The freedom of thought, conscience, and religion is a fundamental human right enshrined in Article 18 of The Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR). However, religious minorities in South Asia are often deprived of this fundamental right. Muslims in India, Ahmadiyyas, Hindus, and Christians in Pakistan, and Hindus in Bangladesh face challenges including educational marginalization, economic and political marginalization, and social stigma in the society. The Note presents a comparative analysis of the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion across the three most populous countries in South Asia–India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh–that also share a long cultural, linguistic, and religious history. Moreover, the Note also presents three recommendations to ensure that the state of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion in these three neighboring South Asian countries can be improved.          

The criminalization of pregnancy outcomes—such as miscarriages, abortion, obstetric emergencies, and stillbirth—is a violation of fundamental human rights guarantees; including the right to a fair trial when read in conjunction with the right to equality and the right to health. This article outlines state obligations under international human rights law toward women charged in pregnancy prosecutions, translating them into national criminal defense strategies using a gender perspective. Using intersectional theory, this article calls for the use of a gender perspective to challenge such prosecutions as unlawful gender-based discrimination and a gendered violation of due process, using the case study of the prosecution of Aurelia García Cruceño, a Náhua Indigenous woman who was charged with aggravated homicide to a family member in Mexico following a late-stage obstetric emergency and stillbirth. After spending almost three years in prison following a flawed plea agreement, she successfully challenged the plea using a gender-conscious defense strategy drawing from international human rights law. This approach is anchored in the Manuela v. El Salvador landmark ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), where the court addressed the arbitrary detention and death in prison of a woman who was wrongfully convicted of murder after experiencing an obstetric emergency during the third trimester. Finally, this article concludes by envisioning how lawyers can use the gender perspective in domestic cases to protect women from arbitrary prosecutions on the basis of gender amidst global attacks on reproductive freedom.

Human trafficking increasingly relies on digital platforms, where algorithms connect traffickers with buyers, amplify illicit content, and facilitate transactions at an unprecedented scale. Yet China’s legal framework remains largely reactive, imposing liability on platforms only after illegal content has been detected and removed. This Article argues that such a notice-and-takedown approach is no longer sufficient to combat trafficking in an algorithm-driven online environment. This Article proposes a proactive model of algorithmic accountability. It contends that digital platforms should be held legally responsible when they fail to design, monitor, and refine their algorithms to prevent the dissemination and amplification of trafficking-related content. It explains how China’s existing platform liability regime incentivizes reactive compliance rather than structural prevention, allowing trafficking networks to persist despite increasingly stringent criminal penalties. It further argues that platforms are both the cheapest cost avoiders and active participants in shaping online ecosystems through recommendation algorithms, making proactive obligations both economically justified and technologically feasible. Finally, it demonstrates that this reform is consistent with China’s current legislations. By shifting platform liability from reactive content moderation to proactive algorithmic governance, this Article offers a more effective framework for combating human trafficking in the digital age. Although grounded in the Chinese legal system, the proposed framework offers broader lessons for jurisdictions confronting the growing role of algorithmic systems in facilitating human trafficking and other forms of online harm.