Latin America

Ruling says those deported from US under 1798 law have right to challenge their removal and that Trump administration must help.

A federal judge in the United States has ruled that Venezuelan immigrants deported to El Salvador under an obscure 1798 law must be given the chance to challenge their removals and detention. 

The ruling on Wednesday by Judge James Boasberg is the latest setback to President Donald Trump’s efforts to use the Alien Enemies Act to quickly expel alleged gang members from the US without due process.

Trump initially invoked the wartime law in March, arguing that the presence of the Tren de Aragua gang in the US represented an invasion.

Trump’s use of the law to fast-track deportations was quickly blocked by Boasberg, but not before two planes carrying 238 deportees had already departed the US for El Salvador. The Trump administration refused the judge’s order to turn the plane around.

Boasberg has since said he has found probable cause to believe the administration committed contempt of court.

Upon landing in El Salvador, the deportees were locked up in El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Centre, known as the CECOT prison, as part of a deal with the Trump administration.

In Wednesday’s order, Boasberg wrote that there was “significant evidence” indicating that many of the individuals imprisoned in El Salvador are not connected to Tren de Aragua.

They “thus languish in a foreign prison on flimsy, even frivolous, accusations”, Boasberg said.

Court documents previously indicated that some of the men may have been deported based only on their tattoos or clothing.

Boasberg wrote that the administration “plainly deprived” the immigrants of a chance to challenge their removals before they were put on flights.

He ruled that their cases must now be given the right to be heard before a court, as they “would have been if the Government had not provided constitutionally inadequate process”.

“That process – which was improperly withheld – must now be afforded to them,” Boasberg wrote. “Absent this relief, the government could snatch anyone off the street, turn him over to a foreign country, and then effectively foreclose any corrective course of action.”

The ruling did not expressly order the Trump administration to return the deported people to the US.

The US Supreme Court previously ruled that people deported under the Alien Enemies Act must be given a chance to challenge their removal, and it paused certain planned deportations that would have been conducted using the law.

A case currently being heard by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to eventually make its way to the top court for a final decision.

Until then, various challenges have played out in lower courts, with three federal judges in New York, Texas and Colorado having so far ruled that Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act is illegal. A fourth federal judge, in Pennsylvania, has ruled that Trump was within his powers to invoke the law.

Trump campaigned on a pledge to conduct a mass deportation of “criminal” non-citizens living in the US, but his efforts have been hampered by legal challenges and backlogged immigration courts.

Immigration advocates say that has led the administration to seek various means of fast-tracking deportations, including by circumventing due process.

The leaders of Canada and Mexico have criticised the latest hike in steel and aluminium tariffs under United States President Donald Trump, who increased import taxes on the metal from 25 to 50 percent.

The international condemnation came just hours after the latest tariff increase went into effect early on Wednesday.

Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said the tariff increases were “unjustified”.

“They’re illegal. They’re bad for American workers, bad for American industry and, of course, for Canadian industry,” he said.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, meanwhile, pledged to pursue countermeasures if the Trump administration refuses to grant tariff relief. She warned that the tariffs would have a “huge impact” on Mexico’s steel and aluminium industries.

“This isn’t about an eye for an eye, but rather about protecting our industry and our jobs,” she added, without specifying what steps her government might take.

Canada calls for action

Wednesday’s tariff hike had been unveiled last Friday, when Trump held a rally with steelworkers outside Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

That region of the US is a part of the Rust Belt, an area that has been heavily affected by the decline in US manufacturing. Trump pledged to use tariffs and other measures to bring jobs and investments back to the area.

Previously, in March, Trump set tariffs on steel and aluminium at 25 percent. But he threatened to lift that rate to 50 percent specifically for Canadian imports of the metals, a plan he later appeared to walk back.

Those threats, however, roiled relations between the US and its northern neighbour in particular. Canada is the top supplier of steel to the US, followed by Brazil and then Mexico. South Korea and China also top the list.

Canada is also responsible for about 40 percent of aluminium imports to the US, followed by the UAE, Russia and Mexico. Carney’s government has pledged to pursue retaliatory measures so long as Trump’s tariffs remain in place.

On Wednesday, one of Canada’s largest labour unions, Unifor, called on Carney to take immediate action against the latest tariff hike, including by limiting the country’s exports of critical metals to the US.

“Unifor is urging the federal government to act without delay to defend Canada’s manufacturing sector and counter the escalating trade assault,” the union said in a statement.

Premier Doug Ford — who leads the top manufacturing province in Canada, Ontario — also called for Canada to respond in kind and “slap another 25 percent” on US steel imports.

“It’s tariff for tariff, dollar for dollar. We need to tariff the steel coming into Canada an additional 25 percent, totalling 50 percent,” Ford told reporters. “Everything’s on the table right now.”

Navigating global trade pacts

Both Canada and Mexico have been hard hit by Trump’s aggressive tariffs, which include a blanket 25-percent tax on all imports not subject to the US-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement (USMCA), as well as a separate 25-percent levy on automobile imports.

The three countries have highly integrated economies, with products like automobiles being built using supplies and factories from multiple locations.

The USMCA pact was agreed upon during Trump’s first term, from 2017 to 2021. But he has since signalled he hopes to renegotiate the free-trade deal to get more favourable terms for the US.

But the doubling of the US steel and aluminium tariffs is expected to have a global impact, well beyond North America.

The European Union is also bracing for the increase. The bloc’s trade commissioner, Maros Sefcovic, met US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on the sidelines of a meeting for the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on Wednesday.

“We’re advancing in the right direction at pace – and staying in close contact to maintain the momentum,” Sefcovic wrote on X afterwards.

UK Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds also met with Greer, and he said steel and aluminium tariffs would remain at 25 percent for his country. The two countries have been in the process of forging a post-Brexit bilateral trade agreement, announcing a “breakthrough” last month.

“We’re pleased that as a result of our agreement with the US, UK steel will not be subject to these additional tariffs,” a British government spokesperson said.

‘Extremely hard to make a deal’

Trump’s latest tariff hike comes days after a federal court ruled that his so-called reciprocal tariffs — which imposed customised taxes on nearly all US trading partners — were illegal.

Trump had imposed those tariffs in April, only to pause them for 90 days. The court’s ruling was quickly paused while legal proceedings continued, and Trump’s tariffs have been allowed to remain in place for now.

One of the hardest hit countries has been China, which saw US tariffs against its exports skyrocket to 145 percent earlier this year.

The Trump administration, however, has since sought to reach a deal with China to end the trade war between the world’s two largest economies.

The White House said on Monday that Trump would speak to Chinese President Xi Jinping this week, raising hopes the duo could soothe tensions and speed up negotiations.

But on Wednesday, Trump appeared to dampen hopes for a quick deal.

“I like President XI of China, always have, and always will, but he is VERY TOUGH, AND EXTREMELY HARD TO MAKE A DEAL WITH!!!” he posted on his Truth Social platform.

When asked about the remarks during a regular news briefing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said Beijing’s “principles and stance on developing Sino-US relations are consistent”.

President Sheinbaum labels vote a ‘success’, but experts warn criminals could use it to infiltrate judiciary.

A landmark vote to select judges in Mexico has been labelled a “success” by the president despite a sparse turnout and widespread confusion.

Just 13 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in Sunday’s vote to overhaul the court system. President Claudia Sheinbaum proclaimed that the election would make Mexico more democratic, but critics accused her of seeking to take control of the judiciary, while analysts warned it could open the way for criminals to seize influence.

The vote, a cornerstone policy of Sheinbaum and predecessor Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, aimed to fill about 880 federal judicial positions, including Supreme Court justices, as well as hundreds of local judges and magistrates.

But many voters said they struggled to make informed choices among a flood of largely unknown candidates, who were barred from openly disclosing party affiliations or engaging in widespread campaigning.

‘Largely empty’ polling stations

Al Jazeera’s John Holman reported from Mexico City that polling stations were “largely empty”.

“On what the government planned to be a historic day, the majority of Mexicans prefer to do something else,” he said.

Still, Sheinbaum hailed the election as “a complete success” that makes the country a democratic trailblazer.

“Mexico is a country that is only becoming more free, just and democratic because that is the will of the people,” the president said.

The reform, defended by supporters as necessary to cleanse a corrupt justice system, was originally championed by Sheinbaum’s predecessor, Lopez Obrador, who frequently clashed with the old judiciary.

‘Painstaking process’

Experts had warned that turnout would be unusually low due to the sheer number of candidates and the unfamiliarity of judicial voting.

To be properly informed, voters “would have to spend hours and hours researching the track record and the profiles of each of the hundreds of candidates”, said David Shirk, a professor at the University of San Diego.

That concern was echoed by voters at the polls.

“We are not very prepared,” said Lucia Calderon, a 63-year-old university teacher. “I think we need more information.”

Francisco Torres de Leon, a 62-year-old retired teacher in southern Mexico, called the process “painstaking because there are too many candidates and positions that they’re going to fill”.

Beyond logistical challenges, analysts and rights groups raised fears that powerful criminal groups could use the elections to further infiltrate the judiciary.

While corruption already exists, “there is reason to believe that elections may be more easily infiltrated by organised crime than other methods of judicial selection”, said Margaret Satterthwaite, the United Nations special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers.

Although all candidates were supposed to have legal experience, no criminal record and a “good reputation”, several have been linked to organised crime and corruption scandals.

Rights group Defensorxs identified about 20 candidates it considers “high risk”, including Silvia Delgado, a former lawyer for Sinaloa cartel cofounder Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman.

Another candidate, in Durango state, previously served nearly six years in a US prison for drug offences.

Election results are expected in the coming days. A second round of judicial elections is scheduled for 2027 to fill hundreds more positions.

Lawyers for the six victims say ‘historic’ court decision recognises the plight of survivors who demanded justice for decades.

A top Guatemalan court has sentenced three former paramilitaries to 40 years each in prison after they were found guilty of raping six Indigenous women between 1981 and 1983, one of the bloodiest periods of the Central American nation’s civil war.

The conviction and sentencing on Friday mark another significant step towards attaining justice for the Maya Achi Indigenous women, who were sexually abused by pro-government armed groups, during a period of extreme bloodshed between the military and left-wing rebels that left as many as 200,000 dead or missing.

Former Civil Self-Defence Patrol members Pedro Sanchez, Simeon Enriquez and Felix Tum were found guilty of crimes against humanity for sexually assaulting six members of the Maya Achi group, Judge Maria Eugenia Castellanos said.

“The women recognised the perpetrators, they recognised the places where the events took place. They were victims of crimes against humanity,” she said, praising the women’s bravery in coming to court to testify on repeated occasions.

“They are crimes of solitude that stigmatise the woman. It is not easy to speak of them,” the judge said.

Indigenous lawyer Haydee Valey, who represented the women, said the sentence was “historic” because it finally recognised the struggle of civil war survivors who had demanded justice for decades.

Several Maya Achi women in the courtroom applauded at the end of the trial, where some dressed in traditional attire and others listened to the verdict through an interpreter.

One of the victims, a 62-year-old woman, told the AFP news agency she was “very happy” with the verdict.

Pedro Sanchez, one of the three men convicted, told the court before the sentencing, “I am innocent of what they are accusing me of.”

But Judge Marling Mayela Gonzalez Arrivillaga, another member of the all-women, three-panel court, said there was no doubt about the women’s testimony against the suspects.

The convictions were second in the Maya Achi women’s case against former military personnel and paramilitaries. The first trial, which took place in January 2022, saw five former paramilitaries sentenced to 30 years in prison.

Advocacy group Impunity Watch said the case “highlights how the Guatemalan army used sexual violence as a weapon of war against Indigenous women” during the civil conflict.

In 2016, a Guatemalan court sentenced two former military officers for holding 15 women from the Q’eqchi community, who are also of Maya origin, as sex slaves. Both officers were sentenced to a combined 360 years in prison.

Cuba’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has issued a statement of protest against the head of the United States mission to the island, Michael Hammer.

In a news release published on Friday, the Foreign Ministry accused Hammer, a career diplomat, of “unfriendly and meddling behaviour” since his arrival in Cuba in late 2024.

“By inciting Cuban citizens to commit extremely serious criminal acts, attacking the constitutional order, or encouraging them to act against the authorities or demonstrate in support of the interests and objectives of a hostile foreign power, the diplomat is engaging in provocative and irresponsible conduct,” the Foreign Ministry wrote.

“The immunity he enjoys as a representative of his country cannot be used as cover for acts contrary to the sovereignty and internal order of the country to which he is assigned, in this case, Cuba.”

The Foreign Ministry said the message was delivered by its director of bilateral affairs with the US, Alejandro Garcia del Toro.

Friday’s statement is the latest indication of increasingly rocky relations between Cuba and the US, particularly since President Donald Trump began his second term in January.

A history of tensions

Diplomatic ties between the two countries, however, have been icy for decades, stretching back to the Cold War in the 1960s. After the Cuban Revolution of 1959, the US government imposed strict trade restrictions on the island and backed efforts to topple the newly established Communist government.

But there have been efforts to ease the tensions, notably during the administrations of Democratic presidents like Barack Obama and Joe Biden in the US.

In 2016, for instance, Obama sought to normalise relations with Cuba, only to see those efforts rolled back during the first Trump administration, starting in 2017.

Likewise, President Biden – who formerly served as Obama’s vice president – removed Cuba from the US’s list of “state sponsors of terrorism” in the waning days of his term in January.

But upon taking office for his second time on January 20, Trump reversed course once more, putting Cuba back on the list that very same day.

Trump also included in his presidential cabinet several officials who have taken a hardline stance towards Cuba, most notably former Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Born to Cuban immigrants, Rubio is an outspoken supporter of continuing the trade embargo against the island.

The Cuban government, meanwhile, has continued to accuse the US of attempting to destabilise its leadership.

In Friday’s statement, the Cuban Foreign Ministry accused Hammer of “public and insulting manipulation” for his recent visit to the tomb of a 19th-century national hero, Jose Marti.

The US Embassy to Cuba posted a video of the visit with a voiceover of Marti’s words, “Respect for the freedom and thoughts of others, even of the most unhappy kind, is my passion: If I die or am killed, it will be for that.” Critics have interpreted that citation as an implied endorsement of dissent on the island.

Ramping up pressure

In recent months, there have also been signs that Trump plans to once again tighten the screws on the Cuban government, in a return to the “maximum pressure” campaigns that typified foreign policy during his first term.

In February, for instance, the Trump administration announced it would yank visas from anyone who works with Cuba’s medical system, which sends thousands of healthcare workers abroad each year, particularly in the Caribbean region.

Critics have criticised the healthcare programme for its low pay and hefty restrictions on its employees. Trump and Rubio, meanwhile, have claimed the medical system amounts to a form of “forced labour” that enriches the Cuban government. But leaders in Havana have denied that allegation.

Then, in April, the US government condemned Cuba for re-arresting a group of dissidents, among them prominent figures like Jose Daniel Ferrer and Felix Navarro.

Cuba had initially agreed to release Ferrer and Navarro as part of a bargain brokered by the Vatican earlier this year.

Cuba was expected to release 553 prisoners, many of whom were swept up in antigovernment protests, and in exchange, the US was supposed to ease its sanctions against the island. The sanctions relief, however, never came.

An additional measure was taken against Cuba just this month. The Department of State, under Rubio’s direction, determined that “Cuba did not fully cooperate with US counterterrorism efforts in 2024”. It accused Cuba of harbouring 11 fugitives, some of whom faced terrorism-related charges in the US.

“The Cuban regime made clear it was not willing to discuss their return to face justice in our nation,” the State Department wrote in a news release. “The United States will continue to promote international cooperation on counterterrorism issues. We also continue to promote accountability for countries that do not stand against terrorism.”

As punishment, Cuba was labelled as a “not fully cooperating country” under the Arms Export Control Act, a designation that limits its ability to buy weaponry and other defence tools from the US.

Furthermore, Hammer had recently signalled that new sanctions were on the way for the island.

But in the face of Friday’s reprimand, the State Department indicated it was undeterred and would continue to support dissidents against Cuba’s “malign influence”.

From the beginning, the reforms were controversial. Thousands of court workers went on strike to protest the constitutional amendment. Some protesters even stormed the Senate building.

Critics accused the Morena party of seeking to strengthen its grip on power by electing sympathetic judges. Already, the party holds majorities in both chambers of Congress, as well as the presidency.

Opponents also feared the elections would lead to unqualified candidates taking office.

Under the new regulations, candidates must have a law degree, experience in legal affairs, no criminal record and letters of recommendation.

Candidates also had to pass evaluation committees, comprised of representatives from the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.

And yet, some of the final candidates have nevertheless raised eyebrows. One was arrested for trafficking methamphetamine. Another is implicated in a murder investigation. Still more have been accused of sexual misconduct.

Arias suspects that some candidates slipped through the screening process due to the limited resources available to organise the election.

She noted that the National Election Institute had less than 10 months to arrange the elections, since the reforms were only passed in September.

“The timing is very rushed,” she said.

One of the most controversial hopefuls in Sunday’s election is Silvia Delgado, a lawyer who once defended the cofounder of the Sinaloa Cartel, Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzman.

She is now campaigning to be a judge in Ciudad Juarez, in the border state of Chihuahua.

Despite her high-profile client, Delgado told Al Jazeera that the scrutiny over her candidacy is misplaced: She maintains she was only doing her job as a lawyer.

“Having represented this or that person does not make you part of a criminal group,” she said.

Rather, she argues that it is Mexico’s incumbent judges who deserve to be under the microscope. She claimed many of them won their positions through personal connections.

“They got in through a recommendation or through a family member who got them into the judiciary,” she said.

President Sheinbaum has likewise framed the elections as part of the battle against nepotism and self-dealing in the judicial system.

“This is about fighting corruption,” Sheinbaum said in one of her morning news briefings. “This is the defence of the Mexican people for justice, for honesty, for integrity.”

Relatives of five members of the band Fugitivo, aged between 20 and 40, received ransom demands after their abduction.

Drug cartel members are suspected of murdering five Mexican band members, who went missing after being hired to perform a concert in a crime-ridden city in the northeast of the country.

The Diario de Mexico newspaper said on Thursday that the bodies of the five musicians had been discovered after they went missing on Sunday, and nine suspects were arrested in connection with their abduction and killing.

According to authorities, the nine suspects are part of the “Los Metros” faction of the Gulf Cartel, which operates in the city of Reynosa, in Tamaulipas state, near the United States border.

“Law enforcement arrested nine individuals considered likely responsible for the events. They are known to be members of a criminal cell of the Gulf Cartel,” Tamaulipas Attorney General Irving Barrios told a news conference.

Tamaulipas is considered one of Mexico’s most dangerous states due to the presence of cartel members involved in drug and migrant trafficking, as well as other crimes, including extortion.

The announcement of the arrests came hours after officials said five bodies had been found in the search for the men, who were members of a local band called Fugitivo.

The musicians were hired to put on a concert on Sunday but arrived to find that the location of their proposed performance was a vacant lot, according to family members who had held a protest urging the authorities to act.

Relatives had reported receiving ransom demands for the musicians, who were aged between 20 and 40 years old.

Mexican musicians have been targeted previously by cartel members amid rivalry, as some receive payment to compose and perform songs that glorify the exploits of gang leaders.

Investigators used video surveillance footage and mobile phone tracking to establish the musicians’ last movements, Barrios said.

Nine firearms and two vehicles were seized, he said.

More than 480,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence and organised crime, and about 120,000 people have gone missing, in Mexico.

Tren de Aragua was a little-known gang in Venezuela – until recently. US President Donald Trump’s focus on the group has thrust it into the spotlight, as hundreds of Venezuelans have been deported from the United States.

Where’s the line between sharing a culture and stealing it? In a globalised world, borrowing is easy – but honoring is harder. We explore everything from re-branded recipes to re-imagined identities. What’s at stake when heritage becomes a trend?

Presenter: Stefanie Dekker

Guests:
Fadi Kattan – Chef and author
Richie Richardson – Professor at Cornell University
Nikki Apostolou – Content creator

Federal prosecutors in the US will not seek the death sentence for Joaquin Guzman Lopez if he is found guilty at trial, court documents show.

Federal prosecutors in the United States said they will not seek the death penalty for the son of Mexican drug lord “El Chapo” if he is found guilty of multiple drug trafficking charges when he goes on trial.

According to media reports, federal prosecutors in Chicago filed a one-sentence notice on May 23, saying they would not seek the death penalty for Joaquin Guzman Lopez, the son of Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman – the former leader of Mexico’s feared Sinaloa Cartel who is serving a life sentence in a US prison.

The notice did not offer any explanation for the decision by the federal prosecutors, or further details.

Joaquin Guzman Lopez, 38, was indicted in 2023 along with three of his brothers – known as the “Chapitos”, or little Chapos – on US drug trafficking and money laundering charges after assuming leadership of their father’s drug cartel when “El Chapo” was extradited to the US in 2017.

Joaquin Guzman Lopez’s lawyer said in an email to The Associated Press news agency on Tuesday that he was pleased with the federal prosecutors’ decision, “as it’s the correct one”.

“Joaquin and I are looking forward to resolving the charges against him,” Lichtman said.

Joaquin Guzman Lopez has pleaded not guilty to the five charges of drug trafficking, conspiracy and money laundering against him, one of which carries the maximum sentence of death as it was allegedly carried out on US territory.

He was taken into US custody in a dramatic July 2024 arrest alongside alleged Sinaloa Cartel cofounder Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada on a New Mexico airfield.

Zambada has also pleaded not guilty. But his lawyer told the Reuters news agency that he would be willing to plead guilty if prosecutors agreed to spare him the death penalty.

Another of the brothers, Ovidio Guzman, is expected to plead guilty to drug trafficking charges against him at a court hearing in Chicago on July 9, according to court records.

“El Chapo” Guzman is serving a life sentence at a maximum security prison in Colorado.

Judge Julieta Makintach was accused of participating in a documentary about the famed football player’s death.

One of the three judges presiding over a negligence trial related to the death of Argentinian football player Diego Maradona has resigned, leaving the case’s future uncertain.

On Tuesday, Judge Julieta Makintach announced she would recuse herself after reports emerged that she had participated in a documentary about Maradona’s death and its aftermath.

“This is a judicial tragedy,” said Fernando Burlando, a lawyer for Maradona’s eldest daughters, Dalma and Gianinna.

Judges are largely forbidden from taking part in interviews and other public commentary while proceedings are ongoing. Since March 11, Makintach has been part of a three-judge panel weighing the fate of seven healthcare workers who tended to Maradona during his final days.

The seven have been charged with negligent homicide following Maradona’s death by cardiac arrest in 2020 at age 60.

It is a high-profile case that has stirred a great deal of scrutiny in Argentina. Maradona is a national hero, having led the national football squad to a World Cup victory in 1986.

His performance in that year’s World Cup tournament has since become the stuff of sporting legend. Even a foul he committed during the quarterfinal has been dubbed the “Hand of God”, since it led to an Argentinian victory over England – a rival with whom the country had an ongoing territorial dispute.

In 2000, the football governing body, FIFA, named Maradona one of its two “Players of the Century”, alongside Brazil’s Pele.

But Maradona struggled with addiction, and he passed away shortly after undergoing brain surgery for a blood clot. The circumstances of his death, in turn, led to questions about whether the football player received adequate medical care in his final days.

The seven defendants include a neurosurgeon, a psychiatrist, nurses and other healthcare professionals who attended to him. They face up to 25 years in prison if convicted. An eighth person is expected to face court separately.

More than 190 witnesses are expected to testify against the seven main defendants. One coroner already told the court in March that Maradona’s death “was foreseeable” and that the football player likely died in “agony”.

But the trial was brought to a halt last week when one of the key defendants, Leopoldo Luque, called for Judge Makintach to be removed from the bench.

Luque was a neurosurgeon and a personal doctor to Maradona when he died. Luque’s lawyer, Julio Rivas, told the court that his client had been approached by the BBC, a British news company, to take part in the documentary.

Through that interaction, Rivas explained they found out that the documentary’s production company had ties to Judge Makintach’s brother, Juan Makintach.

Police also indicated that they had seen a camera in the courtroom, allegedly approved by Judge Makintach.

On May 20, prosecutor Patricio Ferrari called for the trial to be paused for a week while the incident was reviewed. Footage was presented to the court from the documentary, showing the start of the trial. It appeared to feature the judge as a central figure.

Judge Makintach has denied wrongdoing. But Ferrari argued, “The situation compromises the prestige of the judiciary.”

It is unclear whether a new judge will replace Makintach in the coming months.

Labour prosecutors allege that workers were brought to Brazil illegally and toiled in ‘slavery-like conditions’.

Brazilian labour prosecutors have filed a lawsuit against the Chinese auto manufacturer BYD and two contractors over allegations of illegally trafficking labourers to live and work under conditions “analogous to slavery”.

On Tuesday, the prosecutors, charged with enforcing labour laws, said in a statement that they would seek 257 million reais ($45m) in damages from BYD as well as contractors China JinJiang Construction Brazil and Tecmonta Equipamentos Inteligentes.

They accused the three companies of trafficking Chinese workers to build a BYD plant in Camacari, in the northeastern state of Bahia. There, the prosecutors allege that the companies subjected the workers to “extremely degrading” conditions.

“In December last year, 220 Chinese workers were found to be in conditions analogous to slavery and victims of international human trafficking,” the statement said.

The damages the prosecutors are seeking amount to a penalty of 50,000 reais ($8,867) per violation, multiplied by the number of workers affected, in addition to moral damages.

The lawsuit is the result of a police raid in December 2024, during which authorities say they “rescued” 163 Chinese workers from Jinjiang and 57 from Tecmonta.

The prosecutors say the workers were victims of international human trafficking and were brought to Brazil with visas that did not fit their jobs.

They also allege that conditions at the construction site left the labourers almost totally dependent on their employers, by withholding up to 70 percent of their wages and imposing high contract termination costs. Some of the workers even had their passports taken away, limiting their ability to leave, according to the prosecutors.

The lawsuit also describes meagre living conditions, including some beds without mattresses.

“In one dormitory, only one toilet was identified for use by 31 people, forcing workers to wake up around 4am to wash themselves before starting their workday,” the prosecutors’ statement notes.

Brazil is the largest market for BYD outside China. The Chinese auto giant has said that it is committed to human rights, is cooperating with authorities and will respond to the lawsuit in court.

A spokesman for the company said in December that allegations of poor working conditions were part of an effort to “smear” China and Chinese companies.

But the Brazilian labour prosecutors rejected the notion that their lawsuit was based on anti-Chinese sentiment.

“Our lawsuit is very well-founded, with a substantial amount of evidence provided during the investigation process,” deputy labour prosecutor Fabio Leal said in an interview.

He stated that the workers, who have all returned to China, would receive any payments related to the lawsuit there, with the companies in Brazil responsible for providing proof of payment.

Venezuela’s ruling coalition, led by President Nicolas Maduro, has won the parliamentary and regional elections by a landslide, maintaining a significant majority in the powerful National Assembly, according to the country’s electoral authority.

Sunday’s legislative and gubernatorial elections were held as several opposition groups called for a boycott in response to what they described as fraudulent results of the July 2024 presidential vote. Maduro was declared the winner of the 2024 disputed vote.

Following the results, the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) will continue to control key institutions, such as the attorney general’s office and the supreme court, as their members are chosen by the 285-member assembly.

Here is what you need to know about parliamentary and regional elections:

What were the official results of the 2025 regional and legislative elections?

Preliminary results released by the National Electoral Council (CNE) on Monday showed that the PSUV and its allies won 82.68 percent of the votes cast the previous day for seats in the National Assembly.

The ruling coalition also won 23 out of 24 state governor positions, the CNE said.

A coalition considered close to the ruling socialist party won 6.25 percent of the vote, while an opposition alliance won 5.17 percent, CNE rector Carlos Quintero said in a declaration broadcast on state television.

Maduro hailed the election results as a “victory of peace and stability” and said it “proved the power of Chavismo” – the left-wing, populist political movement founded by his predecessor, Hugo Chavez.

What did voters elect?

The CNE oversaw Sunday’s election for 260 state legislators, 285 members of the unicameral National Assembly and all 24 governors, including the newly created governorship purportedly established to administer Essequibo, a region long under dispute between Venezuela and neighbouring Guyana.

Opposition candidates won the governorship of Cojedes state, a fall from the four they won in 2021.

Why election in Essequibo, a disputed region near Guyana, was controversial?

The Venezuelan government revised the electoral boundaries to elect a governor and eight representatives for the Essequibo, an oil-rich region that Caracas disputes with Guyana in a colonial-era dispute.

The vote took place in a micro-district of 21,403 voters in Venezuela’s Bolivar state, on the Guyanese border. Caracas had specially created it for Sunday’s legislative and regional elections. There were no polling stations in the 160,000sq km (61,776sq miles) territory of Essequibo, administered by Georgetown.

Guyana has administered the region for decades, but Caracas has threatened to partially annex it – a threat that Maduro repeated on Sunday. The Guyanese government, before the vote, warned that participating in Venezuela’s election could amount to treason.

The Maduro government last year passed a law creating a new state in the disputed territory, despite the ongoing case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The Venezuelan actions have come despite a 2023 court order asking Caracas to avoid any action that would change the status quo of the territory.

The Venezuelan government has said it does not recognise the court’s authority in the case.

How did the opposition respond to the results?

Opposition figurehead Maria Corina Machado declared in a post on X late on Sunday that in some areas of the country, up to 85 percent of eligible voters snubbed the election, which she slammed as an “enormous farce that the regime is trying to stage to bury its defeat” in last year’s election.

Edmundo Gonzalez, who is recognised by the United States and several other countries as the winner of the July 2024 presidential election, said, “We witnessed an event that attempted to disguise itself as an election, but failed to deceive the country or the world.”

“What the world saw today was an act of civic courage. A silent but powerful declaration that the desire for change, dignity, and a future remains intact,” he said in a post on X.

Meanwhile, another opposition faction, headed by two-time presidential candidate Henrique Capriles and Zulia state Governor Manuel Rosales, urged people to vote to avoid the opposition being cut out of all governance.

Capriles was elected to the National Assembly, while Rosales lost his governor’s seat.

What was the voter turnout, and what factors influenced it?

Turnout in the elections was 8.9 million, or roughly 42 percent of 21 million voters eligible to cast their ballots, according to the CNE.

However, the country’s main opposition leaders had urged voters to boycott the election in protest over the July 2024 presidential election.

What are the implications of these elections for Venezuela’s political landscape?

The results are a big boost for Maduro who will further consolidate power as the ruling coalition now exercises almost complete control over the democratic institutions.

It will also demoralise the opposition, which has been in a disarray, with the executive secretary of the opposition’s Democratic Unitary Platform (PUD), Omar Barboza, stepping down in March. Barboza cited lack of unity as one of the reasons to quit his post weeks before the elections.

Al Jazeera’s Teresa Bo, reporting from Argentina, noted that during the campaign, the opposition had been divided on the boycott call, making it difficult to present a more forceful challenge against Maduro.

She added that most analysts have said they “could not guarantee if the elections were free and fair”. “They denounced the lack of international observers, among other things,” she said.

What’s next for Maduro?

Maduro’s success in recent elections comes despite the decline of the economy following years of mismanagement and international sanctions.

US President Donald Trump has recently revoked permission for oil giant Chevron to continue pumping Venezuelan crude, potentially depriving Maduro’s administration of a vital economic lifeline.

Licence to Chevron was given in 2022 under Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, after Maduro agreed to work with the opposition towards a democratic election.

Washington has also started to deport Venezuelan immigrants, many of them to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador. Last week, the US Supreme Court revoked the deportation protection for some 350,000 Venezuelan immigrants in the US.

Governing party celebrates big win as just 42 percent of voters take part in legislative and governors vote.

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s governing party has swept parliamentary and regional elections that were boycotted by the opposition.

Preliminary results released by the National Electoral Council (CNE) on Monday showed that the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) and its allies won 82.68 percent of votes cast the previous day for seats in the National Assembly.

That result ensures that the party will maintain control of key levers of power, including the attorney general’s office and the country’s top court, whose members are elected by the 285-seat assembly.

CNE also said that 23 out of 24 state governor positions were won by the government flagging a setback for the opposition, which previously controlled four states.

Turnout in the elections was 8.9 million or roughly 42 percent of 21 million voters eligible to cast their ballots. CNE chief Carlos Quintero noted that was the same figure as in the 2021 elections.

However, the country’s main opposition leaders had urged voters to boycott the election in protest over July’s 2024 presidential election. The opposition insists that it won that race but authorities declared Maduro the winner.

Opposition figurehead Maria Corina Machado declared in a post on X late on Sunday that in some areas of the country, up to 85 percent of eligible voters snubbed the election, which she slammed as an “enormous farce that the regime is trying to stage to bury its defeat” in last year’s election.

Maduro, however, shrugged off the boycott.

“When the opponent withdraws from the field, we advance and occupy the terrain,” he said matter-of-factly.

According to journalists and social media posts, turnout was noticeably low in Venezuela’s main cities. Still, images posted by the government party showed scores of people lining up to vote in areas like Trujillo and the Amazons.

Al Jazeera’s Teresa Bo, reporting from Argentina, noted that during the campaign, the opposition had been divided on the boycott call, making it difficult to present a more forceful challenge against Maduro.

She added that most analysts have said that they “could not guarantee if the elections were free and fair”.

Tensions were high on Sunday, with more than 400,000 security agents deployed to monitor the vote and more than 70 people arrested.

Among those detained was leading opposition member Juan Pablo Guanipa on charges of heading a “terrorist network” that planned to “sabotage” the vote.

The government, which has warned of foreign-backed coup plots many times in the past, said dozens of suspected mercenaries had entered the country from Colombia, prompting the closure of the busy border with its neighbour until after the election.

Maduro’s success in recent elections comes despite the decline of the economy, once the envy of Latin America, following years of mismanagement and sanctions, with more on the way.

United States President Donald Trump has recently revoked permission for oil giant Chevron to continue pumping Venezuelan crude, potentially depriving Maduro’s administration of a vital economic lifeline.

Washington has also revoked deportation protection from 350,000 Venezuelan migrants in the US and expelled hundreds of others to a maximum security prison in El Salvador.

Legislative, regional elections are the first to allow broad voter participation since last year’s disputed presidential vote.

Venezuelans are casting their ballots in legislative and regional elections under the shadow of a heightened government crackdown and opposition leaders calling for a boycott.

Sunday’s elections are the first to allow comprehensive voter participation since last year’s disputed presidential vote, which President Nicolas Maduro claimed to have won despite contradictory evidence.

It is also taking place two days after the government detained dozens of people, including a prominent opposition leader, and accused them of being linked to an alleged plot to hinder the vote.

In the first hours after the polls opened, members of the military reportedly outnumbered voters in some voting centres in the capital, Caracas. No lines formed outside the polling stations, including the country’s largest – a stark contrast with the hundreds of people gathered around the same time for the July 28 presidential election.

Many people appeared to have lost faith in the electoral process. “I am not going to vote after they stole the elections last year. For what? I don’t want to be disappointed again,” Caracas resident Paula Aranguren said.

In the eyes of the opposition, voter participation legitimises Maduro’s claim to power and what they brand as his government’s repressive apparatus.

After the presidential election, 25 people were reportedly killed and more than 2,000 people were detained – including protesters, poll workers, political activists and minors – to quash dissent. The government also issued arrest warrants against opposition leaders, levelling charges against them ranging from conspiracy to falsifying records.

Despite the risks, campaigning for some has remained a key form of resistance against the government.

“History is full of evidence that voting is an instrument towards democracy,” Henrique Capriles, a former opposition presidential candidate now running for a seat in the National Assembly, told Al Jazeera.

“I believe the way we stood for our rights last year kept alive the peaceful fight for our constitution because voting is what we have left to manifest our rejection of Maduro and his government,” Capriles said.

Meanwhile, the ruling party is touting an overwhelming victory across the country, just as it has done in previous regional elections.

A nationwide poll conducted from April 29 to May 4 by the Venezuela-based research firm Delphos showed only 15.9 percent of voters expressed a high probability of voting on Sunday.

Of those, 74.2 percent said they would vote for the candidates of the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela and its allies while 13.8 percent said they would vote for contenders associated with two opposition leaders who are not boycotting the elections.

Maduro accuses the opposition of attempts to destabilise the country.

“The death throes of fascism have tried to bring in mercenaries, and today, we have already captured more than 50 mercenaries who came in to plant bombs or launch violent attacks in the country,” he told supporters before election day.

Political analysts said the chances that free and fair elections would take place are practically nonexistent.

“There won’t be witnesses at the table, very few witnesses. Nobody wants to be a witness,” political analyst Benigno Alarcon told Al Jazeera, adding that low voter turnout, no understanding of who the candidates are and the lack of international observers are likely going to make the elections unfair.

Some voters who cast ballots on Sunday said they did so out of fear of losing their government jobs or food and other state-controlled benefits.

“Most of my friends aren’t going to vote, not even a blank vote,” state employee Miguel Otero, 69, told The Associated Press news agency. “But we must comply. We have to send the photo [showing] I’m here at the polling station now.”

The Gran Morgu project may transform Suriname’s economy, rivalling oil-rich neighbour Guyana by 2028, officials predict.

Voters in Suriname, which is on the cusp of a much anticipated oil boom, have begun to elect a new parliament, which will subsequently choose the next president of the smallest nation in South America.

Sunday’s elections have already been marked by fraud allegations and have seen little debate about what the next government, which will hold power until 2030, should do with income from the offshore oil and gas Gran Morgu project. It is to begin production in 2028.

Experts said Suriname, a country beset by poverty and rampant inflation, is projected to make billions of dollars in the coming decade or two from recently discovered offshore crude deposits.

The project, led by TotalEnergies, is Suriname’s first major offshore effort. The former Dutch colony, independent since 1975, discovered reserves that may allow it to compete with neighbouring Guyana – whose economy grew 43.6 percent last year – as a prominent producer.

“It will be a huge amount of income for the country,” President Chan Santokhi told the AFP news agency this week. “We are now able … to do more for our people, so that everyone can be part of the growth of the nation.”

Santokhi is constitutionally eligible for a second term, but with no single party in a clear lead in the elections, pollsters are not predicting the outcome.

The party with the most seats will lead Suriname’s next government, likely through a coalition with smaller parties, but negotiations and the choosing of a new president are expected to take weeks.

Fourteen parties are taking part in the elections, including Santokhi’s centrist Progressive Reform Party and the leftist National Democratic Party of deceased former coup leader and elected President Desi Bouterse.

Also in the running is the centre-left General Liberation and Development Party of Vice President Ronnie Brunswijk, a former rebel who fought against Bouterse’s government in the 1980s.

Provisional results are expected by late Sunday.

Suriname – a diverse country made up of descendants of people from India, Indonesia, China, the Netherlands, Indigenous groups and enslaved Africans – will mark the 50th anniversary of its independence from the Netherlands in November.

Since independence, it has looked increasingly towards China as a political ally and trading partner and in 2019 became one of the first Latin American countries to join the Asian giant’s Belt and Road infrastructure drive.

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio made a stopover in Suriname in March on a regional tour aimed at countering China’s growing influence in the region.

More than 90 percent of the country is covered in forest, and it is one of few in the world with a negative carbon footprint.

Santokhi insisted this status is not in danger and Suriname can use its oil windfall “for the transition towards the green energy which we need, also because we know the fossil energy is limited”.

“It will be gone after 40 years.”

A top figure in Venezuela’s opposition has been arrested on charges of “terrorism” before parliamentary elections scheduled for the weekend.

On Friday, a social media account for Juan Pablo Guanipa, a close associate of Maria Corina Machado, considered the leader of the opposition coalition, announced he had been detained. State television also carried images of his arrest, as he was escorted away by armed guards.

In a prewritten message online, Guanipa denounced Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro for human rights abuses, including stifling political dissent and false imprisonment.

“Brothers and sisters, if you are reading this, it is because I have been kidnapped by the forces of Nicolas Maduro’s regime,” Guanipa wrote.

“For months, I, like many Venezuelans, have been in hiding for my safety. Unfortunately, my time in hiding has come to an end. As of today, I am part of the list of Venezuelans kidnapped by the dictatorship.”

Since Venezuela held a hotly contested presidential election in July 2024, Guanipa, along with several other opposition figures, has been in hiding, for fear of being arrested.

That presidential election culminated in a disputed outcome and widespread protests. On the night of the vote, Venezuela’s election authorities declared Maduro the winner, awarding him a third successive six-year term, but it failed to publish the polling tallies to substantiate that result.

Meanwhile, the opposition coalition published tallies from voting stations that it said proved its candidate, Edmundo Gonzalez, had prevailed in a landslide. International watchdogs also criticised the election for its lack of transparency.

Maduro’s government responded to the election-related protests with a police crackdown that led to nearly 2,000 arrests and 25 people killed. It also issued arrest warrants against opposition leaders, accusing them of charges ranging from conspiracy to falsifying records.

Maduro has long accused political dissidents of conspiring with foreign forces to topple his government.

Gonzalez himself was among those for whom a warrant was signed. He fled to exile in Spain. Others have gone into hiding, avoiding the public eye. Until recently, a group of five opposition members had sought shelter in the Argentinian embassy in Caracas, until they were reportedly smuggled out of the country earlier this month.

Opposition members and their supporters have dismissed the charges against them as spurious and further evidence of the Maduro government’s repressive tactics.

“This is pure and simple STATE TERRORISM,” Machado, the opposition leader, wrote on social media in the wake of Guanipa’s arrest.

Machado and others have said that Guanipa was one of several people arrested in the lead-up to this weekend’s regional elections, which will see members of the National Assembly and state-level positions on the ballot.

Several prominent members of the opposition have pledged to boycott the vote, arguing it is a means for Maduro to consolidate power.

“Just hours before a farcical election with no guarantees of any kind, the regime has reactivated an operation of political repression,” Gonzalez wrote on social media, in reaction to the recent spate of arrests.

He argued that the detention of Guanipa and others was a means of ensuring “nothing will go off script” during Sunday’s vote.

“They harass political, social, and community leaders. They persecute those who influence public opinion. They intend to shut down all alternative information spaces and ensure a narrative monopoly,” Gonzalez wrote.

“To the international community: This is not an election. It’s an authoritarian device to shield the power they’ve usurped.”

A new law, championed by President Nayib Bukele, is seen by advocates as an effort to stifle dissent in El Salvador.

Human rights groups, politicians and experts have sharply criticised a law approved by El Salvador’s Congress as a censorship tool, designed to silence and criminalise dissent by nongovernmental organisations critical of President Nayib Bukele.

The law proposed by Bukele bypassed normal legislative procedures and was passed on Tuesday night by a Congress under the firm control of his New Ideas party.

Bukele first tried to introduce a similar law in 2021, but after strong international backlash, it was never brought for a vote by the full Congress.

Bukele said the law is intended to limit foreign influence and corruption. It comes after the government took a number of steps that have prompted concerns the country may be entering a new wave of crackdowns. Critics warn that it falls in line with measures passed by governments in Nicaragua, Venezuela, Russia, Belarus and China.

Here are more details about the root of the criticism:

What does the law say?

Anyone — individual or organisation, local or foreign — who acts in the interest of a foreign entity or receives foreign funding to operate in El Salvador is required to register under the law.

Every payment, whether in cash, goods or services, made to such groups will be subject to a 30-percent tax. The final law passed does not specify how the money from the tax will be used.

While the United States also has a law that requires individuals working on behalf of foreign entities and governments to register, Bukele’s is far broader in scope and grants him greater powers. It is fairly common in poorer countries in Latin America to depend on international aid dollars, as it is often difficult to raise money in their own countries.

Analysts say a broad definition of a “foreign agent” in the law could cover:

• Human rights organisations
• Community associations
• Independent media outlets
• Foreign-funded startups or businesses
• Religious groups
• International aid agencies

New rules governing NGOs

The law creates a new government body called RAEX, or Registry of Foreign Agents, which will have wide powers, including setting requirements for registration, approving or denying applications, revoking or refusing to renew registrations and demanding documents or information at any time.

Some NGOs can apply for exceptions, but RAEX will decide who can operate in the country. About 8,000 NGOs operate in El Salvador and often depend on foreign donations due to a lack of funds available in the Central American nation.

Some of those groups have long been at odds with Bukele and have criticised some of his actions, including his decision to waive key constitutional rights to crack down on the country’s gangs and seeking re-election despite clear constitutional prohibitions.

The rules NGOs will have to adhere to the following:

• They must register with RAEX and report the source and purpose of all donations.
• They must keep complete accounting records, use the banks for transactions and follow anti-money laundering laws.
• They cannot operate without registering.
• They cannot engage in political activities or actions seen as threatening public order or national security.
• They cannot use foreign donations for undeclared activities or share information on behalf of foreign donors without labelling it as such.

Violations of the rules can lead to fines between $100,000 to $250,000 and possible closure.

Why now?

Critics say Bukele revived the law because he has now consolidated power across all branches of government. His political alliance with US President Donald Trump has also emboldened him.

Bukele announced the law shortly after a protest near his home ended in a violent crackdown by police that saw two people arrested.

In addition, it comes after a number of moves by Bukele that have raised concerns that the self-described “world’s coolest dictator” is cracking down on dissent.

• Just two days before the law passed, the government arrested an anticorruption lawyer with the human rights organisation Cristosal — one of Bukele’s most outspoken critics — on corruption charges.
• The government arrested the heads of bus companies for defying an order from Bukele posted on his social media.
• Journalists with the investigative news organisation El Faro said they had to flee the country after receiving word that the government was preparing orders for their arrest, after they published reports on the president’s links to gangs.

What are critics saying?

• Opposition legislator Claudia Ortiz called the law “an authoritarian tool for censorship“ and said it hands the president excessive levels of control. “It’s obvious that exemptions will only be given to groups that align with the government, while those who expose corruption or abuse will be punished,” she said.
• Lawyer Roxana Cardona of the NGO Justicia Social y Controlaría Ciudadana said: “The Foreign Agents Law seeks to suppress organisations that promote civic participation or support marginalised groups the state ignores.”
• Eduardo Escobar, director of Acción Ciudadana, added: “This is part of the government’s increasing repression. It affects constitutional rights like freedom of expression and freedom of association.”
• Lawyer and analyst Bessy Ríos said: “The goal is to control the funding of civil society, especially organisations critical of the government.”