DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES AND MENTAL HEALTH

There are a number of responses to Covid-19 emergency across the globe. One reaction to mitigate the dastardly effects of Covid-19 such as massive loss of lives is imposition of lockdown. This action was a similitude of indirect kidnapping of the citizenry. In the normal kidnapping, victims` freedom of movement is truncated. In the same vein, the enforcement of lockdown denies citizens of their right to movement. This has negative consequences for the fundamental human rights to association, work and dignity of person. Hence, this paper assessed the Covid-19 and implicit kidnapping of citizenry as an elongation of abuse fundamental right of movement in Abeokuta metropolis. The study was cross-sectional, it adopted both qualitative and quantitative research methods. Data were sourced primarily and secondarily. It anchors on anomie theory by Emile Durkheim and betrayal trauma theory by Jennifer Freyd`s. The sample size was gotten through Taro Yamane sample size formula. The questionnaires were administered to 500 re
 There are a number of responses to Covid-19 emergency across the globe. One reaction to mitigate the dastardly effects of Covid-19 such as massive loss of lives is imposition of lockdown. This action was a similitude of indirect kidnapping of the citizenry. In the normal kidnapping, victims` freedom of movement is truncated. In the same vein, the enforcement of lockdown denies citizens of their right to movement. This has negative consequences for the fundamental human rights to association, work and dignity of person. Hence, this paper assessed the Covid-19 and implicit kidnapping of citizenry as an elongation of abuse fundamental right of movement in Abeokuta metropolis. The study was cross-sectional, it adopted both qualitative and quantitative research methods. Data were sourced primarily and secondarily. It anchors on anomie theory by Emile Durkheim and betrayal trauma theory by Jennifer Freyd`s. The sample size was gotten through Taro Yamane sample size formula. The questionnaires were administered to 500 respondents. However, 440 was returned from the field, consequently the response rate was 88%. 312(70.90%) of the respondents were male, while 102(23.18%) were females. 102(94%). The results of the hypotheses tested: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The test statistic (0.1731 and 0.0980) exceeded the Pvalues (0.000 and 0.000). The alternative hypotheses that there are significant relationships between lockdown and fundamental human right abuse was accepted. The paper recommends effective compensation for victims of lockdown. It will be useful to individuals, organisation, government agencies and researchers in social sciences. 
 spondents. However, 440 was returned from the field, consequently the response rate was 88%. 312(70.90%) of the respondents were male, while 102(23.18%) were females. 102(94%). The results of the hypotheses tested: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The test statistic (0.1731 and 0.0980) exceeded the Pvalues (0.000 and 0.000). The alternative hypotheses that there are significant relationships between lockdown and fundamental human right abuse was accepted. The paper recommends effective compensation for victims of lockdown. It will be useful to individuals, organisation, government agencies and researchers in social sciences.

Human rights and freedoms are based on the imperative of its physical and mental autonomy. Neuro-technologies, which have provided the possibility of contactless interaction with the human brain, have significantly increased the risks of manipulating the consciousness of citizens. Fundamental human rights and freedoms, such as freedom of thought, speech, conscience, privacy, personal and family secrets, have been threatened. Today, an updated understanding of these rights and freedoms is required, as well as a modification of the legal means of their protection, taking into account the impact that neuroscience has on the effectiveness of their achievement. The urgency of this issue led to the formation of the concept of neuro-law and the start of a process aimed at the neuro-technological improvement of a number of acts of international law under the auspices of the United Nations. The objectives of this article are to analyze the concept and content of neuro-rights, to study the transformation of the legal interpretation of fundamental human rights and freedoms under the influence of neuro-technology. The objective of the work is to develop a methodology for compensating neural risks by legal means using the mechanisms of public international law and the private law institute of copyright. As a result of the research, the content of the concept of human neuro-rights is revealed and the main approaches to the formation of this branch of law are described. An updated interpretation of human rights and freedoms in the new neuro-technological realities is proposed. The UN methodology aimed at improving existing acts of international law in order to compensate for neuro-technological threats to human rights has been analyzed and recognized as effective. The scientific and practical result of the article was the development of the concept of using copyright mechanisms to prevent neural risks in the field of private law relations, including the dangerous consequences of illegally copying a citizen’s identity.

The activity of the European Court of Human Rights is investigated and the significance of the relevant practice of the European Court for the judicial practice of Ukraine is determined. It is emphasized, that a constitutional complaint serves as an effective means of protecting fundamental human rights, strengthening the rule of law and building democracy, which has already been tested in many countries around the world. The article notes that the institution of constitutional complaint significantly expands the possibilities of protecting citizens. In general, this institution is a kind of constitutional appeal, which should be understood as a written petition, submitted to the Court to review the constitutionality of the law of Ukraine (its constitutional provisions), which is used in the final court decision in the case of the subject of a constitutional rights complaint. The author also draws attention to the issues of advantages and disadvantages of a constitutional complaint and a constitutional appeal separately. Thus, one of the advantages of having a constitutional complaint is that the grounds for filing a constitutional complaint are a violation of fundamental human and civil rights. The advantages also include the fact that, unlike a constitutional appeal, which is a mechanism solely for interpreting a certain provision of the law, which excludes the possibility for individuals to apply to a constitutional justice body to declare regulations unconstitutional, a complaint directly provides such a right. However, at the same time, the model of the constitutional complaint, introduced in Ukraine on the subject, is an incomplete normative constitutional complaint, which is related to the consideration of a specific case. After all, according to it, only one type of normative legal act is subject to appeal, a law, and only the one that was applied during the trial of the person. It is stated, that ensuring the possibility of a person to take an active part in the control over the activities of higher state authorities, which is implemented in the relevant legal forms, provides grounds for recognizing a constitutional complaint as one of the modern institutions of democracy. In fact, a constitutional complaint is an effective procedural means to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens

The development of forensic DNA analysis: New debates on the issue of fundamental human rights

The relationship between violations of fundamental human rights and serious international crimes is obvious because at the very core, both can be persecutory. Those who are victims of serious breaches to their most fundamental human rights, that may constitute a serious international crime, and who flee to seek asylum abroad can claim refugee protection on the basis of a well-founded fear of being persecuted on one or more of the five grounds of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees: race, religion, nationality, political opinion and membership in a particular social group. Those who perpetrate such serious international crimes and/or serious breaches to others' most fundamental human rights; that is, those who are responsible for creating refugees – through the persecution of others – are excluded from receiving refugee protection. Indeed, given the nature of their offence or contribution to serious breaches in other peoples' most fundamental human rights, or for their liability in the commission of serious international crimes, they can be subject to prosecution. This chapter will look at a number of cases where individuals have been excluded from refugee protection and then prosecuted for their serious international crimes and/or serious breaches to other people's most fundamental human rights and/or human dignity. As an instrument of justice, both the 1951 Convention and its system of refugee protection, together with the international criminal justice system, with the International Criminal Court (ICC) now at its head, must work together to ensure that those who are excluded from refugee protection for serious breaches to our most fundamental human rights and/or for the commission of serious international crimes must be brought to justice through their criminal prosecution. This can be done under the principles of territorial jurisdiction, extraterritorial jurisdiction, or international criminal institutions, primarily, the ICC. Hence, there is a direct relationship between those who are responsible for creating refugees, the perpetrators of serious international crimes and for the breaches to fundamental human rights and human dignity, and their victims, those who are forced to flee their States and who seek asylum abroad. But those who are responsible for perpetrating serious international crimes and are responsible for generating forced displacement also attempt to seek asylum abroad. Those are the asylum seekers who ought to be excluded from refugee protection. Those who are responsible for the commission of serious international crimes and, hence, causing the forced displacement, should not only be excluded from refugee protection but also prosecuted for their serious criminality when warranted.

A year after drafting the initial version of this chapter as a contribution to an ILO seminar, I published a book presenting the full methodology to measure the achievement of fundamental human rights in the world of work (Bohning, 2005a). The main purposes of this revised version are to outline the structure and workings of the new indicator system, to include the 2004 data and to refine the measurement of the implementation dimension. Which fundamental rights and principles are the object of measurement? Those that the Anglo-Saxons refer to as ‘core labour standards’. They comprise the eight core Conventions of the International Labour Organization1 and the four general subject matters enunciated in the Organization’s 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, and its Follow-up (hereafter Declaration) that underpin them.2 Two broad advocacy aims inspire the setting up of the new system: (i) to document how well or poorly countries perform, which may shame some of the laggards into making improvements and others to seek bilateral or multilateral technical assistance; and (ii) to monitor progress in the realization of fundamental human rights.

Technical mediations are commonly used by remote persons to exercise legal rights in distant places, but the legal ability of remote persons to substitute their physical presence using technical mediations is broadly shaped by whether the public accepts that a specific form of technical mediation of a remote person is tantamount to their physical presence. In telepresence robot markets, local users already accept that remote robot operators can exercise serious professional rights via telepresence robots. It is likely that the public acceptance of local rights of remote operators via telepresence robots in workplaces may at some point be expanded to include more fundamental human rights in social life. To verify the superior potential of remote operators mediated via telepresence robots to be socially accepted as bearers of fundamental rights, which theoretically qualify the juridical concept of “person” as bearers of rights and following duties, this study compared public acceptance of remote operators to exercise fundamental rights via a telepresence robot with physical control and a stationary video call stand without physical control. In experiments with 210 Korean participants, responses to whether a remote operator mediated via a telepresence robot should be granted fundamental rights were close to neutral, which was generally higher than the responses received for a remote person mediated by a stationary video call stand. The result shows that a remote operator with physical control on a technical mediation has more potentials to evolve into legal persons with greater fundamental rights in a local environment.

Transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals are at a greater risk for various poor mental and behavioral health outcomes than cisgender individuals, including higher rates of suicide, psychiatric diagnoses, and behavioral health problems. For example, research has documented a seven-fold increased risk for lifetime suicide attempts among young TGD people, compared with the general population. Less is known about the age of onset of such mental and behavioral health disparities and how these disparities may vary across other intersectional socio-demographic variables. It has been well-documented that trans and gender-diverse individuals often encounter discrimination and transphobia across various social, educational, professional, administrative, and healthcare settings. This discrimination, as highlighted in the literature, frequently poses obstacles to accessing both general and trans-specific healthcare services due to experiences of discrimination (e.g., misgendering, refusal of care, lack of adequate services). The right and ability to self-determine and the accessibility to gender-affirming care without discrimination are key to closing the gap in TGD individuals’ mental and behavioral health outcomes, and for them to live authentically and thrive. Tailored and affirming mental and behavioral health interventions to reduce these health inequities are pivotal for TGD individuals to achieve the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health: a key fundamental human right. Considerable gaps in the literature remain concerning the onset and determinants of gender identity-based health disparities and healthcare approaches that are respectful, inclusive, non-pathologizing, and grounded in human rights principles for TGD individuals. This workshop intends to address these knowledge gaps by delving into the mental and behavioral health needs of TGD individuals. The workshop seeks to further foster dialogue on strategies to overcome resistance to implementing approaches that uphold the human rights and well-being of these communities. Dr. Richard Bränström (Karolinska Institutet) will present a study that explores the age at which gender identity-based disparities in psychiatric diagnoses and treatment can be first identified. Dr. Gonzales (Vanderbilt University) will examine disparities in mental health and social determinants of health among TGD individuals with private insurance. Dr. Moleiro (Lisbon University Institute) will review TGD persons’ ways of identifying with the choices and trajectories in social, legal, and affirmative healthcare processes in Portugal. Dr. Lelutiu-Weinberger (Columbia University School of Nursing) will present findings from a study that assessed tobacco use and cessation attitudes, facilitators, and barriers to quitting, and intervention components and delivery modality acceptability among TGD individuals, as well as sexual minority individuals, in Romania to inform a tailored and affirming smoking cessation intervention. Key messages • Transgender and gender-diverse are at increased risk for a variety of poor mental and behavioral health compared with the general public. • There is a critical need to foster healthcare services for transgender and gender-diverse individuals that are tailored and affirming.

While the Artificial Intelligence (AI) race is raging on the world market, several voices have called for effective regulation of this multifaceted technology and its ever-increasing capabilities. In this context, the European Union has recently adopted the first-ever comprehensive, binding law on AI, known as the EU AI Act. This instrument has a dual rationale. On the one hand, it is part of the European product safety policy and regulates AI systems and models placed on the internal market according to a risk-based approach. On the other hand, the AI Act makes the protection of fundamental rights against the harmful effects of AI a primary objective. Against this background, this article aims to test this hybrid rationale based on the novel concept of ‘risk (of harm) to fundamental rights’ introduced in the Act. This seems to combine the classic product safety risk-based approach with an emancipated version of the human rights-based approach which originates from the fields of development and international human rights. This article argues that, in so doing, the AI Act may shape a new ‘human rights riskbased approach’, which incorporates the protection of European public interests and extends their scope by translating them into the language of fundamental rights and values. The article explores the legal consistency and operational realization of this approach. First, it undertakes a mapping of fundamental rights’ protection in the letter of the AI Act and provides for an interpretation of its ratio legis in the light of the protection of fundamental rights’ narrative. Second, it assesses the ways in which the protection of fundamental rights could be successfully operationalized under the AI Act and makes concrete proposals to ensure the effectiveness of the fundamental rights risk-based approach in the AI context.

Everyday digital technologies such as social media, gaming, and internet use are deeply integrated into the lives of children, adolescents, and young adults. While these platforms can foster connection, learning, and entertainment, concerns have grown about their potential to influence mental, physical, and social well-being. Research on this topic has expanded rapidly over the past decade, yet much of it remains cross-sectional, limiting insights into long-term outcomes. Longitudinal studies are essential to capture evolving patterns of digital engagement, identify causal relationships, and guide effective policies and interventions that support youth in navigating digital environments. In particular, evidence is needed to distinguish between beneficial and harmful forms of digital engagement, such as social connection versus problematic use, and to understand how these impacts differ across diverse populations and contexts. The COVID-19 pandemic further accelerated young people's technology use, underscoring the urgency of examining both risks and opportunities. This review, therefore, synthesizes longitudinal research to map trends, identify knowledge gaps, and inform future directions. The study aimed to systematically identify and map longitudinal studies examining associations between everyday digital technology use (eg, social media, gaming, and internet use) and the health and well-being of youth (25 years or younger) and to chart the types of evidence available by technology category, outcomes, and geographical setting in order to highlight key gaps for future research. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and PsycArticles (2014-2024) was conducted and reported in accordance with PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews). Data extraction covered demographics, digital technology categories, and health outcomes. Studies were grouped into 6 key themes: social media use and mental health, digital addiction and behavioral outcomes, physical activity and digital technology, digital health technologies and cognitive development, parental influence and digital technology, and digital well-being and risk behaviors. Of the 456 studies identified, 267 were longitudinal studies relevant to our research aims. Internet use (n=201 studies), social media (n=140 studies), and gaming (n=83 studies) dominated the themes. Mental health was the most frequently assessed outcome, with a focus on anxiety and depression. Geographically, 15% (40/267) of studies originated from low- and middle-income countries, with the majority from high-income settings such as the United States (n=76 studies) and Australia (n=15 studies). Nearly half (131/267, 49%) were published post 2020, reflecting heightened interest during the COVID-19 pandemic. Longitudinal evidence on everyday digital technology use and youth health is growing but remains concentrated in mental health outcomes and high-income settings, with notable gaps in physical health, educational outcomes, and equity-focused research. These findings highlight the need for more diverse, methodologically robust longitudinal studies to inform context-sensitive policies and interventions that balance the risks and benefits of digital engagement for young people.

This chapter assesses the contribution of the criminal law in protecting the fundamental human rights of workers. Fundamental human rights identify the basic moral entitlements of workers. These entitlements have a special normative significance in the polity. Accordingly, serious violations of those entitlements by powerful private actors would seem to count as public wrongs against the polity’s ‘civil order’, as constituted by its most fundamental rights. The chapter discusses the position of criminal law under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), and the interpretation of the state’s positive obligation to protect as encompassing a positive obligation to criminalize certain public wrongs against fundamental entitlements. This chapter also emphasizes how the European Court of Human Rights has developed an approach to criminalization that is sensitive to its effects in the real world. It is not sufficient to have criminal laws on the statute books. Those criminal laws must be investigated and enforced effectively, with adequate support and protection for victims, and the state also has a duty to dismantle the structural determinants of vulnerability such as those constituted by its own visa regimes.

The phrase "security and public safety" has multiple meanings and can be analyzed by referring to the protection of fundamental human rights during judicial proceedings, including in the field of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters.
 A request for the passive extradition of a national of a member state or a third country, requires the executing state to check (if the extradition affects the rights included in the content of art. 19 paragraph (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU).
 This paper aims to analyze the optional reason for refusing the extradition of a person to the Russian Federation, in the current international context, through the lens of national and European jurisprudence in the matter.

In today's world, privacy has gained unparalleled significance as one of the most fundamental human rights. Accordingly, this study aims to conduct a comparative analysis of the criminal sanctions for privacy violations in Iran and Iraq by examining the foundations, instances, and challenges associated with this fundamental right in both legal systems. Using an analytical-comparative method, the study reviews legal, statutory, and jurisprudential sources in both Iran and Iraq to identify similarities and differences in laws, the severity of penalties, and judicial procedures concerning crimes involving privacy violations. The findings indicate that both legal systems recognize privacy as a fundamental right and have made efforts to criminalize its violation. However, serious challenges and limitations persist in the enforcement of these laws. In Iran, there is a greater emphasis on criminalizing privacy violations in cyberspace and protecting workplace privacy, whereas Iraqi law has yet to make sufficient progress in this regard. In both countries, existing laws are sometimes ambiguous and incomplete, and the prescribed criminal sanctions lack the necessary deterrent effect. Additionally, shared challenges such as resource shortages, lack of public awareness, and administrative corruption exist in both legal systems. Based on the findings of this study, it is recommended that comprehensive laws be enacted in line with international human rights standards to enhance criminal protection of privacy, independent and efficient oversight institutions be strengthened, necessary training be provided to judges and law enforcement officials, and public awareness regarding privacy rights be increased. Ultimately, this research underscores that privacy is a fundamental right requiring serious attention and comprehensive efforts for its preservation and protection.

Recent case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has declared practices involving the pushback of individuals, including those seeking asylum, to be illegal. This is a significant and positive development. This article examines the approaches taken in key cases before these two courts, comparing and reflecting on how they have framed pushbacks as a violation of fundamental rights and the procedural obligations that States have under international and European law. While both courts have ruled these practices to be in breach of applicable laws, their framing of the violations has differed. The ECtHR has focused on the fundamental rights that are threatened when individuals are pushed back across borders. In contrast, the CJEU has previously concentrated on the violations of procedural rules that occur during the forcible return of individuals. However, in the recent case of MA, the CJEU acknowledged that the breach of procedural rules inherent in pushbacks undermines access to effective protection, resulting in a denial of access to asylum. This situation constitutes a breach of Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This important development indicates a convergence in the approaches of the two courts, both condemning pushbacks as violations of individual rights and highlighting the necessity of the right to enter as an integral part of the effective right to asylum.

The development of neurotechnologies is now at a critical point where direct readout and modulation of brain activity has passed from test studies to business applications, only to urgently require adequate legal and technological guarantees. The relevance of this study is prompted by the rapid development of the fifth generation brain-computer interface (BCI 5.0), a technology that provides unprecedented potential of direct access to neural processes while at the same time creating principally new threats to digital rights of individuals. The existing legal mechanisms have turned out to be inadequate for regulating altogether new risks of manipulating consciousness, unauthorized access to neural data and compromised cognitive autonomy. The study is focused on legal and technological mechanisms for protection of digital rights in the context of introducing the fifth generation neural interface technologies including analysis of regulatory gaps, technical vulnerabilities and possible security guarantees. Methodologically, the study is based on the multidisciplinary approach bringing together neuroscience, law and information technology, and on the comparative analysis of regulatory framework and inductive inference of specific regulatory mechanisms. The main hypothesis is: legacy regulatory mechanisms for data protection in biometric and telecommunication technologies are structurally inadequate for BCI 5.0 while digital rights could be protected only by a hybrid system combining special provisions with technological guarantees via mechanisms of computational law. The author puts forward a minimum set of viable security and confidentiality standards, comprehensive cryptography and blockchain-based applications, as well as detailed legislative advice for ethical and safe neurotechnological development with secure guarantees of fundamental human rights in the digital age. Findings of the study are of considerable practical value for legislators, those involved in the development of neurotechnologies, regulatory bodies and advocacy organizations by proposing specific evidence-based tools and mechanisms to strike an effective balance between the innovative development and the imperatives of protecting human dignity, mental autonomy and cognitive freedom.