We, the undersigned representatives of civil society organizations in the United States, condemn the U.S. for its persistent non-cooperation with the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process, and urge you to take meaningful action within your mandate to prevent the attempted dismantling of the universality of a core pillar of the UN Human Rights Council.

In July, the ICC’s Assembly of States Parties will convene an unprecedented Special Session where, for the first time in the Court's history, States will be asked to decide whether to remove a sitting ICC Prosecutor from office. That decision must be grounded in an accurate understanding of the statutory framework governing these disciplinary proceedings and the decisions available to the relevant decision-maker at each stage of the process. There is a legitimate public interest in the disciplinary proceedings currently before the ASP. The allegations against the Prosecutor are serious, and the moral and ethical standards required of his position are high. Yet key aspects of the process remain confidential or unpublished, including virtually all procedural documents, key decisions, the main findings of the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), which conducted the external fact-finding investigation into the allegations, and the main conclusions of the ad hoc Panel of judicial experts, which was mandated to provide advice on the legal characterisation of the facts as established by the OIOS.

In 2022, Michigan’s citizens went to the polls to make their voices heard on an issue of systemic constitutional importance: the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy. By a wide margin, Michigan’s citizens voted to enact the Reproductive Freedom for All Amendment (“RFFA”), an amendment to Michigan’s Constitution that eliminates outdated restrictions on reproductive healthcare and protects the fundamental right to reproductive freedom in Michigan, including the freedom for Michiganders to decide to end their pregnancies. The RFFA ensures that Michiganders have “the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy,” including “abortion care,” without the State of Michigan “discriminat[ing] in the protection or enforcement of this fundamental right.”

As the United States ("US") approaches its rescheduled 4th Universal Periodic Review ("UPR"), individuals’ sexual and reproductive health and rights (“SRHR”) continue to deteriorate across the country. Since our previous submission, both restrictions on reproductive healthcare access, in particular abortion care, and targeted, state-sanctioned violence, intimidation, discrimination, and harassment of communities by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) have increased. This submission updates this coalition’s April 2025 submission. It includes quantitative research and qualitative data gathered from abortion funds, healthcare providers, doulas, and persons detained or deported by ICE agents. Testimony is from individuals who have been directly harmed by restrictive abortion laws and/or by the recent unlawful changes in and enforcement of immigration policies or from individuals whose clients or patients have suffered such harm.

North Dakota Century Code Chapter 12.1-36.1 (the “Health Care Ban” or “Ban”) categorically prohibits adolescents from receiving medically necessary treatment when their gender identity does not align with their sex assigned at birth, while permitting the same interventions for other minors and for other medical purposes. The Health Care Ban impermissibly intrudes on multiple rights protected by the North Dakota Constitution: its guarantees of individuals’ bodily autonomy and access to life‑preserving medical care; its protections for family integrity safeguarding parents’ right to make individualized medical decisions in their children’s best interests; and its equal‑protection provisions prohibiting laws that discriminate on the basis of sex or otherwise restrict important substantive rights for a subset of people without compelling reason. Each of these constitutional guarantees is supported by international and regional human rights law and by the laws and practices of many other nations. Together, these domestic, regional, and international authorities demonstrate that North Dakota’s ban is both unconstitutional and inconsistent with established human rights norms. This Court should therefore reverse the lower court’s decision.