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 Yet key aspects of the process remain confidential or unpublished, including virtually all procedural documents, key decisions, the main findings of the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), which conducted the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to enact the Reproductive Freedom for All Amendment (“RFFA”), an amendment to Michigan’s Constitution that eliminates outdated restrictions on reproductive healthcare and protects the fundamental right to reproductive freedom in Michigan, including the freedom for Michiganders to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.

The United States tracks adolescent sexual and reproductive health (SRH) indicators through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) via the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) and the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). Furthermore, the Office of Population Affairs, within the Department of Health and Human Services, maintains ongoing data reporting, collection, and monitoring of changes and trends relating to statistics on adolescent SRH. Large-scale health surveys, public health institutions, and academic research studies are utilized to gather data. Since 2009, teen birth rates in the United States have been declining and is 13.6 births per 1,000 females as of 2022. This rate remains higher than in other similar industrialized countries.

While U.S. constitutional law provides a clear basis to reject Tennessee’s attempt to silence individuals providing information about safe and lawful healthcare access, affirming the district court’s holding would also align with international human rights law. Several international treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”) and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child (“CRC”), support the position that the Recruitment Provision violates longstanding international legal principles protecting free speech.