A few days after Tunisia’s president froze parliament and took on sweeping powers in July, a dozen men in unmarked vehicles and civilian clothes barged into politician Yassine Ayari’s family home overnight and took him away in his pajamas.

“These men weren’t wearing uniforms and they didn’t have a warrant,” Ayari told The Associated Press. “It was violent. My 4-year-old son still has nightmares about it.”

A 40-year-old computer engineer-turned-corruption fighter, Ayari will stand trial again in a military court on Monday, accused of insulting the presidency and defaming the army. It is the latest in a series of trials that shine a light on Tunisia’s use of military courts to push through convictions against civilians. Rights groups say the practice has accelerated since President Kais Saied’s seizure of power in July, and warn that its use further threatens hard-won freedoms amid Tunisia’s democratic backsliding.

The charges Ayari faces relate to Facebook posts in which he criticized Saied, calling him a “pharaoh” and his measures a “military coup.” Ayari intends to remain silent in court to protest the whole judicial process, according to his lawyer, Malek Ben Amor.

Amnesty International is warning of an “alarming increase” in Tunisian military courts targeting civilians: In the past three months, it says, 10 civilians have been investigated or prosecuted by military tribunals, while four civilians are facing trial for criticizing the president.

That’s especially worrying because Tunisia was long considered the only democratic success story to emerge from the Arab Spring uprisings a decade ago, and was long seen as a model for the region.

Russian authorities on Thursday turned the legal screws on one of the country’s most prominent human rights group as part of a months-long crackdown on activists, independent media and opposition supporters.

The Prosecutor General’s Office has petitioned Russia’s Supreme Court to revoke the legal status of Memorial — an international human rights group that rose to prominence for its studies of political repressions in the Soviet Union and was declared a “foreign agent” in 2016. The “foreign agent” label implies additional government scrutiny and carries strong pejorative connotations that can discredit the targeted organization.

The group tweeted Thursday that prosecutors accused it of systematically violating the “foreign agents” law, but didn’t give details about the alleged violations. In a statement on its website, Memorial’s board said there are no legal grounds for revoking the group’s legal status.

“We have repeatedly said that the (‘foreign agents’) law had been initially designed as an instrument for persecution of independent organizations, and insisted that it should be abolished,” the statement read. “This is a political decision to destroy the Memorial group — an organization focused on the history of political repressions and advocating for human rights.”

A hearing on the petition to revoke Memorial legal status has been set for Nov. 25, the group said. It wasn’t immediately clear whether it plans to continue working without being a legal entity like several other rights groups in Russia have done following earlier crackdowns.

In recent months, the Russian government has designated a number of independent media outlets, journalists and human rights groups as “foreign agents.” At least two disbanded to avoid a tougher crackdown.

The International Criminal Court is opening a formal investigation into allegations of torture and extrajudicial killings committed by Venezuelan security forces under President Nicolás Maduro’s rule, the first time a country in Latin America is facing scrutiny for possible crimes against humanity from the court.

The opening of the probe was announced Wednesday by ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan at the end of a three-day trip to Caracas.

Standing alongside Maduro, Khan said he was aware of the political “fault lines” and “geopolitical divisions” that exist in Venezuela. But he said his job was to uphold the principles of legality and the rule of law, not settle scores.

“I ask everybody now, as we move forward to this new stage, to give my office the space to do its work,” he said. “I will take a dim view of any efforts to politicize the independent work of my office.”

While Khan didn’t outline the scope of the ICC’s investigation, it follows a lengthy preliminary probe started in February 2018 — later backed by Canada and five Latin American governments opposed to Maduro — that focused on allegations of excessive force, arbitrary detention and torture by security forces during a crackdown on antigovernment protests in 2017.

Human rights groups and the U.S.-backed opposition immediately celebrated the decision. Since its creation two decades ago, the ICC has mostly focused on atrocities committed in Africa.

“This is a turning point,” said Jose Miguel Vivanco, the Americas director for Human Rights Watch. “Not only does it provide hope to the many victims of Maduro’s government but it also is a reality check that Maduro himself could be held accountable for crimes committed by his security forces and others with total impunity in the name of the Bolivarian revolution.”

It could be years before any criminal charges are presented as part of the ICC’s investigation.

Maduro said he disagreed with Khan’s criteria in choosing to open the probe. But he expressed optimism that a three-page “letter of understanding” he signed with the prosecutor that would allow Venezuelan authorities to carry out their own proceedings in search of justice, something allowed under the Rome statute that created the ICC.

Palestinian families on Tuesday rejected an offer that would have delayed their eviction by Jewish settlers in a tense Jerusalem neighborhood, where protests and clashes helped ignite the 11-day Gaza war in May.

The four families in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood near the Old City said their decision springs from “our belief in the justice of our cause and our right to our homes and our homeland.” They said that rather than submit to an “unjust agreement” they would rely on the “Palestinian street” to raise international awareness of their plight.

The proposal floated by Israel’s Supreme Court last month would have made them “protected tenants,” blocking any eviction and demolition order for at least the next 15 years, according to Ir Amim, an Israeli rights group that closely follows developments in the city.

The families would have been able to continue arguing their case in Israeli courts. But it would have forced them to at least temporarily attest to the settlers’ ownership of the properties, which could weaken the families’ case going forward, and pay rent to the settlers.

The four families are among dozens in Jerusalem who are threatened with eviction by Jewish settler organizations in several cases that have been working their way through the Israeli court system for decades.

The settlers are making use of an Israeli law that allows them to claim properties that were owned by Jews prior to the 1948 war surrounding Israel’s creation. Palestinians who lost homes, properties and lands in the same conflict do not have the right to recover them.

There was no immediate comment from the settlers, but Jerusalem Deputy Mayor Arieh King, a staunch supporter, said they had accepted the offer.

The Biden administration on Friday launched a second bid to end a Trump-era policy to make asylum-seekers wait in Mexico for hearings in U.S. immigration court, while also reaffirming a commitment to reinstate it under court order.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said the “Remain in Mexico” policy likely contributed to a drop in illegal border crossings in 2019 but with “substantial and unjustifiable human costs” to asylum-seekers who were exposed to violence while waiting in Mexico.

The announcement came more than two months after a federal judge ordered that the policy be reinstated “in good faith,” while leaving an opening for the administration to try again to justify ending it.

The administration said earlier this month that it expected to reinstate the policy, known officially as “Migrant Protection Protocols,” around mid-November, subject to Mexican government approval. Mexico wants cases to generally conclude within six months, timely and accurate access to case information and better access to legal counsel for asylum-seekers.

Some of the administration’s most prominent pro-immigration allies say Friday’s opinion was overdue and that Mayorkas lacked a sense of urgency. U.S. officials deny slow-walking and point to the research that went into producing the 39-page memo.

Many U.S.-based legal aid groups who have represented asylum-seekers waiting in Mexico say they will no longer take such cases, raising questions about how the U.S. can satisfy Mexico’s insistence on better access to counsel. Administration officials say they believe there are enough other lawyers who will represent asylum-seekers sent back to Mexico.

About 70,000 asylum-seekers have subject to the policy, which President Donald Trump introduced in January 2019 and his successor, Joe Biden, suspended on his first day in office. Mayorkas ended the policy in June after an internal review, saying it achieved “mixed effectiveness.”

Illegal border crossings fell sharply after Mexico, facing Trump’s threat of higher tariffs, acquiesced in 2019 to the policy’s rapid expansion. Asylum-seekers were victims of major violence while waiting in Mexico and faced a slew of legal obstacles, such as access to attorneys and case information.

Mayorkas said Friday that his second review assumed the policy caused a significant drop in border crossings, calling it the strongest argument to keep it. Still, he said benefits do not outweigh costs in terms of relations with Mexico, resources and risks associated with exposure to violence while waiting in Mexican border cities.

A Munich court on Tuesday heard a claim for compensation from a German certification company over a devastating dam collapse in Brazil in January 2019.

More than 270 people died when the dam at a mine operated by Brazilian mining company Vale collapsed, flooding nearby Brumadinho with mud. A local unit of Germany’s TUeV Sued had been involved in inspecting the structure.

The city of Brumadinho and relatives of an engineer who was killed in the collapse sued TUeV Sued for compensation and damages at the state court in Munich.

Lawyers for TUeV Sued rejected any responsibility on its part at Tuesday’s hearing, arguing that the probable cause was drilling and blasting for which Vale was responsible on the day of the collapse, German news agency dpa reported. The plaintiffs’ lawyers contended that the company had issued a declaration of stability for the dam although it knew that there were problems.

Presiding judge Ingrid Henn said she will announce a decision on Feb. 1.

In February, Vale signed a settlement deal to pay 37.7 billion reais ($7 billion) to the state of Minas Gerais, where Brumadinho is located.

Britain’s Court of Appeal ruled Friday that doctors can prescribe puberty-blocking drugs to children under 16, overturning a lower court’s decision that a judge’s approval should be needed.

Appeals judges said the High Court was wrong to rule last year that children considering gender reassignment are unlikely to be able to give informed consent to medical treatment involving drugs that delay puberty. The December 2020 ruling said because of the experimental nature of the drugs, clinics should seek court authorization before starting such treatment.

The Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust, which runs the U.K.’s main gender identity development service for children, appealed against that ruling.

On Friday the Court of Appeal agreed with the trust. The judges said it was “inappropriate” for the High Court to have given the guidance and said it was up to doctors to “exercise their judgment” about whether their patients can properly consent.

The trust welcomed the decision, saying it “affirms that it is for doctors, not judges, to decide on the capacity of under-16s to consent to medical treatment.”

Hormone blockers are drugs that can pause the development of puberty, and are sometimes prescribed to help children with gender dysphoria by giving them more time to consider their options.

The lawsuit against the Tavistock clinic was brought by two claimants including Keira Bell, who was prescribed hormone blockers at 16 and argued that the clinic should have challenged her more over her decision to transition to a male.

Lawyers for Bell and the other claimant argued that children going through puberty are “not capable of properly understanding the nature and effects of hormone blockers.”

Bell, now 24, said she was disappointed by the court of appeal ruling and would seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.