Taliban may face charges at the International Criminal Court in The Hague over their oppressive treatment of women and girls in Afghanistan. Since regaining control in 2021, the Taliban has imposed severe restrictions on women's rights, including banning them from education, employment, and public life. These actions have sparked international condemnation and calls for accountability. Legal experts suggest that the Taliban's policies may amount to crimes against humanity, potentially leading to a tribunal to investigate and prosecute those responsible for the systemic abuses against women and girls.

Taliban May Face Hague Tribunal For Abuses Against Women and Girls

Former Pakistan prime minister Imran Khan's party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has decided to move election tribunals in the country a day after nomination papers of most of the party candidates were rejected. The list of rejected candidates includes Imran Khan as well.

Pakistani news outlet Dawn quoted PTI's central information secretary Raoof Hasan who said that all rejections will be challenged. He added that the appeals will first be made to election tribunals as per procedure and other options will be explored later.

“The candidates have collected the certified copies of ‘rejection decisions’ from respective ROs on Sunday and will begin filing appeals with the appellate tribunals from today,” he said, as quoted by Dawn.

Elections in Pakistan are due on February 8.

Watch | US, India, UK, Bangladesh, Pakistan: 2024 the Biggest Election Year ever?

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-india-uk-bangladesh-pakistan-2024-the-biggest-election-year-ever-675528/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Khan is currently in jail. He is facing a barrage of legal cases which he and his party say are politically motivated and have been filed to prevent him from contesting the election.

<h2>There is an 'agenda', PTI alleges</h2>

PTI spokesman Raoof Hasan said on Sunday (December 31, 2023) that nomination papers of "90 to 95 per cent" of PTI candidates were rejected.

He told AFP that there was an "agenda" to prevent PTI from contesting the elections.

"All tactics are being tried for this purpose but, under any circumstances, we will not leave the political ground and will not boycott the elections," he said.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistans-election-body-accepts-nawaz-sharifs-nomination-papers-for-na-130-lahore-674344">Pakistan’s election body accepts Nawaz Sharif’s nomination papers for NA-130 Lahore</a>

Hasan Askari, a political analyst, told AFP that such widespread action against a single party was "unprecedented".

"This is the first time in the country's history that a political party has been excluded from the electoral process on such a large scale even before the election," he said.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-son-of-un-designated-terrorist-gearing-up-for-elections-india-slams-675045">Pakistan: Son of UN-designated terrorist Hafiz Saeed to contest polls, India slams development</a>

State institutions want to keep PTI from contesting polls "at any cost" and "the chances of PTI getting relief are very slim", he added.

(With inputs from agencies)

Former Pakistan prime minister Imran Khan's party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has decided to move election tribunals in the country a day after nomination papers of most of the party candidates were rejected.

Former Pakistan prime minister Imran Khan's party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has decided to move election tribunals in the country a day after nomination papers of most of the party candidates were rejected. The list of rejected candidates includes Imran Khan as well. Pakistani news outlet Dawn quoted PTI's central information secretary Raoof Hasan who said that all rejections will be challenged. He added that the appeals will first be made to election tribunals as per procedure and other options will be explored later. “The candidates have collected the certified copies of ‘rejection decisions’ from respective ROs on Sunday and will begin filing appeals with the appellate tribunals from today,” he said, as quoted by Dawn. Elections in Pakistan are due on February 8. Watch | US, India, UK, Bangladesh, Pakistan: 2024 the Biggest Election Year ever? × Khan is currently in jail. He is facing a barrage of legal cases which he and his party say are politically motivated and have been filed to prevent him from contesting the election. There is an 'agenda', PTI alleges PTI spokesman Raoof Hasan said on Sunday (December 31, 2023) that nomination papers of "90 to 95 per cent" of PTI candidates were rejected. He told AFP that there was an "agenda" to prevent PTI from contesting the elections. "All tactics are being tried for this purpose but, under any circumstances, we will not leave the political ground and will not boycott the elections," he said. Also Read | Pakistan’s election body accepts Nawaz Sharif’s nomination papers for NA-130 Lahore Hasan Askari, a political analyst, told AFP that such widespread action against a single party was "unprecedented". "This is the first time in the country's history that a political party has been excluded from the electoral process on such a large scale even before the election," he said. Also Read | Pakistan: Son of UN-designated terrorist Hafiz Saeed to contest polls, India slams development State institutions want to keep PTI from contesting polls "at any cost" and "the chances of PTI getting relief are very slim", he added. (With inputs from agencies)

Pakistan: Imran Khan’s party to approach election tribunals against poll disqualification

President Joe Biden administration in the US has refused to reverse a government tribunal's decision to impose ban on Apple Watches. Reuters reported that US Trade Representative Katherine Tai decided not to veto import ban on Apple's Series 9 and Ultra 2 smartwatches. The order of import ban has been passed by US International Trade Commission (ITC) following a complaint from Massimo, a medical monitoring tech company. The company has accused Apple of stealing its pulse oximetry technology and hiring away its employees.

ITC's order on import ban has gone into effect on Tuesday (Dec 26). Apple has decided to appeal the ban in US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington. The tech giant had previously made a request to ITC to pause the ban during the appeal process. The request has been rejected.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/chinas-ban-on-apples-iphone-accelerates-670281">China's ban on Apple's iPhone accelerates</a>

After ITC's decision, Apple has paused selling Series 9 and Ultra 2 smartwatches in the US. However, the watches were on sale on platforms of other retailers like Amazon, Walmart, Best Buy as of Tuesday.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/after-samsung-india-now-issues-security-warning-for-users-of-apple-iphone-other-products-670225">After Samsung, India now issues security warnings for users of iPhone, other Apple products</a>

The order does not affect the smartwatches which are already sold. It also does not apply to the sale of Apple Watch SE, which is a less expensive model.

<h2>'Manoeuvre to clear path'</h2>

Apple claims that Masimo's legal action is just a "manoeuvre to clear a path" so that the company can introduce its own smartwatch to compete with Apple.

Apple has also sued Masimo for patent infringement in federal court in Delaware.

In the US, a presidential administration has not reversed ITC's ruling since the year 2013. At the time, administration led by president Barack Obama overturned import ban on Apple iPhones during the tech giant's patent dispute with Samsung.

Watch | Report: Apple talking to publishers to develop gen AI systems

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/report-apple-talking-to-publishers-to-develop-gen-ai-systems-673051/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

In February this year Biden administration declined to veto import ban on Apple Watches in a separate case. This patent infringement case was brought by medical technology company AliveCor.

Apple's wearables form a sizeable chunk of the company's revenue. As per figures release previously by Apple, the wearables accounted for USD 8.28 billion in revenue in third quarter of 2023 alone.

(With inputs from agencies)

President Joe Biden administration in the US has refused to reverse a government tribunal's decision to impose ban on Apple Watches. Reuters reported that US Trade Representative Katherine Tai decided not to veto import ban on Apple's Series 9 and Ultra 2 smartwatches.

President Joe Biden administration in the US has refused to reverse a government tribunal's decision to impose ban on Apple Watches. Reuters reported that US Trade Representative Katherine Tai decided not to veto import ban on Apple's Series 9 and Ultra 2 smartwatches. The order of import ban has been passed by US International Trade Commission (ITC) following a complaint from Massimo, a medical monitoring tech company. The company has accused Apple of stealing its pulse oximetry technology and hiring away its employees. ITC's order on import ban has gone into effect on Tuesday (Dec 26). Apple has decided to appeal the ban in US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington. The tech giant had previously made a request to ITC to pause the ban during the appeal process. The request has been rejected. Also Read | China's ban on Apple's iPhone accelerates After ITC's decision, Apple has paused selling Series 9 and Ultra 2 smartwatches in the US. However, the watches were on sale on platforms of other retailers like Amazon, Walmart, Best Buy as of Tuesday. Also Read | After Samsung, India now issues security warnings for users of iPhone, other Apple products The order does not affect the smartwatches which are already sold. It also does not apply to the sale of Apple Watch SE, which is a less expensive model. 'Manoeuvre to clear path' Apple claims that Masimo's legal action is just a "manoeuvre to clear a path" so that the company can introduce its own smartwatch to compete with Apple. Apple has also sued Masimo for patent infringement in federal court in Delaware. In the US, a presidential administration has not reversed ITC's ruling since the year 2013. At the time, administration led by president Barack Obama overturned import ban on Apple iPhones during the tech giant's patent dispute with Samsung. Watch | Report: Apple talking to publishers to develop gen AI systems × In February this year Biden administration declined to veto import ban on Apple Watches in a separate case. This patent infringement case was brought by medical technology company AliveCor. Apple's wearables form a sizeable chunk of the company's revenue. As per figures release previously by Apple, the wearables accounted for USD 8.28 billion in revenue in third quarter of 2023 alone. (With inputs from agencies)

Biden administration allows Apple Watch import ban in US following tribunal ruling

Nigeria's presidential election tribunal on Wednesday rejected an opposition challenge to Bola Tinubu's win in February's disputed vote, following a pattern seen in previous election years in Africa's most populous country.

No legal challenge to the outcome of a presidential election has succeeded in Nigeria, which returned to democracy in 1999 after three decades of almost uninterrupted military rule and has a history of electoral fraud.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-uses-car-tyres-to-cover-military-aircraft-to-deter-ukrainian-drone-attacks-report-632902">Russia uses car tyres to cover military aircraft to deter Ukrainian drone attacks: Report</a>

Atiku Abubakar of the People's Democratic Party and Peter Obi of the Labour Party, who came second and third respectively, had asked the court to invalidate the election, alleging irregularities.

Judge Haruna Tsammani, reading out a lengthy ruling on behalf of the tribunal's panel of five justices, rejected Obi's petition point-by-point. He was due to move onto Abubakar's petition next, which was also expected to be dismissed.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/why-wont-he-musk-questions-zuckerberg-regarding-cage-fight-632907">'Why won't he...': Musk questions Zuckerberg regarding cage fight</a>

European observers had said in June the elections were marred by problems including operational failures and a lack of transparency that reduced public trust in the process.

However, the elections came and went with little sign of any groundswell of popular opposition, and Tinubu has been accepted by the international community as Nigeria's legitimate leader. As the tribunal was giving its ruling, he was in India preparing to take part in the G20 summit there.

Watch | Kenya hosts maiden climate summit in Africa

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/kenya-hosts-maiden-climate-summit-in-africa-632916/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Atiku and Obi can appeal to the country's Supreme Court to strike down the tribunal's ruling. Any appeal must be concluded within 60 days of the date of the tribunal judgment.

Meanwhile,&nbsp;the judgments of the Presidential Election Petitions Court were rejected by the Labour Party (LP). The party stated that&nbsp;the court's&nbsp;judgment “did not reflect the law and the desire of the people”.

“Nigerians were witnesses to the electoral robbery that took place on February 25, 2023, which was globally condemned but the Tribunal in its wisdom refused to accept the obvious. What is at stake is democracy and we will not relent until the people will prevail," the party said, in a statement.

“We salute the doggedness of our team of lawyers who fearlessly exposed the wrath in our system. We can only weep for democracy in Nigeria but we refuse to give up on Nigeria," it added.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

Nigeria's presidential election tribunal on Wednesday rejected an opposition challenge to Bola Tinubu's win in February's disputed vote, following a pattern seen in previous election years in Africa's most populous country.

Nigeria's presidential election tribunal on Wednesday rejected an opposition challenge to Bola Tinubu's win in February's disputed vote, following a pattern seen in previous election years in Africa's most populous country. No legal challenge to the outcome of a presidential election has succeeded in Nigeria, which returned to democracy in 1999 after three decades of almost uninterrupted military rule and has a history of electoral fraud. Also Read | Russia uses car tyres to cover military aircraft to deter Ukrainian drone attacks: Report Atiku Abubakar of the People's Democratic Party and Peter Obi of the Labour Party, who came second and third respectively, had asked the court to invalidate the election, alleging irregularities. Judge Haruna Tsammani, reading out a lengthy ruling on behalf of the tribunal's panel of five justices, rejected Obi's petition point-by-point. He was due to move onto Abubakar's petition next, which was also expected to be dismissed. Also Read | 'Why won't he...': Musk questions Zuckerberg regarding cage fight European observers had said in June the elections were marred by problems including operational failures and a lack of transparency that reduced public trust in the process. However, the elections came and went with little sign of any groundswell of popular opposition, and Tinubu has been accepted by the international community as Nigeria's legitimate leader. As the tribunal was giving its ruling, he was in India preparing to take part in the G20 summit there. Watch | Kenya hosts maiden climate summit in Africa × Atiku and Obi can appeal to the country's Supreme Court to strike down the tribunal's ruling. Any appeal must be concluded within 60 days of the date of the tribunal judgment. Meanwhile, the judgments of the Presidential Election Petitions Court were rejected by the Labour Party (LP). The party stated that the court's judgment “did not reflect the law and the desire of the people”. “Nigerians were witnesses to the electoral robbery that took place on February 25, 2023, which was globally condemned but the Tribunal in its wisdom refused to accept the obvious. What is at stake is democracy and we will not relent until the people will prevail," the party said, in a statement. “We salute the doggedness of our team of lawyers who fearlessly exposed the wrath in our system. We can only weep for democracy in Nigeria but we refuse to give up on Nigeria," it added. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here. ×

Nigerian election tribunal rejects challenge to Tinubu's presidential poll victory

An Indian tribunal rejected a request from tech giants Google to overturn an earlier antitrust ruling that ordered the company to change its approach when it comes to the android market.

In October 2021, Google’s parent company – Alphabet Inc – was fined $161 million by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) for misusing its dominant position in the Android app store. The ruling added that Google were putting extra pressure on smartphone makers related to pre-installing apps.

Also read&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/omicron-offshoot-to-xbb15-may-cause-new-covid-spike-in-the-us-confirms-cdc-549368">Omicron offshoot XBB.1.5 may cause new Covid spike in the US, confirms CDC</a>

It was a huge setback for Google who considered the pre-installed apps market on the Android platform as a major source of profit. With the tribunal ruling against the company, Google will be forced to agree to the previous ruling and that can be a major blow to its reach and revenues.

"We are of opinion that at the moment given the voluminous nature of the appeal, there is no need to pass any interim order," the two-member tribunal panel said according to Reuters.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/who-asks-china-to-provide-a-more-realistic-picture-of-covid-19-situation-549382">WHO asks China to provide a 'more realistic picture' of COVID-19 situation</a>

Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who was representing Google in front of the tribunal, argued that the decision was taken without all evidences and asked the tribunal to put the decision on hold till at least January 19. He added that the earlier decision can end up causing damage to consumers.

Google also said that the CCI "copy-pasted extensively from a European Commission decision, deploying evidence from Europe that was not examined in India" but the tribunal once again rejected the request.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

An Indian tribunal rejected a request from tech giants Google to overturn an earlier antitrust ruling that ordered the company to change its approach when it comes to the android market.

An Indian tribunal rejected a request from tech giants Google to overturn an earlier antitrust ruling that ordered the company to change its approach when it comes to the android market. In October 2021, Google’s parent company – Alphabet Inc – was fined $161 million by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) for misusing its dominant position in the Android app store. The ruling added that Google were putting extra pressure on smartphone makers related to pre-installing apps. Also read | Omicron offshoot XBB.1.5 may cause new Covid spike in the US, confirms CDC It was a huge setback for Google who considered the pre-installed apps market on the Android platform as a major source of profit. With the tribunal ruling against the company, Google will be forced to agree to the previous ruling and that can be a major blow to its reach and revenues. "We are of opinion that at the moment given the voluminous nature of the appeal, there is no need to pass any interim order," the two-member tribunal panel said according to Reuters. Also read | WHO asks China to provide a 'more realistic picture' of COVID-19 situation Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who was representing Google in front of the tribunal, argued that the decision was taken without all evidences and asked the tribunal to put the decision on hold till at least January 19. He added that the earlier decision can end up causing damage to consumers. Google also said that the CCI "copy-pasted extensively from a European Commission decision, deploying evidence from Europe that was not examined in India" but the tribunal once again rejected the request.

India tribunal rejects Google's request to block Android antitrust ruling

The organisation, which has no state backing, plans to use the London hearings to issue a verdict on whether Beijing has perpetrated genocide or crimes against humanity against Uyghurs.

China: Uyghur's people tribunal begins in UK

A panel of UK-based lawyers and rights experts investigating the plight of&nbsp;Uyghurs&nbsp;in China will begin hearing evidence from witnesses on Friday, as Beijing branded it a "machine producing lies".

The "Uyghur Tribunal" says its nine jurors will hear first-hand testimony of alleged crimes in the northwestern Chinese region of Xinjiang, including forced sterilisation, torture, disappearances and slave labour.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/persecution-of-uyghur-muslims-china-hits-back-at-g7-rights-criticism-383240">Persecution of Uyghur Muslims: China hits back at G7 rights criticism</a>

The organisation, which has no state backing, plans to use the London hearings to issue a verdict on whether Beijing has perpetrated genocide or crimes against humanity against&nbsp;Uyghurs&nbsp;and other Muslim groups in China.

Tribunal vice-chair Nick Vetch declined to comment on China's heated attacks.

But he vowed its work would be "impartial", based on evidence sessions this week and in September and on "thousands of pages" of documentary evidence already amassed.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uyghur-leader-vows-to-fight-against-chinese-atrocities-343350">Uyghur leader vows to fight against Chinese atrocities</a>

"The tribunal is an independent endeavour and it will deal with the evidence and only with the evidence," Vetch told AFP.

"We have invited the PRC (China) to provide us with any evidence they may have. So far we've received nothing from them."

The tribunal plans to deliver its report in December, and while it would have no legal force, participants hope to draw international attention and spur possible action.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/chinas-oppression-of-muslims-in-xinjiang-explained-358392">China's oppression of Muslims in Xinjiang, explained</a>

"It will be for states, international institutions, commercial companies, art, medical and educational establishments and individuals to determine how to apply the tribunal's judgement, whatever it may be," the panel has said.

It was set up at the request of the World Uyghur Congress, the largest group representing exiled&nbsp;Uyghurs, which lobbies the international community to take action against China over alleged abuses in Xinjiang.

In March, the tribunal was one of four UK entities and nine individuals sanctioned by Beijing for raising concerns about the treatment of the&nbsp;Uyghurs.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uighur-community-suffering-in-china-says-united-kingdoms-foreign-secretary-dominic-raab-314441">Uighur community suffering in China, says United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab</a>

'Clumsy PR show'

Its chair Geoffrey Nice, a veteran British lawyer, was named personally on the Chinese sanctions list along with Helena Kennedy, a high-profile rights lawyer who is advising the tribunal.

Nice, who led the UN prosecution for war crimes of the late former Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic, said at the time the sanctions would not affect the work of the tribunal.&nbsp;

Other members include experts in medicine, education and anthropology.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/40-of-uk-solar-farms-use-panels-from-firms-linked-to-xinjiang-forced-labour-camps-380531">'40% of UK solar farms use panels from firms linked to Xinjiang forced labour camps'</a>

China has not held back in condemning the tribunal.

"It is not&nbsp;even&nbsp;a real tribunal or special court, but only a special machine producing lies," foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said last week.

"It was founded by people with ulterior motives and carries no weight or authority. It is just a clumsy public opinion show under the guise of law," he told reporters.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-grants-asylum-to-hong-kong-democracy-activist-nathan-law-375959">UK grants asylum to Hong Kong democracy activist Nathan Law</a>

The US government accuses China of waging "genocide" in Xinjiang. Britain has declined to use that designation but joined the United States and Germany last month in calling on Beijing to end repression of the Uyghur minority.

Rights groups say up to one million&nbsp;Uyghurs&nbsp;and people from other ethnic-Turkic minorities are detained in internment camps in Xinjiang.

Beijing has repeatedly denied any abuses take place there, saying they are work camps meant to deter extremism and boost incomes.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/at-g7-biden-will-push-allies-to-act-on-chinas-treatment-of-uighurs-report-379741">At G7, Biden will push allies to act on China's treatment of Uighurs: Report</a>

The tribunal's launch comes a week ahead of a Group of Seven summit in Britain to be joined by US President Joe Biden, who has been urging fellow Western democracies to take a tougher line on China.

Ahead of the summit, G7 foreign ministers last month said they were "deeply concerned" by rights abuses against the&nbsp;Uyghurs&nbsp;and in Tibet, and urged an end to the targeting of pro-democracy leaders in Hong Kong.

A panel of UK-based lawyers and rights experts investigating the plight of Uyghurs in China will begin hearing evidence from witnesses on Friday, as Beijing branded it a "machine producing lies".

A panel of UK-based lawyers and rights experts investigating the plight of Uyghurs in China will begin hearing evidence from witnesses on Friday, as Beijing branded it a "machine producing lies". The "Uyghur Tribunal" says its nine jurors will hear first-hand testimony of alleged crimes in the northwestern Chinese region of Xinjiang, including forced sterilisation, torture, disappearances and slave labour. Also Read | Persecution of Uyghur Muslims: China hits back at G7 rights criticism The organisation, which has no state backing, plans to use the London hearings to issue a verdict on whether Beijing has perpetrated genocide or crimes against humanity against Uyghurs and other Muslim groups in China. Tribunal vice-chair Nick Vetch declined to comment on China's heated attacks. But he vowed its work would be "impartial", based on evidence sessions this week and in September and on "thousands of pages" of documentary evidence already amassed. Also Read | Uyghur leader vows to fight against Chinese atrocities "The tribunal is an independent endeavour and it will deal with the evidence and only with the evidence," Vetch told AFP. "We have invited the PRC (China) to provide us with any evidence they may have. So far we've received nothing from them." The tribunal plans to deliver its report in December, and while it would have no legal force, participants hope to draw international attention and spur possible action. Also Read | China's oppression of Muslims in Xinjiang, explained "It will be for states, international institutions, commercial companies, art, medical and educational establishments and individuals to determine how to apply the tribunal's judgement, whatever it may be," the panel has said. It was set up at the request of the World Uyghur Congress, the largest group representing exiled Uyghurs, which lobbies the international community to take action against China over alleged abuses in Xinjiang. In March, the tribunal was one of four UK entities and nine individuals sanctioned by Beijing for raising concerns about the treatment of the Uyghurs. Also Read | Uighur community suffering in China, says United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab 'Clumsy PR show' Its chair Geoffrey Nice, a veteran British lawyer, was named personally on the Chinese sanctions list along with Helena Kennedy, a high-profile rights lawyer who is advising the tribunal. Nice, who led the UN prosecution for war crimes of the late former Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic, said at the time the sanctions would not affect the work of the tribunal. Other members include experts in medicine, education and anthropology. Also Read | '40% of UK solar farms use panels from firms linked to Xinjiang forced labour camps' China has not held back in condemning the tribunal. "It is not even a real tribunal or special court, but only a special machine producing lies," foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said last week. "It was founded by people with ulterior motives and carries no weight or authority. It is just a clumsy public opinion show under the guise of law," he told reporters. Also Read | UK grants asylum to Hong Kong democracy activist Nathan Law The US government accuses China of waging "genocide" in Xinjiang. Britain has declined to use that designation but joined the United States and Germany last month in calling on Beijing to end repression of the Uyghur minority. Rights groups say up to one million Uyghurs and people from other ethnic-Turkic minorities are detained in internment camps in Xinjiang. Beijing has repeatedly denied any abuses take place there, saying they are work camps meant to deter extremism and boost incomes. Also Read | At G7, Biden will push allies to act on China's treatment of Uighurs: Report The tribunal's launch comes a week ahead of a Group of Seven summit in Britain to be joined by US President Joe Biden, who has been urging fellow Western democracies to take a tougher line on China. Ahead of the summit, G7 foreign ministers last month said they were "deeply concerned" by rights abuses against the Uyghurs and in Tibet, and urged an end to the targeting of pro-democracy leaders in Hong Kong.

'Uyghur Tribunal' to convene over abuses as China fumes

The Central government on Wednesday notified that the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Tribunal has upheld that there is "sufficient credible material and grounds" to declare Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF-Y), a faction headed by Yasin Malik, as an "unlawful association".

The incumbent government had in March earlier this year declared the faction as an unlawful association, following which a tribunal, headed by Justice Chander Shekhar was constituted to adjudicate the same.

The tribunal, in its order on September 20, held that the activities of the faction are "disruptive in character, which threatens the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India".

"The Central government had sufficient credible material and grounds for taking action for declaring 'JKLF-Y' as an 'unlawful association'. It is held that there is 'sufficient cause' to confirm the notification of the act declaring 'JKLF-Y' to be an 'unlawful association'," Justice Chander Shekhar stated in the order.

The order stated that the faction has been acting "in collusion with other similar groups to disrupt peace and harmony in Jammu and Kashmir.

To substantiate its contention before the tribunal, the Central government had submitted a list of 98 FIR filed against the faction.

"A careful perusal of the FIRs brought on record makes it apparent that the association has been actively indulging in and supporting anti-national activities," Justice Shekhar stated.

The tribunal observed that there is sufficient noticeable credible material including the FIRs coupled with corroborative intelligence inputs which justified the action taken by the government.

"Even in cases where FIRs are lodged for slogan shouting, the contents of the slogan are a direct affront to the sovereignty of the state and are undoubtedly anti-national, such protests can certainly not be a part of any democratic process," the order stated.

It asserted that there is a significant difference in protesting on an issue and protesting for "territorial sovereignty".

&nbsp;"There are statements attributed to Yasin Malik which are separatists in character and support extremism and militancy in Jammu and Kashmir. Such statements have the potential of instigating sentiments which ultimately become prejudicial to the territorial integrity and security of the country," it said.

The tribunal also rebutted the contentions put forth by the faction that the exercise of banning it is "vindictive in character or unconstitutional".

The Central government on Wednesday notified that the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Tribunal has upheld that there is "sufficient credible material and grounds" to declare Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF-Y), a faction headed by Yasin Malik, as an "unlawful association".

The Central government on Wednesday notified that the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Tribunal has upheld that there is "sufficient credible material and grounds" to declare Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF-Y), a faction headed by Yasin Malik, as an "unlawful association". The incumbent government had in March earlier this year declared the faction as an unlawful association, following which a tribunal, headed by Justice Chander Shekhar was constituted to adjudicate the same. The tribunal, in its order on September 20, held that the activities of the faction are "disruptive in character, which threatens the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India". "The Central government had sufficient credible material and grounds for taking action for declaring 'JKLF-Y' as an 'unlawful association'. It is held that there is 'sufficient cause' to confirm the notification of the act declaring 'JKLF-Y' to be an 'unlawful association'," Justice Chander Shekhar stated in the order. The order stated that the faction has been acting "in collusion with other similar groups to disrupt peace and harmony in Jammu and Kashmir. To substantiate its contention before the tribunal, the Central government had submitted a list of 98 FIR filed against the faction. "A careful perusal of the FIRs brought on record makes it apparent that the association has been actively indulging in and supporting anti-national activities," Justice Shekhar stated. The tribunal observed that there is sufficient noticeable credible material including the FIRs coupled with corroborative intelligence inputs which justified the action taken by the government. "Even in cases where FIRs are lodged for slogan shouting, the contents of the slogan are a direct affront to the sovereignty of the state and are undoubtedly anti-national, such protests can certainly not be a part of any democratic process," the order stated. It asserted that there is a significant difference in protesting on an issue and protesting for "territorial sovereignty". "There are statements attributed to Yasin Malik which are separatists in character and support extremism and militancy in Jammu and Kashmir. Such statements have the potential of instigating sentiments which ultimately become prejudicial to the territorial integrity and security of the country," it said. The tribunal also rebutted the contentions put forth by the faction that the exercise of banning it is "vindictive in character or unconstitutional".

Credible material, grounds to declare Yasin Malik's JKLF-Y unlawful association: Government

An international tribunal on Tuesday ruled against China in a bitter row over territorial claims to the South China Sea that is likely to ratchet up regional tensions. 
 
&quot;The tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights within the sea areas falling within the &#39;nine-dash line,&#39;&quot; the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) said in a statement. 
 
All eyes were watching for reaction from the Asian political and military powerhouse, which had fired off a barrage of criticism even before the decision by the PCA in The Hague was announced. 
 
China asserts sovereignty over almost all of the South China Sea -- about 90 per cent of the strategically vital waters -- in the face of rival claims from its South East Asian neighbours. 
 
Manila had lodged the suit against Beijing in 2013, saying that after 17 years of negotiations it had exhausted all political and diplomatic avenues.&nbsp;Beijing waged a months-long campaign to discredit the panel, which it says has no jurisdiction in the multinational dispute, and it refused to take part in the case. 
 
The state-run China Daily topped its front page with a picture of Woody Island in the Paracels, emblazoned: &quot;Arbitration invalid&quot;. 
 
English-language headlines on the official Xinhua news agency included: &quot;South China Sea arbitration abuses international law: Chinese scholar&quot;, &quot;Permanent Court of Arbitration must avoid being used for political purposes&quot; and &quot;The sea where Chinese fishermen live and die&quot;. 
 
Ahead of the decision, new Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte had signalled he did not want to antagonise China, saying he would not &quot;taunt or flaunt&quot; a favourable ruling and would seek a &quot;soft landing&quot; with China. 
 
Nine-dash line&nbsp; 
 
China&#39;s claims were first enshrined in a map drawn in the 1940s with a nine-dash line stretching south from China and encircling almost all of the sea, although it says Chinese fishermen have been using it for centuries. 
 
To bolster its position it has rapidly turned reefs into artificial islands capable of hosting military planes. 
 
It has held naval drills between the Paracels and the southern Chinese island of Hainan in recent days. 
 
US naval destroyers have been patrolling near the Chinese-claimed Scarborough Shoal and Spratly Islands, supported by aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan, the US-based Navy Times reported. 
 
Chinese state media have said Beijing will not take a &quot;single step back&quot; after the ruling, and President Xi Jinping said earlier this month that China would never compromise on sovereignty, adding: &quot;We are not afraid of trouble&quot;. 
 
China had sought diplomatic support around the world, and foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang said its latest backers included Angola, Madagascar and Papua New Guinea, showing that &quot;justice and righteousness always have popular support&quot;. 
 
&quot;Who is upholding the sanctity of international law and who is breaking international law, I think people are all clear about that,&quot; Lu said. 
 
Likely to &#39;escalate the war of words&#39;&nbsp; 
 
Manila lodged its suit against Beijing in 2013, saying China was in violation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to which both countries are signatories. 
 
One of the key issues was whether the land features in the area are islands capable of supporting human habitation - which under UNCLOS are entitled to territorial waters and an exclusive economic zone - or rocks, which only have territorial waters, or low-tide elevations, which get neither. 
 
If none of the outcrops are islands, then none of the claimants to them would gain sole rights to major expanses of the waters around them. 
 
&quot;The ruling can reduce the scope of the South China Sea disputes, but will not solve them,&quot; said analysts Yanmei Xie and Tim Johnston of the International Crisis Group in a report. 
 
The ruling was likely to &quot;escalate the war of words&quot;, they said, but added: &quot;Escalation to military standoffs is not inevitable&quot;. 
 
China could choose to withdraw from UNCLOS, or begin building on Scarborough Shoal, which Washington would view as a provocation. 
 
Beijing could also declare an air defence identification zone over the South China Sea, claiming the right to interrogate aircraft passing through the airspace, or try to remove a ship grounded by the Philippines on Second Thomas Shoal for use as a base. 
 
Alternatively, it could move to reduce tensions. 
 
Philippine foreign minister Perfecto Yasay had said on Friday that Manila hoped to open direct talks with Beijing on the dispute, and presidential spokesman Ernesto Abella said Tuesday: &quot;The top priority will be national interest.&quot; 
 
The Philippine embassy in China has warned its citizens to beware of personal &quot;threats&quot; and avoid political debates. 
 
Nationalist demonstrations are not rare in China, sometimes apparently with the tacit backing of authorities. 
 
More than 20 Chinese police were positioned outside the Philippine embassy on Tuesday, with more in vans nearby - a significantly larger presence than usual - along with two lorries loaded with crowd control barriers, a possible indication that authorities expected protests at the building. 
 
Official response from China 
 
China rejected an international ruling on the South China Sea on Tuesday, saying its islands had exclusive economic zones and the Chinese people have more than 2,000 years of history of activities there. 
 
China has sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea, including the Spratlys and Paracels, and China&#39;s position is consistent with international law and practice, China&#39;s Foreign Ministry added. 
 
(AFP and Reuters)

China claims 90% of the sea. The Philippines took it to court in 2013, saying that after 17 years it had exhausted all other options

An international tribunal on Tuesday ruled against China in a bitter row over territorial claims to the South China Sea that is likely to ratchet up regional tensions. "The tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights within the sea areas falling within the 'nine-dash line,'" the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) said in a statement. All eyes were watching for reaction from the Asian political and military powerhouse, which had fired off a barrage of criticism even before the decision by the PCA in The Hague was announced. China asserts sovereignty over almost all of the South China Sea -- about 90 per cent of the strategically vital waters -- in the face of rival claims from its South East Asian neighbours. Manila had lodged the suit against Beijing in 2013, saying that after 17 years of negotiations it had exhausted all political and diplomatic avenues. Beijing waged a months-long campaign to discredit the panel, which it says has no jurisdiction in the multinational dispute, and it refused to take part in the case. The state-run China Daily topped its front page with a picture of Woody Island in the Paracels, emblazoned: "Arbitration invalid". English-language headlines on the official Xinhua news agency included: "South China Sea arbitration abuses international law: Chinese scholar", "Permanent Court of Arbitration must avoid being used for political purposes" and "The sea where Chinese fishermen live and die". Ahead of the decision, new Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte had signalled he did not want to antagonise China, saying he would not "taunt or flaunt" a favourable ruling and would seek a "soft landing" with China. Nine-dash line China's claims were first enshrined in a map drawn in the 1940s with a nine-dash line stretching south from China and encircling almost all of the sea, although it says Chinese fishermen have been using it for centuries. To bolster its position it has rapidly turned reefs into artificial islands capable of hosting military planes. It has held naval drills between the Paracels and the southern Chinese island of Hainan in recent days. US naval destroyers have been patrolling near the Chinese-claimed Scarborough Shoal and Spratly Islands, supported by aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan, the US-based Navy Times reported. Chinese state media have said Beijing will not take a "single step back" after the ruling, and President Xi Jinping said earlier this month that China would never compromise on sovereignty, adding: "We are not afraid of trouble". China had sought diplomatic support around the world, and foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang said its latest backers included Angola, Madagascar and Papua New Guinea, showing that "justice and righteousness always have popular support". "Who is upholding the sanctity of international law and who is breaking international law, I think people are all clear about that," Lu said. Likely to 'escalate the war of words' Manila lodged its suit against Beijing in 2013, saying China was in violation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to which both countries are signatories. One of the key issues was whether the land features in the area are islands capable of supporting human habitation - which under UNCLOS are entitled to territorial waters and an exclusive economic zone - or rocks, which only have territorial waters, or low-tide elevations, which get neither. If none of the outcrops are islands, then none of the claimants to them would gain sole rights to major expanses of the waters around them. "The ruling can reduce the scope of the South China Sea disputes, but will not solve them," said analysts Yanmei Xie and Tim Johnston of the International Crisis Group in a report. The ruling was likely to "escalate the war of words", they said, but added: "Escalation to military standoffs is not inevitable". China could choose to withdraw from UNCLOS, or begin building on Scarborough Shoal, which Washington would view as a provocation. Beijing could also declare an air defence identification zone over the South China Sea, claiming the right to interrogate aircraft passing through the airspace, or try to remove a ship grounded by the Philippines on Second Thomas Shoal for use as a base. Alternatively, it could move to reduce tensions. Philippine foreign minister Perfecto Yasay had said on Friday that Manila hoped to open direct talks with Beijing on the dispute, and presidential spokesman Ernesto Abella said Tuesday: "The top priority will be national interest." The Philippine embassy in China has warned its citizens to beware of personal "threats" and avoid political debates. Nationalist demonstrations are not rare in China, sometimes apparently with the tacit backing of authorities. More than 20 Chinese police were positioned outside the Philippine embassy on Tuesday, with more in vans nearby - a significantly larger presence than usual - along with two lorries loaded with crowd control barriers, a possible indication that authorities expected protests at the building. Official response from China China rejected an international ruling on the South China Sea on Tuesday, saying its islands had exclusive economic zones and the Chinese people have more than 2,000 years of history of activities there. China has sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea, including the Spratlys and Paracels, and China's position is consistent with international law and practice, China's Foreign Ministry added. (AFP and Reuters)

South China Sea dispute: Hague rules against China

tribunal

Tribunal, News on Tribunal, stories on Tribunal, articles on Tribunal, Tribunal stories at Wion, Tribunal news, Tribunal latest news