On January 20, 2025 the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Italy violated the right to life (Article 2 of the Convention) and the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 of the Convention). The ruling was based on Italy's prolonged failure to address widespread illegal waste dumping by organized criminal groups in the Terra dei Fuochi (Land of Pyres) region near Naples.

On March 13, 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Ukraine violated the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to prevent and effectively investigate violence erupted during the May 2, 2014 clashes in Odesa.

On May 1, 2025, the Canadian Supreme Court rejected an appeal by the Government of Ontario in a youth-driven climate case in which seven youth plaintiffs brought a constitutional challenge to the Government’s lack of action with respect to climate change. As reported by JURIST, the plainfiffs argued that Ontario’s use of Section 16 of the 2018 Cap and Trade Cancellation Act to modify the 2016 Climate Change Mitigation and Low-Carbon Economy Act resulted in a watering down of the requirments in the Climate Change Act and effectively subjects youth and indigenous communities to dangerous and arbitrary levels of CO2 emissions. They seek an order declaring that their rights under sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms have been violated. The Ontario Court of Appeal concluded in October 2024 that government climate change targets must comply with the Charter and affirmed that the government’s actions are putting people at risk. The refusal by the Supreme Court to take the appeal confirms the judgment of the Court of Appeal means the case will return to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, which had previously dismissed the plaintiffs’ application.

On May 5, 2025, the International Court of Justice issued a provisional measures order in response to a request filed in March 2025 by Sudan against the United Arab Emirates (UAE) alleging violations of the Genocide Convention by a paramilitary organization known as the “Rapid Support Forces” in relation to the Masalit group in Sudan and specifically in West Darfur. The UAE opposed the Court’s jurisdiction. The Court initially expressed its “deep concern about the unfolding human tragedy in Sudan.” Sudan came before the Court on the basis of Article IX of the Genocide Convention,1 given that both states are party to the Convention. However, the UAE made a reservation with regard to that Article, and no state (including Sudan) objected to its reservation. Sudan argued that the reservation is “vague and non-specific” and that no other such reservation has been made by any other party with regard to the Convention. It also argued that its failure to object to the reservation at the time was immaterial. The Court disagreed with Sudan and found that the absence of more specific language in the reservation “does not result in any uncertainty as to the effects of that reservation” because of the reference in the reservation to the “interpretation, application and fulfilment of the Genocide Convention.” Therefore, the Court held that Article IX is not a valid basis for the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction and ordered the case removed from the general list.