt reached after a criminal trial (Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, 2026a, A/HRC/61/56; Rome Statute, 1998, Article 66(3)).
The evidence available to the Group varies between investigations. Its February examination of the financing of repression drew on 73 interviews with 39 sources and more than 1,700 documents, including administrative and financial records. Those figures concern that particular inquiry and do not describe the number of interviews or documents underlying the September disappearance investigation (Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, 2026a, A/HRC/61/56, para. 66).
The announced findings concerning Rivera identify a different evidentiary approach. The experts compared five public government statements with an independent medical review conducted by Physicians for Human Rights. This comparison enabled them to identify inconsistencies in the official explanation. It could not substitute for unrestricted access to medical records, an independent autopsy, or direct examination of every relevant circumstance (Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, 2026b).
Access to official information has remained restricted. In February 2026, the Group recorded 21 unanswered letters requesting information from the Nicaraguan authorities. It also reported that Nicaragua had discontinued cooperation with the Human Rights Council and its mechanisms in February 2025. An advance copy of the February report had been sent to the government, whose refusal to cooperate limited the investigators’ ability to obtain official evidence directly (Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, 2026a, A/HRC/61/56, para. 4).
The government’s public statements concerning Rivera remain relevant to assessing the available evidence. Their existence does not resolve the discrepancies identified by the experts, just as institutional noncooperation does not independently establish the truth of every allegation. In any subsequent criminal proceeding, the underlying material would have to be assessed according to the applicable rules on disclosure, authentication, admissibility, reliability, and the rights of the accused.
3. The Legal Threshold for Crimes Against Humanity
Crimes against humanity require proof of specified prohibited acts committed within a particular context. Article 7 of the Rome Statute requires an underlying act to form part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population, with knowledge of the attack. A serious human rights violation does not automatically satisfy those additional contextual and mental elements (Rome Statute, 1998, Article 7).
The Rome Statute provides a principal formulation for examining the reported conduct, but its provisions cannot be treated as identical in every respect to customary international criminal law. In February 2026, the Group characterized several categories of violations in Nicaragua as crimes against humanity prima facie under customary international law. The precise elements applicable to an eventual prosecution would depend on the law governing the court concerned (Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, 2026a, A/HRC/61/56, para. 77).
Crimes against humanity do not require a connection to an armed conflict. The relevant attack may consist of a course of conduct involving detention, disappearance, torture, persecution, or other prohibited acts directed against civilians. Its legal characterization depends on the relationship between the individual acts and the broader attack, rather than on whether military hostilities occurred (Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al., Appeals Judgment, 12 June 2002, para. 86).
3.1 The Widespread or Systematic Attack Requirement
The widespread and systematic requirements are alternatives. An attack may qualify because of its scale or because of its organized character, although the same conduct may satisfy both. The number of victims, duration, recurring methods, and coordination among perpetrators may all be relevant. The assessment concerns the attack as a whole rather than requiring every individual act to be widespread or systematic (Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al., Appeals Judgment, 12 June 2002, paras. 94–97).
An attack under Article 7 is not necessarily a military operation. Article 7(2)(a) describes a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of prohibited acts against a civilian population pursuant to or in furtherance of a state or organizational policy. The attack need not encompass an entire national population; it may be directed against an identifiable part of the civilian population (Rome Statute, 1998, Article 7).
The Group’s findings concerning Nicaragua are relevant to these requirements. Its investigations describe violations extending across several years, recurring detention practices, and the targeting of actual or perceived opponents. The February report also records the expansion of repression to former government associates and their relatives. The September findings concerning disappearances and institutional control provide additional information about the continuity and organization of the alleged conduct (Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, 2026a, A/HRC/61/56; 2026b).
The Rome Statute’s policy requirement must be distinguished from the customary-law formulation considered by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. In Kunarac, the Appeals Chamber held that a plan or policy was not an independent legal element under the customary international law applicable in that case. Evidence of a policy could nevertheless help establish the existence and character of a widespread or systematic attack (Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al., Appeals Judgment, 12 June 2002, para. 98).
3.2 Disappearance, Imprisonment, Torture, and Persecution
Enforced disappearance is expressly listed as an underlying crime against humanity in Article 7(1)(i) of the Rome Statute. Article 7(2)(i) requires a deprivation of liberty involving a state or political organization, followed by refusal to acknowledge that deprivation or provide information about the person’s fate or whereabouts. The definition also specifies an intention to remove the person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period (Rome Statute, 1998, Article 7(1)(i) and 7(2)(i)).
The human rights definition of enforced disappearance does not impose the same prolonged-period requirement. In their 2024 joint statement, the Committee on Enforced Disappearances and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances explained that duration is not a constitutive element of the violation. Their statement is interpretive authority, not an additional treaty obligation imposed on every state (Committee on Enforced Disappearances and Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, 2024, CED/C/11).
Nicaragua is not a party to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. It has also signed, but not ratified, the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. Its obligations concerning disappearance must consequently be identified through the treaties that bind it, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and applicable customary international law. Signature alone does not make Nicaragua a party to either disappearance convention (Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, 2023, A/HRC/52/63; Organization of American States, 1994).
The customary-law characterization requires separate treatment. In February 2026, the Group identified enforced disappearance within its assessment of crimes against humanity as “other inhumane acts.” This differs from the Rome Statute’s express enumeration of enforced disappearance as a distinct underlying offense. The difference is relevant when identifying the substantive law and elements applicable before a particular criminal court (Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, 2026a, A/HRC/61/56, para. 77).
Imprisonment or another severe deprivation of physical liberty may constitute a crime against humanity where it violates fundamental rules of international law and forms part of the required attack. The Group’s findings concerning prolonged detention, concealment, and ineffective judicial remedies are relevant to that inquiry. The severity and unlawfulness of the deprivation must still be established under the applicable definition (Rome Statute, 1998, Article 7(1)(e)).
Torture requires proof of its own elements. Under Article 7(2)(e) of the Rome Statute, it involves the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon a person in the custody or control of the accused, subject to the provision concerning lawful sanctions. Evidence of prolonged isolation, abusive detention conditions, threats, or denial of medical treatment may be relevant, but detention or inadequate care alone does not automatically establish every element of torture (Rome Statute, 1998, Article 7(1)(f) and 7(2)(e)).
Persecution on political grounds concerns the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of a group or collectivity. Article 7(1)(h) additionally requires the connection specified in that provision. The Group’s findings about the targeting of actual or perceived opponents are relevant to the political character of the alleged conduct and the inquiry into discriminatory intent (Rome Statute, 1998, Article 7(1)(h) and 7(2)(g)).
Deaths in custody raise further questions about the protection of life, state responsibility, and potentially murder or other underlying crimes. Rivera’s case illustrates the distinction between serious investigative findings concerning custodial treatment and the separate proof necessary to establish an individual’s criminal liability for a particular offense.
4. State Responsibility and Individual Criminal Liability
International law distinguishes responsibility attributable to Nicaragua from the criminal liability of particular individuals. State responsibility requires conduct attributable to the state that breaches an international obligation binding on it. Individual criminal responsibility requires proof of an offense and a recognized legal basis connecting the accused person to its commission. The two forms of responsibility may arise from the same conduct without being legally interchangeable (International Law Commission, 2001, Articles 2 and 4; Rome Statute, 1998, Article 25).
The International Law Commission’s 2001 Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts provide an authoritative formulation of the general rules. They are not a treaty, and individual provisions must be assessed according to their status under customary international law. Article 4 addresses the conduct of state organs. Article 7 concerns organs or entities exercising governmental authority that exceed their authority or contravene instructions while acting in that capacity (International Law Commission, 2001, Articles 4 and 7).
These rules are relevant to the police, penitentiary authorities, prosecutors, and courts identified in the UN investigations. Conduct by officials acting in their official capacities may be attributable to Nicaragua even when it violates domestic law. Conduct by persons who are not state organs may require a different analysis, including the requirements concerning instructions, direction, or control under Article 8. Attribution identifies conduct legally treated as the state’s; a separate inquiry establishes whether that conduct breached an international obligation.
Nicaragua’s relevant obligations include protections under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture. The Covenant protects life, liberty and security of person, freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, and humane treatment of people deprived of liberty. It also requires effective remedies for violations within the scope of Article 2(3). The Convention against Torture imposes additional duties concerning prevention and investigation within its own scope (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Articles 2, 6, 7, 9 and 10; Convention against Torture, 1984, Articles 2 and 12).
The Group found reasonable grounds to believe that Nicaragua had committed grave violations of its international obligations. Such responsibility may entail cessation of continuing wrongful conduct and reparation for injury caused by it, subject to the applicable rules. In disappearance cases, disclosure of a person’s fate or whereabouts and an effective investigation may be necessary to address continuing violations and the rights of relatives (Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, 2026a, A/HRC/61/56, para. 82; International Law Commission, 2001, Articles 30–31).
Individual criminal liability requires a more specific account of an accused person’s conduct. Article 25 of the Rome Statute identifies forms of responsibility that include committing, ordering, soliciting, inducing, and contributing to crimes in specified circumstances. Article 28 separately addresses responsibility of military commanders and other superiors under defined requirements concerning effective authority or control, knowledge, and failures to take necessary and reasonable measures. These are provisions of the ICC’s treaty framework; other courts apply the modes of liability governing their own proceedings (Rome Statute, 1998, Articles 25 and 28).
In February 2026, the Group recalled that it had previously identified Ortega, Murillo, and 52 additional senior state officials and party members as prima facie responsible for violations, abuses, or crimes documented in its investigations. It called for judicial or other appropriate investigations to determine individual responsibility. The Group also reported obtaining additional information about other individuals whose conduct could warrant investigation (Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, 2026a, A/HRC/61/56, para. 85).
The September findings concerning centralized control and institutional chains of command may assist inquiries into how decisions were made and implemented. Evidence about orders, knowledge, contributions, or effective control may be relevant to a particular mode of liability. Criminal responsibility nevertheless depends on establishing the accused person’s legally relevant connection to the alleged crimes, not merely their position within the government or another institution.
5. Why ICC Jurisdiction Is Not Automatic
Nicaragua is not a party to the Rome Statute. Its non-party status limits the circumstances in which the International Criminal Court (ICC) may exercise jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed in the country, but it does not determine whether those acts constitute crimes against humanity. The existence of an international crime and a particular court’s authority to prosecute it are separate legal questions. Findings by the UN Group of Human Rights Experts cannot confer jurisdiction on the ICC (Rome Statute, 1998, Articles 5, 12 and 13; United Nations Treaty Collection, 2026).
Nicaragua could accept the Court’s jurisdiction by lodging a declaration with the Registrar under Article 12(3), without becoming a party to the Statute. The declaration’s terms would determine the scope of the acceptance, including the period covered. Acceptance would satisfy a jurisdictional precondition, not initiate proceedings by itself. An investigation would still require an applicable mechanism under Article 13 and compliance with the Statute’s procedures, including judicial authorization where the Prosecutor acts on their own initiative (Rome Statute, 1998, Articles 12(3), 13 and 15).
A qualifying connection to another state may provide a separate route. For proceedings initiated through a state-party referral or by the Prosecutor, Article 12(2) generally requires the relevant conduct to have occurred on the territory of a state party or a state that has accepted jurisdiction, or the accused person to be a national of such a state. In the Situation in Bangladesh/Myanmar, the ICC held that territorial jurisdiction could extend to alleged deportation where a legally relevant element of the crime occurred on the territory of a state party. A person’s subsequent presence abroad, without a sufficient territorial connection to the alleged crime, would not establish jurisdiction on that basis (ICC, Situation in Bangladesh/Myanmar, Decision on Jurisdiction, 6 September 2018; Rome Statute, 1998, Article 12(2)).
Article 13 distinguishes a referral by a state party from one made by the UN Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. A state party may refer a situation under Articles 13(a) and 14, but its referral does not remove Article 12’s jurisdictional preconditions. A Security Council referral under Article 13(b) does not depend on Nicaragua’s acceptance of jurisdiction or on the territorial and nationality conditions in Article 12(2). It remains subject to the Court’s other statutory limits (Rome Statute, 1998, Articles 12–14).
The alleged conduct examined by the UN experts began after July 1, 2002, when the Rome Statute entered into force. That does not mean every possible route would cover every incident: the temporal scope of any acceptance of jurisdiction and other applicable limits would still need examination. If jurisdiction were established, the Prosecutor and, where required, the Court would address the conditions for an investigation and the admissibility of particular cases. Article 17 makes relevant national proceedings and case gravity material to admissibility. Neither the seriousness of the alleged crimes nor the Human Rights Council’s findings removes these requirements (Rome Statute, 1998, Articles 11, 15, 17 and 53).
6. Criminal Accountability Before National Courts
Criminal proceedings outside Nicaragua may be possible where another state’s law provides jurisdiction over the alleged conduct. Jurisdiction may arise because an offense occurred within that state’s territory or because the accused is its national. Some legal systems also recognize jurisdiction based on the victim’s nationality. Each route depends on the applicable legislation and the facts connecting the alleged offense to the prosecuting state.
Universal jurisdiction permits a different inquiry. Under the laws of some states, national authorities may investigate or prosecute specified international crimes without an ordinary territorial or nationality connection. Its scope and conditions vary considerably. Domestic legislation may restrict the offenses covered, require the suspect’s presence, or impose procedural conditions on a prosecution. The Secretary-General’s 2025 report on the scope and application of universal jurisdiction records differing approaches among states rather than a single, unrestricted model (United Nations Secretary-General, 2025, A/80/274).
In its September 22, 2026 announcement, the Group of Human Rights Experts urged international cooperation and the use of available territorial and universal criminal jurisdiction to pursue accountability in Nicaragua. That appeal does not create offenses or confer new powers on domestic prosecutors. It identifies avenues that states may pursue within their existing legal frameworks, including cooperation to preserve evidence, locate witnesses, and investigate identifiable acts (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2026).
6.1 Universal Jurisdiction and Domestic Prosecutions
A national prosecutor would first need to identify an offense under the law governing the proposed proceedings. Some states have incorporated crimes against humanity into domestic legislation; others may be able to prosecute particular acts, such as torture, under separate provisions. The charges available depend on the offense’s definition and the court’s jurisdiction. A UN finding that conduct amounts to a crime against humanity cannot supply a missing domestic criminal provision.
The date of the alleged conduct may raise additional questions. A national statute enacted after an incident cannot simply be applied retrospectively in disregard of the principle of legality. An enforced disappearance’s continuing character may be relevant where concealment persists after an offense enters into force, but the legal consequences depend on the wording of the applicable legislation and the facts established. Continuing harm and conduct satisfying the elements of a continuing offense must not be treated as interchangeable.
Domestic systems also differ in their procedural requirements. A suspect’s presence may be required before proceedings can begin or reach a particular stage. Some jurisdictions require authorization from a designated prosecutor, while others impose restrictions connected to proceedings in another country. The availability of jurisdiction over torture under a treaty-based framework may likewise depend on conditions concerning the alleged offender’s presence and the state’s implementing legislation. These differences are reflected in the national practices documented in the Secretary-General’s 2025 report (United Nations Secretary-General, 2025, A/80/274).
Evidence gathered by the UN experts could help investigators identify incidents, witnesses, detention practices, and institutional relationships. Domestic prosecutors would nevertheless need evidence sufficient under their own law to connect particular suspects to the offenses charged. Witness accounts may require further examination, documents may need authentication, and the defense must be able to challenge the prosecution’s case. Evidence of an organized pattern of repression can be relevant without proving that every official within the institutions concerned committed a particular crime.
Proceedings might address an underlying offense without charging crimes against humanity. A court with jurisdiction over an alleged act of torture, for example, may be able to examine that act even if the prosecution cannot establish the contextual elements of a widespread or systematic attack. The distinction affects the available charges and the evidence required; it does not lessen the need to prove individual responsibility for the offense prosecuted.
6.2 Immunities, Evidence, and Enforcement Obstacles
Jurisdiction over an offense does not necessarily permit a foreign national court to exercise criminal process against every suspected official. Certain incumbent officeholders enjoy personal immunity, or immunity ratione personae, under international law. In Arrest Warrant, the International Court of Justice recognized the immunity of an incumbent foreign minister before foreign national courts and identified heads of state and heads of government among officials enjoying comparable protection. Such immunity is procedural; it does not extinguish substantive criminal responsibility (Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000, Judgment, 14 February 2002, paras. 51–61).
The ICJ did not recognize an exception to an incumbent foreign minister’s personal immunity before foreign national courts based solely on allegations of war crimes or crimes against humanity. It distinguished those proceedings from proceedings before certain international criminal tribunals possessing jurisdiction. Article 27 of the Rome Statute governs the effect of official capacity before the ICC, but its terms cannot simply be transferred to every domestic prosecution (Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000, Judgment, 14 February 2002, paras. 58–61; Rome Statute, 1998, Article 27).
Different questions arise when an official no longer holds an office carrying personal immunity. Immunity ratione materiae concerns acts performed in an official capacity and may remain relevant after a person leaves office. Whether it applies to international crimes remains contested in state practice and legal analysis. The International Law Commission’s draft Article 6, adopted on second reading in 2026, provides that functional immunity shall not apply to specified crimes under international law, including crimes against humanity (International Law Commission, 2026, A/81/10, Chapter IV, draft Article 6).
The Commission recommended that the General Assembly consider elaborating a convention based on its draft articles. They are not a treaty, and their adoption does not resolve every disagreement about customary international law or bind national courts to an identical approach. An immunity question must be examined in relation to the individual’s office, the alleged conduct, any applicable waiver, and the law governing the forum (International Law Commission, 2026, A/81/10, Chapter IV).
Securing a suspect may present difficulties even where jurisdiction exists and immunity does not prevent proceedings. Arrest ordinarily depends on the suspect being within the reach of authorities able and willing to act. Extradition is subject to applicable treaties, domestic law, and other legal conditions. Access to detention records, medical evidence, and official communications may be restricted, while witnesses or relatives may face risks if they cooperate.
International assistance can improve access to evidence and support witness protection, but cooperation cannot be assumed. Information obtained through a UN investigation may also be subject to confidentiality arrangements and must be handled consistently with fair-trial rights. The existence of a lawful jurisdictional basis is consequently distinct from the ability to secure a suspect’s presence, establish the charges, or enforce a resulting judgment.
7. The Continuing Rights of Victims and Their Families
For those who remain disappeared in Nicaragua, establishing their fate and whereabouts is an immediate legal concern independent of any future criminal trial. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects rights implicated by enforced disappearance, including life, liberty, freedom from torture and other prohibited ill-treatment, and recognition before the law. The Human Rights Committee interprets the Covenant as requiring effective and speedy inquiries into suspected disappearances and measures to establish what happened to the missing person (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Articles 2, 6, 7, 9 and 16; Human Rights Committee, 2018, General Comment No. 36, para. 58).
An effective inquiry requires authorities to pursue available information about detention, location, and condition. If the person is alive, protection against further violations and access to legal safeguards remain necessary. If the person has died, an investigation may be required to establish the circumstances and any responsibility for the death. The Human Rights Committee also states that families of disappeared people should not be compelled to declare their relatives dead to qualify for reparation (Human Rights Committee, 2018, General Comment No. 36, para. 58).
Relatives may experience violations of their own rights. The Human Rights Committee recognizes that an arbitrary deprivation of life can cause mental suffering amounting to a violation of relatives’ rights under Article 7 of the Covenant. It further explains that failure to disclose the circumstances of a death or the location of a body may violate those rights even where the deprivation of life was not arbitrary. In cases of enforced disappearance, the Committee calls for relatives to be informed of investigative outcomes and provided with full reparation where violations are established (Human Rights Committee, 2018, General Comment No. 36, paras. 56 and 58).
Nicaragua is not a party to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Its provisions therefore cannot be presented as treaty obligations binding Nicaragua under that Convention. The Covenant and other applicable international rules provide separate legal bases for obligations concerning disappearance, investigation, and remedies. The UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances has elaborated the continuing nature of disappearance, although its general comments are interpretive materials rather than binding judgments against Nicaragua (Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, 2010).
Deaths in custody raise additional duties under the right to life. A potentially unlawful death requires an effective investigation capable of establishing its cause and circumstances and, where appropriate, identifying those responsible. General Comment No. 36 addresses the obligation to investigate potentially unlawful deaths. The Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016), published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in 2017, provides detailed investigative guidance. The Protocol is not itself a treaty (Human Rights Committee, 2018, General Comment No. 36; Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2017).
Brooklyn Rivera’s death illustrates the importance of these obligations for Indigenous families and communities. In its September 22 announcement, the Group of Human Rights Experts called for his remains to be returned to his family and Miskito community for burial according to their traditions. The Human Rights Committee states that relatives of people deprived of life by the state must be able to receive their remains if they wish. The Minnesota Protocol likewise provides for the return of identified remains once necessary investigative procedures have been completed, allowing families to arrange their disposition according to their beliefs (Human Rights Committee, 2018, General Comment No. 36, para. 56; Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2017; Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2026).
Returning remains does not resolve outstanding questions about a death’s cause or discharge an obligation to investigate. Disclosure of a disappeared person’s fate, cessation of continuing violations, and access to effective remedies may also be required without a prior criminal conviction. These duties address the rights of victims and relatives while criminal proceedings determine the responsibility of particular accused persons under the applicable law.
Also read
Conclusion
The Group of Human Rights Experts’ September 2026 investigation adds evidence about enforced disappearances, deaths in custody, and the institutions implicated in Nicaragua’s repression. In its September 22 announcement of The Anatomy of State Cruelty, the Group reported 161 documented disappearances since April 2018, identified 29 people who remained disappeared, and attributed responsibility to the government for eight deaths in custody. These findings develop the account underlying the Group’s 2023 assessment that some conduct constituted crimes against humanity prima facie (Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, 2023, A/HRC/52/63; Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2026).
The additional evidence may assist future accountability proceedings, but an investigative report cannot determine an individual’s criminal guilt. Nicaragua’s non-party status limits the available routes to the ICC. National prosecutions may be possible where domestic law supplies jurisdiction, although immunities, access to suspects, evidence, and enforcement present further obstacles.
For victims and families, establishing the fate of disappeared people, investigating potentially unlawful deaths, and obtaining effective remedies remain distinct legal concerns. Those obligations are not suspended while questions of criminal jurisdiction remain unresolved. The September findings provide further grounds for investigation and accountability, while determinations of individual criminal responsibility remain for courts with lawful jurisdiction.
References
Associated Press (2026) ‘Nicaraguan government responsible for at least 8 deaths in custody since 2018, UN report finds’ [online]. Available at: https://apnews.com/article/nicaragua-ortega-murillo-un-brooklyn-rivera-deaths-prisoners-b44e3c408e0f01f74488d7ebddde336a
(Accessed: 22 September 2026).
Committee on Enforced Disappearances and Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (2024) Joint statement on so-called “short-term enforced disappearances”, CED/C/11, 31 October.
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984) adopted 10 December 1984, entered into force 26 June 1987, 1465 UNTS 85.
Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua (2023) Report of the Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, A/HRC/52/63, 24 November.
Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua (2026a) Report of the Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, A/HRC/61/56, 6 February.
Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua (2026b) The Anatomy of State Cruelty. Investigation announced 22 September.
Human Rights Committee (2018) General comment No. 36 (2018) on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life, CCPR/C/GC/36, 30 October.
Human Rights Council (2022) Promotion and protection of human rights in Nicaragua, Resolution 49/3, adopted 31 March, A/HRC/RES/49/3, issued 7 April.
Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons (1994) adopted 9 June 1994, entered into force 28 March 1996, OAS Treaty A-60.
International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (2006) adopted 20 December 2006, entered into force 23 December 2010, 2716 UNTS 3.
International Court of Justice (2002) Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), Judgment, 14 February, I.C.J. Reports 2002, p. 3.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976, 999 UNTS 171.
International Criminal Court (2018) Situation in Bangladesh/Myanmar, Decision on the ‘Prosecution’s Request for a Ruling on Jurisdiction under Article 19(3) of the Statute’, Pre-Trial Chamber I, 6 September, ICC-RoC46(3)-01/18-37.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (2002) Prosecutor v. Kunarac, Kovač and Vuković, Appeals Judgment, 12 June, IT-96-23 & IT-96-23/1-A.
International Law Commission (2001) Draft articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, with commentaries, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, vol. II, Part Two.
International Law Commission (2026) Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its seventy-seventh session, A/81/10, Chapter IV, ‘Immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction’.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2017) The Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016): The Revised United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions. New York and Geneva: United Nations, HR/PUB/17/4.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2026) ‘Wave of enforced disappearances and deaths in custody reveals repression at the heart of the State, say UN experts: Nicaragua’ [online]. Reproduced by The National Tribune. Available at: https://www.nationaltribune.com.au/wave-of-enforced-disappearances-and-deaths-in-custody-reveals-repression-at-the-heart-of-the-state-say-un-experts-nicaragua/
(Accessed: 22 September 2026).
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) adopted 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002, 2187 UNTS 3.
United Nations Secretary-General (2025) The scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction: Report of the Secretary-General, A/80/274, 29 July.
United Nations Treaty Collection (2026a) ‘International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance: status of participation’ [online]. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ShowMTDSGDetails.aspx?chapter=4&lang=en&mtdsg_no=IV-16&src=UNTSONLINE&tabid=2
(Accessed: 22 September 2026).
United Nations Treaty Collection (2026b) ‘Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’ [online]. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280025774
(Accessed: 22 September 2026).
Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (2010) ‘General comment on enforced disappearance as a continuous crime’, reproduced in Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, A/HRC/16/48, 26 January 2011.
