Nicaragua: Can International Law Break the Cycle of Impunity?

[Thairi Moya Sánchez (PhD) is a full-time professor of public international law at Complutense University of Madrid.

Simón Gómez-Guaimara is an adjunct professor of public international law at Universidad Católica Andrés Bello, Caracas and works as a human rights and international justice consultant.]

Since 2007, Nicaragua has descended into a spiral of repression under Daniel Ortega’s rule. Popular discontent culminated in widespread protests beginning on April 18, 2018, triggered by controversial reforms to the national social security system. These demonstrations rapidly evolved into demands for comprehensive political and social change, including the resignation of Ortega and his wife, Vice President Rosario Murillo. The government’s response was disproportionately violent, marked by arbitrary detentions, torture, and lethal force.

Over the years, the Ortega-Murillo regime has dismantled democratic institutions, suppressed opposition, and pursued constitutional reforms aimed at entrenching their power. Notably, a 2025 constitutional amendment designated Ortega and Murillo as “co-presidents” and extended presidential terms indefinitely. Within this context, this article examines potential international legal avenues for accountability.

While international condemnation has been strong, concrete legal avenues for accountability have remained elusive. However, a growing confluence of legal precedents may offer a new opportunity to break the cycle of impunity. Cases involving Myanmar, Syria, and Argentina have demonstrated the potential for international courts and national jurisdictions to address human rights crises through innovative and complementary mechanisms. This article argues that this convergence of precedents provides a unique framework for re-engaging the international community in addressing Nicaragua’s deepening crisis, exploring the viability of actions before the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, and national courts exercising universal jurisdiction.

Escalating Human Rights Crisis and International Implications

The escalating human rights crisis in Nicaragua has triggered robust international scrutiny, particularly from the Inter-American Human Rights System and the United Nations.

A. The Inter-American Human Rights System

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has reported systematic abuses, including excessive force, arbitrary application of criminal law to repress dissent, attacks on civil society, and widespread forced exile. The Commission has documented arbitrary detentions, torture, enforced disappearances, extrajudicial executions, and revocations of nationality. The judiciary’s co-optation has undermined independent investigations and transformed the legal system into a mechanism for political repression.

On February 9, 2023, Nicaragua’s National Assembly expedited a constitutional amendment to Article 21, enabling the government to revoke citizenship. Concurrently, it enacted new legislation formalizing this practice. According to the IACHR, these measures are part of a broader pattern of repression that has resulted in 355 deaths, over 2,000 arbitrary detentions, more than 2,000 injuries, the dismissal of healthcare professionals, the expulsion of students from public universities, 317 instances of denationalization, the closure of 3,390 NGOs, and the forced displacement of approximately 250,000 people since 2018.

On November 18, 2021, Nicaragua formally notified the Organization of American States (OAS) of its intent to withdraw from the organization, with the withdrawal becoming effective on November 19, 2023. Although Nicaragua has not denounced the American Convention on Human Rights, it has systematically failed to comply with provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Notably, Article 46 of Nicaragua’s Constitution grants constitutional status to both the Convention and the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. Nonetheless, the regime’s actions increasingly deviate from these commitments.

Authoritarian regimes often seek to sever ties with international human rights bodies, as evidenced by Venezuela’s withdrawal from the OAS. In response to such trends, the Inter-American Court issued Advisory Opinion No. 26, clarifying that obligations under human rights treaties remain binding, even after denunciation. The Court emphasized that the duty of states to cooperate in the protection and promotion of human rights is a foundational principle of international law. Accordingly, individuals must retain access to a minimum level of international protection. In practice, however, Nicaraguans are being denied this safeguard, reinforcing a climate of impunity.

B. The Universal Human Rights System

Within the United Nations framework, Nicaragua’s human rights violations have also prompted significant attention. In 2019, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) released a report documenting extensive abuses and suggesting that international crimes had been committed by Nicaraguan security forces.

In response to the ongoing crisis, the UN Human Rights Council established the Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua (GHREN) in 2022. In its findings, the GHREN concluded that the Nicaraguan government is perpetrating widespread and systematic violations amounting to crimes against humanity. These acts target civilians for political reasons and stem from the deliberate dismantling of democratic institutions. Among those affected are children, Indigenous communities, and Afro-descendant populations.

In its most recent report, the GHREN described the 2025 constitutional reforms as the final blow to institutional checks and balances. The experts warned that “restoring democracy and the rule of law will take years and significant resources” and called on the international community to take decisive action to combat impunity in Nicaragua.

International Justice Options Available to Nicaragua

In light of the deteriorating situation, it is essential to consider legal avenues that could allow international accountability for crimes committed in Nicaragua. Article 41 of the Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts provides a foundation for states to cooperate in ending serious breaches of peremptory norms, and several mechanisms under international law may offer viable paths to justice.

A. International Court of Justice (ICJ)

The ICJ could serve as a forum for adjudicating Nicaragua’s state responsibility for breaches of international obligations. One potential avenue is through the Convention Against Torture, as illustrated by the cases filed by Canada and the Netherlands against Syria, alleging violations of the Convention due to the widespread use of torture by the Syrian regime. Similarly, in 2024, Gambia brought a case against Myanmar before the ICJ, alleging violations of the Genocide Convention. A similar complaint could be brought by another state against Nicaragua for the systematic and widespread use of torture, arbitrary detention, and persecution of political opponents.

Another potential claim lies in Article 14 of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Recent constitutional and legislative reforms in Nicaragua have stripped hundreds of individuals of their nationality, which could constitute a violation of Nicaragua’s obligations under this treaty. While the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness has not been the primary basis for disputes before the ICJ to date, this could represent an opportunity to develop jurisprudence on the matter. A case against Nicaragua could provide the Court with a unique opportunity to interpret the scope and application of the Convention in the context of arbitrary deprivation of nationality, setting an important precedent for future cases

B. International Criminal Court (ICC)

Although Nicaragua is not a party to the Rome Statute, the ICC may still exercise jurisdiction over certain crimes committed by its authorities. The precedent set by the Bangladesh/Myanmar case—initiated proprio motu by the Prosecutor—demonstrates that the Court can assert jurisdiction when at least one of the elements of a crime occur within the territory of a State Party.

In that case, the ICC established jurisdiction over the forcible deportation of Rohingya people, reasoning that although the acts began in Myanmar (a non-State Party), they culminated in Bangladesh (a State Party). Similarly, Nicaragua’s actions—such as the revocation of citizenship and confiscation of assets—have contributed to the forced displacement of Nicaraguans into Costa Rica, a State Party.

The legal challenge lies in proving that deportation is occurring by force, especially given Costa Rica’s generally welcoming stance toward refugees. However, if Nicaragua systematically prevents exiles from returning—for example, by denying passport renewals or consular services—these actions, occurring in Costa Rica, may constitute essential elements of the crime of forcible deportation.

While difficult to establish, the crime of persecution should also be explored. A detailed assessment is needed to determine whether some elements of persecution—such as the systematic denial of fundamental rights based on political identity—are occurring in Costa Rica, potentially extending the persecutory policy across borders.

To trigger ICC jurisdiction, evidence must show that these acts are both systematic and intentional. A State Party referral, particularly from Costa Rica, would significantly strengthen the legal basis for an investigation. Alternatively, a Security Council referral could authorize the Court to investigate all crimes committed in Nicaragua, irrespective of its non-party status. A final alternative would be for the ICC Prosecutor to open a proprio motu preliminary examination into the situation.

C. Universal Jurisdiction

Universal jurisdiction allows national courts to prosecute individuals for serious international crimes—such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity—regardless of where the crimes occurred or the nationality of the perpetrators. This principle underscores the notion that certain crimes are so egregious they affect the international community as a whole.

In the Nicaraguan context, universal jurisdiction offers an important path to justice. The GHREN has documented systematic abuses that constitute crimes against humanity, and has urged states to pursue accountability through domestic courts under universal jurisdiction.

A notable example occurred in December 2024, when an Argentine federal judge issued international arrest warrants for President Ortega, Vice President Murillo, and other senior officials. The charges included torture and forced displacement, reflecting the capacity of national courts to respond to international crimes in the absence of domestic accountability.

This case builds upon Argentina’s earlier universal jurisdiction efforts regarding crimes against the Rohingya in Myanmar. Based on petitions filed by Nobel laureate Adolfo Pérez Esquivel and groups such as the Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo, Argentina opened an investigation into genocide and crimes against humanity, issuing arrest warrants for 25 suspects in 2025 after receiving evidence from international bodies.

Drawing parallels to Nicaragua, universal jurisdiction complements other mechanisms like ICC investigations by ensuring no refuge for perpetrators of grave crimes. However, it also raises questions about how national courts exercising universal jurisdiction interact with international tribunals. In Nicaragua’s case, universal jurisdiction could provide an immediate avenue for justice while a potential ICC investigation remains under consideration. By strategically employing universal jurisdiction alongside international mechanisms, states can maximize pressure for accountability and reinforce global efforts to end impunity.

Ultimately, pursuing multiple legal avenues—at the ICJ, ICC, and through national courts under universal jurisdiction—is not just a matter of legal creativity, but a moral imperative in the face of prolonged and systematized repression. While the road to justice may be long and fraught with political and practical challenges, the international community must actively explore and support these legal mechanisms to ensure accountability for the crimes committed in Nicaragua. This includes providing resources for investigations, supporting victims and civil society organizations, and exerting diplomatic pressure to create an environment conducive to justice. It is crucial to recognize that legal action alone is not a panacea, but it can be a powerful tool to challenge impunity and contribute to a more just and democratic future for Nicaragua.