Examining Contemporary Forms of Slavery: Implications for Currently and Formerly Incarcerated Populations

Presented by Samantha Orozco and Ariel Ozdemir

In the complex landscape of United States prison labour, there exist six primary categories of prison labour, namely maintenance work within carceral facilities, state prison industries, public works assignments benefiting governmental and non-profit entities, employment with private industries, work-release programs and restitution centres, and agricultural work.

Maintenance work primarily consists of tasks to maintain the prisons themselves, such as janitorial duties, food preparation, grounds maintenance, repair work, laundry, and providing essential services like working in prison hospitals, stockrooms, stores, barber shops, and libraries.

Discriminatory labour assignments
According to a report by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on exploitative carceral labour, race is a large determinant in work assignments. The report reveals that Black men are predominantly assigned to lower-paying or unpaid work such as agricultural, maintenance, or other facilities services jobs, while a higher proportion of white men are assigned to higher-paying jobs such as public works positions.

Inadequate wages & extortion
Incarcerated labourers are paid inadequate wages, often receiving minimal to no compensation; this condition has continued for decades without noticeable improvement. Moreover, prisons, along with the federal government, routinely deduct substantial portions—sometimes up to 80%—of these meagre wages to cover court-imposed fines, taxes, family support, restitution, and room and board expenses, exacerbating the financial burdens faced by those behind bars. According by the ACLU report, states also use the profits garnered from wage deductions “to sustain and expand incarceration” for such things as the construction and renovation of carceral facilities and the establishment and expansion of prison labour programs. Prisons frequently exploit and extort inmates by charging them exorbitant prices for essential items such as phone calls to families and toiletries. Consequently, the families of incarcerated individuals experience significant financial strain to meet these basic needs under price gouging. This also contributes to increased community-level financial insecurity and incarceration in areas with higher rates of incarcerated community members, perpetuating a vicious cycle of exploitation and insecurity.

Incarcerated labourers are not protected by the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), a federal statute that sets minimum standards and safeguards for health and safety in the workplace. As a result of the lack of workplace protections, incarcerated workers face many dangers in the workplace. Despite lacking jurisdiction to protect these workers, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has conducted limited investigations which have uncovered severe health and safety concerns and a complete failure to ensure protections in the workplace.

Firstly, many lack proper safety training, leaving them vulnerable to preventable injuries and even fatalities while on the job. A staggering 70% of those surveyed by the ACLU reported receiving no formal job training. Additionally, they often find themselves working in unsafe environments, such as meat and poultry processing plants, garment factories operating sewing and cutting machinery, and industrial-scale prison kitchens and laundries where they’re exposed to hazardous chemicals and industrial machinery. Furthermore, incarcerated workers frequently endure a denial of medical care for workplace injuries. Moreover, during the COVID-19 pandemic, they were thrust to the frontline of the response effort, engaging in tasks like producing personal protective equipment (PPE) while being barred from using it, working in morgues, cleaning medical units, and undertaking frontline health roles, all of which put them at heightened risk of contracting the virus. Despite these dangers, incarcerated workers deemed to have essential job assignments were mandated to continue working.


Download PDF

34A_Call_for_inputs_ContemporaryFormsofSlavery

Photo by Hussain Badshah on Unsplash



Digital Technologies in Justice Administration: Human Rights Report to the General Assembly

Presented by Daphne Rein and Maria Samantha Orozco

In recent years, there has been an increase in the use of new technologies to administer justice in the Netherlands. To give a few examples of the digital technologies used, there has been an increase in legal applications, the creation of prediction tools for lawyers, such as judicial analytics, and an increase in legal help desks that offer free legal advice. i

In the Netherlands, the regulatory framework used is the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and various data protection laws and regulations, which protect the sensible data of the general public. These laws and regulations have been adopted before the use of AI in the judicial system. But in the Netherlands, concerning Artificial Intelligence, the European Commission is helping the Dutch Authority for Digital Infrastructure to set up a national AI supervision system to supervise AI applications, which can be used for AI in the administration of justice vii , for example, with legal applications. In the future, this can help regulate the risks of using artificial intelligence in the judicial system.

The analysis concludes that deploying new technology to solve governance problems can be problematic because “technological systems reflect the embedded privileges of those who design them”. xiv

These incidents highlight the alarming risks faced by children from migrant communities, particularly those of African descent, due to the biased use of AI in the justice system. Innocent young men are disproportionately criminalised, derailing their aspirations for work or higher education. xxiii Furthermore, the child support tax debacle resulted in children from already disadvantaged families being denied equal access to education, perpetuating cycles of poverty and inequality.

Download PDF

28A-Input_for_report_to_the_General_Assembly_on_human_rights_in_the_administration_of_justice

Photo by Marvin Meyer on Unsplash


References

i Jan van Ettekoven, B & Prins, C. (2018). “Chapter 18: Data analysis, artificial intelligence and the judiciary system”. Research Handbook in Data Science and Law. (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing). pp.425-447. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788111300.00026

vii European Commission. (2023). Commission supports the Netherlands in setting up a national Artificial Intelligence supervision system through the Technical Support Instrument. Directorate-General for Structural Support. https://commission.europa.eu/news/commission-supports-netherlands-setting-national-artificial-intelligence-supervision-system-through-2023-10-05_en

xiv Land, M. & Aronson, J. (2020). “Human Rights and Technology: New Challenges for Justice and Accountability” (Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Vol. 16) p. 232

xxiii Amnesty International. (2020). Netherlands: We sense trouble: Automated discrimination and mass surveillance in predictive policing in the Netherlands. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur35/2971/2020/en/

Consequences of US economic sanctions in the Middle East

Presented by Caren Thomas and Maria Samantha Orozco

This report was drafted by Broken Chalk to contribute to the call for inputs to analyze the consequences of US economic sanctions in the Middle East. Broken Chalk is an organisation that fights against violations of Human Rights and improving the quality of education around the globe.

For several decades, the United States has wielded economic sanctions as a tool against hostile state actors, seeking to influence global regimes deemed in opposition to US values and interests. Despite the intention of these measures to curb governmental injustices and foster peace, sanctions in the Middle East have become a significant and controversial feature of US foreign policy.1 As of 2023, the United States actively enforces sanctions on countries such as Iran and Syria, with far-reaching repercussions extending to Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen.2 While these measures often receive international support, concerns persist regarding their impact on the general population, the hindrance to accessing basic services, and the undermining of educational and academic development.

Download PDF

12A_Sanctions_Research_Platform

Photo by Joshua Sukoff on Unsplash


References

1 Niblock, T. (2001). Pariah states & sanctions in the Middle East: Iraq, Libya, Sudan. Lynne Rienner Publishers.

2 Ibid.

The Gaza Conflict Dilemma: Academic Freedom and the Complex Tapestry of Free Speech in American Universities

By Samantha Orozco

In recent days, Harvard’s President, Claudine Gay, resigned amidst an antisemitism scandal. Contrary to expectations, her resignation was not prompted by allegations of antisemitism at the renowned institution but by accusations of plagiarism. While such accusations warrant the resignation and removal of an academic in such a pivotal role, it is crucial not to overlook the controversy surrounding her decision to step down and the pressure exerted by members of the US Congress and Harvard’s Jewish Community.

Gay, alongside other esteemed university presidents such as Liz Maguill of the University of Pennsylvania (who also resigned) and Sally Kornbluth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, faced scrutiny following allegations of antisemitism and potential endorsement of university authorities. This situation preceded a hearing initiated by the US Congress Republican Party to investigate “their actions to curb and penalize antisemitism in their respective universities.” [1]

The inquiries and pressure directed at these university presidents are just the tip of the iceberg in the attempt to stifle freedom of speech in American universities. For instance, Columbia University prohibited participation in demonstrations supporting either Palestine or Israel. While this initially suppressed the two main student groups, the resolution backfired as students organized protests and formed over 40 student groups to continue expressing support for their causes.[2] Another example is the decision by Ron DeSantis, Governor of the State of Florida, to declare all pro-Palestinian groups in state universities illegal and compel their closure.[3]

The situation unfolding in American universities and the congressional approach to the matter threatens academic freedom and the right to freedom of speech. This is exacerbated by the fact that this precedent could set an example nationwide, where a pro-Palestinian liberation movement emerges without the intention of promoting hate speech but instead creating discomfort for those with differing views. On the other hand, the concern lies in the unequal treatment of hate speech incidents, mainly when directed against Palestinian or Muslim students.

“Anti-zionism is Antisemitism”?

The initial misstep in defining the boundaries of tolerance for expressions of support for the Palestinian movement occurred with the congressional resolution that equates anti-Zionism with antisemitism. [3] This sets a dangerous precedent, as many anti-Zionist movements advocate for a ceasefire in Gaza or criticize Israel’s military actions without promoting hatred or discrimination against Jews. Since October 7, several pro-Israel motions have been endorsed by Congress, reflecting widespread support for Israel among most US legislators during its offensive in Gaza, resulting in the tragic deaths of over 16,000 Palestinians.[4]

The conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism definitions has led to the interpretation of any form of support for Palestinians as acts of antisemitism. University presidents faced questioning on this matter, often relying on context to address inquiries. Their responses were often hesitant, not firmly stating whether certain behaviours are antisemitic or not, emphasizing the importance of context. In an environment where pro-Palestinian expressions are perceived as universally antisemitic, nuanced responses are challenging to provide, leading to the coerced cessation of pro-Palestine protests by university students.

Determining whether specific expressions may be considered antisemitic requires a case-by-case analysis, potentially placing such behaviours outside the protection scope of the right to freedom of speech. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) asserts that everyone is entitled to freedom of speech, making expressions of support for Palestinians a fundamental exercise of this right. Striking a balance between freedom of speech and the prevention of hate speech is essential, though international human rights law lacks a formal definition of “hate speech.” Instead, most United Nations instruments refer to “incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence.”[5]

Limitations on freedom of speech under international law aim to reconcile two fundamental principles. On one hand, the principle of equality and non-discrimination ensures the equal enjoyment of human rights, protection under the law, and dignity without discrimination. On the other hand, the right to freedom of opinion and expression safeguards the right to hold opinions without interference and to express, seek, receive, and impart information and ideas across all mediums and without borders. [6] Advocating for the implementation of drastic measures that quash any expression of support for Palestinians is a misguided approach in the pursuit of a shared objective, which ideally should be peace and the safeguarding of human dignity, irrespective of individual perspectives on the Gaza conflict.

American citizens pro-Palestinian protest in front of Israel Consulate – by Hossam el-Hamalawy on Flickr

The challenge for academy and university students

An intriguing aspect to ponder is the state of academia when contentious issues arise, potentially jeopardizing even professional positions. Will contributions to the analysis of the Conflict in Gaza, particularly from academics at renowned American universities, be tainted and stifled by the fear of being branded as antisemitic?

While advocating for the punishment of hate speech, incitement to Violence, or genocide against any involved groups in the conflict is commendable, the challenge lies in striking a balance that preserves academic freedom. This concept, rooted in medieval European universities,[6] encompasses the freedom of teachers and students to engage in teaching, studying, and research without undue interference or constraints from law, institutional regulations, or public pressures. Its fundamental tenets include teachers’ freedom to explore subjects of intellectual concern, present findings without censorship, and teach in a professionally appropriate manner.

Students can study relevant subjects, form conclusions independently, and express their opinions. Advocates argue that the justification for academic freedom is not solely for the comfort of educators and students but for societal benefits.[7] A society thrives when the educational process fosters knowledge advancement, and such progress is best achieved when inquiry remains free from state, institutional, or special-interest group restraints. In that sense, more than trying to suppress opinions, universities should promote healthy discussions among different perspectives and encourage students to participate in other academic spaces.

Ironically, being a college president may be one of the least desirable positions in American universities. The removal of a university president should ideally result from internal deliberations among board members and academic personnel, not from political pressures emanating from the Capitol. Universities must remain immune to political coercion, and authorities should distinguish between this and exercising freedom of speech and promoting academic freedom. At the moment, actions appear to favour a specific narrative, undermining the potential for diverse and healthy approaches and discussions in a nation where no voices should be silenced.

Notes:

[1]Blinder, Alan & Others for The New York Times. (12 December 2023) Universities Face Congressional Inquiry and Angry Donors Over Handling of Antisemitism. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/07/us/university-of-pennsylvania-mit-harvard-antisemitism.html

[2]Stack, Liam, for The New York Times. (November 2023) Columbia Closes Campus as Israel-Hamas protests erupts. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/12/nyregion/columbia-university-israel-hamas-protests.html

[3]Hay, Andrew for Reuters. Florida´s De Santis bans Pro-Palestinian Student Group. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/floridas-desantis-bans-pro-palestinian-student-group-2023-10-25/

[4]Mohamed, Edna, and others for Al Jazeera. Israel-Hamas war updates: More than 16,200 dead in Gaza from Israeli Attacks. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/12/5/israel-hamas-war-live-israeli-attacks-on-southern-gaza-reach-new-depths

[5]United Nations Human Rights Commission, Hate speech and incitement to hatred or Violence. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-religion-or-belief/hate-speech-and-incitement-hatred-or-violence#:~:text=As%20a%20matter%20of%20principle,peaceful%2C%20inclusive%20and%20just%20societies.; The International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1965, prohibits “propaganda” and “dissemination of ideas” about racial superiority and The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (art. 4).1948, The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted in 1998  (art. 25).

[6]Simpson, R. M. (2020). The relation between academic freedom and free speech. Ethics, 130(3), 287-319.

[7]Hinchey, P. H. (2010). Finding freedom in the classroom: A practical introduction to critical theory (Vol. 24). Peter Lang; Barrow, C. W. (2017). Realpolitik in the American University: Charles A. Beard and the problem of academic repression. In Neoliberalizing the University: Implications for American Democracy (pp. 26-46). Routledge.

Arbitrariness on the education field in the Nicaraguan Regime: Cancellation and Expropriation of Universities

Written by: Samantha Orozco

Since 2018, Nicaragua has been experiencing an unprecedented political crisis that has led to a series of human rights violations against its population. The limitation on the exercise of fundamental rights, recognised in both the Nicaraguan Constitution and international treaties to which Nicaragua is a party, has not ceased since the onset of citizen protests against the regime. These restrictions have escalated since the controversial re-election of Daniel Ortega as president, who assumed office alongside his wife, Rosario Murillo, as vice president, following elections deemed arbitrary and fraudulent by the international community.

The field of education has not been exempt from this series of violations and arbitrary actions by the authorities of this Central American country. A concerning example is the closure of 27 universities in Nicaragua, which has affected over 37,000 higher education students and even forced university professors into exile. This situation gained more prominence after the closure of two of the country’s most recognised university centres: the Universidad Centroamericana (UCA) and the INCAE Business School. In addition to having their legal status revoked, these institutions were also confiscated.

Demonstration outside an University in Nicaragua. Photo by Jorge Mejía Peralta on Flickr.

Background on the Ortega-Murillo Regime

In 2018, Nicaragua experienced a profound political and social crisis. It began with municipal elections in November 2017, which were heavily criticised due to allegations of fraud and lack of transparency. These elections marked the beginning of a period of growing political polarisation in the country.

The situation worsened in April 2018 when the government of Daniel Ortega announced a reform to the social security system that triggered widespread protests across the country. These protests, led mostly by university students and civil society, resulted in a violent response from the government. The repression by the police and government-affiliated paramilitary groups led to a high number of casualties, as well as the detention of protesters and opposition leaders.

Since 2018, the situation in Nicaragua related to the violation of human rights has been on the rise, resulting in the closure and cancellation of media outlets and non-profit organisations, the expulsion of international missions, the cancellation of political parties, and the imprisonment of opposition leaders.i This ultimately led to the 2021 elections in which Ortega and his wife, Rosario Murillo, competed as the sole presidential ticket. These elections were rejected due to evident irregularities that silenced the opposition and sowed fear among voters.

During their new term, the government of Ortega and Murillo has followed a single mission: to silence criticism, attack the opposition, and control the country’s institutions. The education and university sector has not gone unnoticed, becoming another target of the regime to consolidate control over the population.

Measures against Universities: At least 26 universities have been cancelled.

As mentioned earlier, the Ortega government has made several decisions that have led to the closure and revocation of the legal status of media outlets, non-profit organisations, and, of course, private universities in the country. To understand this situation better, it is essential to recall that university students led the citizen protest movements against the Ortega regime. Therefore, this could be seen as a retaliation and an effort by the government to control students and their civic engagement. These arbitrary measures should be understood as a way for the government to ensure aligned thinking that does not encourage criticism or scrutiny, which also jeopardises academic freedom through intimidation and persecution of teachers considered traitors to the regime.

The measures taken against universities not only violate human rights but also run counter to the Nicaraguan Constitution, which protects the autonomy of universities and prohibits the confiscation of their assets. So far, 26 universities have had their legal status revoked, with reasons for revocation ranging from allegations of financial opacity or non-compliance with educational standards to more serious accusations such as money laundering, terrorism, and weapons proliferation. The cancellations began with the confiscation of Universidad Politécnica (Upoli), culminating in the shocking cancellation and expropriation of UCA and the INCAE headquarters, two of the most renowned universities in the Central American region.ii

UCA was cancelled through government decree, under the accusation of being a hub for terrorism. This action has been the pinnacle of Ortega’s religious persecution against the Catholic Church, which has been running through this university founded by Jesuits and belonging to the Latin American network of universities entrusted to the Society of Jesus (AUSJAL for its acronym in Spanish). In response to the closure of UCA, AUSJAL issued a press release condemning the actions of the Nicaraguan government, declaring, “The UCA has been slandered and harassed, just like the more than three thousand civil society organisations in Nicaragua.’´iii Additionally, hundreds of professionals expressed their outrage and called for the reinstatement of the legal status of this university. This illustrates the significant blow that Ortega has dealt not only to Nicaragua’s education sector but to the entire region. In an interview, Miquel Cortés Bofil, Rector of Universidad Rafael Landivar mentioned to Broken Chalk ‘’Certainly the University is not a centre of terrorism, nor has it ever been. It is a study house where critical thinking and responsible and democratic citizenship are encouraged. Accusations of “terrorism” are unfounded.’’ Now, the defunct UCA has been renamed the National University Casimiro Sotelo Montenegro in honour of a leader of the Sandinista movement.

The most recent action against the university system occurred with the closure and expropriation of the INCAE campus in Nicaragua. This stirred indignation among professionals throughout the Latin American region, as this was the first campus of one of the most prestigious business schools in the region.iv The justification for its revocation, according to the government resolution, was a lack of transparency in its financial statements. The most deplorable aspect of these measures is that university representatives have been denied their right to a defence, as the challenges to the resolutions have been dismissed by the relevant judicial bodies, leaving them without access to an objective and impartial justice that can protect against such arbitrary actions.v A situation proper of a dictatorship where all institutions and bodies are co-opted.

The CNU, the Accomplice of the Ortega-Murillo Regime

These attacks on education and the academy have had key institutions and actors. In this case, it is important to mention the National Council of Universities (CNU) of Nicaragua as the institution that has facilitated these actions. Without key allies, these arbitrary actions against the country’s universities would not be possible. The CNU of Nicaragua is an entity responsible for the coordination and supervision of public universities in the country. It plays a significant role in the regulation and planning of higher education in Nicaragua. This institution is composed of the rectors of public universities. It is responsible for establishing educational policies, accrediting academic programs, and supervising the quality of education in public higher education institutions.

Currently, the CNU is presided over by Ramona Rodríguez, the rector of UNAN-Managua, who has been a key figure in the attack on the autonomy of Nicaraguan universities and is responsible for jeopardising higher education in the country. Rodríguez has been a loyal supporter of the Ortega regime and has been the public face justifying the closure of universities in the country.

An example of this is what was highlighted by the former authorities of UCA, who emphasised that since 2018, when the protests began, the CNU had begun to strangle the university by not extending certifications for its operation, excluding it as a member of the CNU, which meant it could not receive the corresponding budget allocation as established in the constitution.vi Furthermore, Rodríguez has publicly justified the closure of several universities on the grounds of financial transparency or not meeting minimum quality and infrastructure standards. In response to this, Adrián Meza, an exiled professor from the University Paulo Freire, stated to the media that “many of the universities that have been closed under these pretexts were in the middle of verification processes and were not granted the right to defend themselves”.vii

In addition, the CNU has implemented new policies following reforms approved by the legislative assembly to the General Education Law and the Law on Autonomy of Higher Education Institutions, centralising functions within the CNU and undermining university autonomy. Among the new powers granted to the CNU is the exclusive authority to open or close universities in the country, among others, turning it into a dangerous weapon against higher education.

Manifestation of students and alumni of public and private schools in Managua, Nicaragua. Photo by Jorge Mejía Peralta on Flickr.

Challenges for Students and Academics

University students and educators have viewed these actions with dismay, considering that the availability of higher education programs has diminished. Many students who were pursuing degrees at universities that have been closed have encountered difficulties in resuming their studies or obtaining their respective degrees due to a series of rigorous administrative requirements imposed by the CNU. Additionally, educators have faced limitations in job opportunities and academic freedom as their curricula are increasingly controlled. Furthermore, a significant number of university educators are now in exile following government persecution by being labelled as conspirators or traitors to the nation. The Interamerican Commission of Human Rights heavily condemned this situation in a press communication in which the actions were qualified as an “arbitrary interference towards academic freedom”.viii

In response to this series of abuses, some universities in the Central American region have taken action to provide support to students and faculty members in exile. The efforts of Jesuit universities such as the Rafael Landívar University in Guatemala and the José Simeón Cañas Central American University in El Salvador exemplify this. These institutions have led initiatives to enable students from the UCA to continue their studies. According to Landivar’s Rector Cortés ‘’Around 2,300 students have requested information from the UCA in El Salvador and the Rafael Landívar in Guatemala to continue their studies virtually. The two Central American universities have formed an inter-institutional commission, and we are responding to the students…’’

Nicaragua: A New Role Model for the Central American Region?

Nicaragua has become an example of antidemocratic standards in the Central American region due to the policies implemented against those considered opposition. Therefore, in light of the democratic crisis prevailing in the region, there is a significant fear that if the situation worsens in neighbouring countries, such actions that undermine higher education could become a popular measure. This is a reminder of the historical role of universities in Central America and the student movements that originate from their classrooms.

In this context, it is essential to remember the university martyrs who fought for freedom and democracy in Central America, often facing persecution and violence for their convictions in the darkest times of the region. Examples such as the assassination of Ignacio Ellacuría by the military in El Salvador or the persecution and murder of student leaders in Guatemala, such as Oliverio Castañeda, serve as stark reminders of the risks faced in universities when one is critical during a dictatorship.

Conclusion

Nicaragua has experienced a profound political and social crisis since 2018, marked by controversial elections, protests, and government repression under Daniel Ortega’s leadership. The situation has worsened with human rights violations, the closure of media outlets, and the persecution of opposition leaders. Furthermore, the role of the National Council of Universities (CNU), led by Ramona Rodríguez, has been instrumental in implementing policies that threaten university autonomy and restrict higher education. These actions have affected both students and educators, with numerous universities closed and a growing diaspora of academics. This situation not only poses a challenge for students and professors but also sets a dangerous precedent in the Central American region, where higher education and academic freedom are at risk. The situation in Nicaragua serves as a reminder of the importance of always defending higher education and human rights, especially during times of democratic crisis.


i Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (ICHR) (2023). Comunicado de prensa sobre la situación en Nicaragua. https://www.oas.org/es/CIDH/jsForm/?File=/es/cidh/prensa/comunicados/2023/201.asp

ii La Prensa. (2022). Régimen de Nicaragua ha cerrado 17 universidades privadas en los últimos 16 meses. https://www.laprensani.com/2023/05/02/nacionales/3140523-regimen-de-nicaragua-ha-cerrado-17-universidades-privadas-en-los-ultimos-16-meses

iii AUSJAL. (2023). Comunicado “Todos somos la UCA Nicaragua”. https://www.ausjal.org/comunicado-todos-somos-la-uca-nicaragua/

iv INCAE Business School. (2023). Sobre la cancelación de la personería jurídica de INCAE Business School en Nicaragua. https://www.incae.edu/es/blog/2023/09/26/sobre-la-cancelacion-de-la-personeria-juridica-de-incae-business-school-en-nicaragua

v Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (ICHR). (2021). Principios para la Libertad Académica. https://www.oas.org/es/cidh/informes/pdfs/principios_libertad_academica.pdf

vi Swissinfo. (2023). El gobierno de Nicaragua cierra 2 universidades privadas más y ordena decomisar sus bienes. https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/nicaragua-crisis_el-gobierno-de-nicaragua-cierra-2-universidades-privadas-m%C3%A1s-y-ordena-decomisar-sus-bienes/48697976

vii La Prensa. (2022). Régimen de Nicaragua ha cerrado 17 universidades privadas en los últimos 16 meses. https://www.laprensani.com/2023/05/02/nacionales/3140523-regimen-de-nicaragua-ha-cerrado-17-universidades-privadas-en-los-ultimos-16-meses

viii Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (ICHR) (2023). Comunicado de prensa sobre la situación en Nicaragua. https://www.oas.org/es/CIDH/jsForm/?File=/es/cidh/prensa/comunicados/2023/201.asp

References