The 2016 amendments to the Constitution of Zambia 1991 have transformed Zambia's constitutional order in many respects. Among other transformative provisions, the Constitution now requires everyone seeking elective public office to have, as a minimum qualification, a grade twelve certificate or its equivalent. This article examines the rationale for this requirement, as judicially interpreted, through the lens of the right to run for election. The article's core argument is twofold. First, that the requirement is an unwarranted restriction on the right to run for election and cannot be justified when considered in its relevant context. Secondly, that the Constitutional Court of Zambia's recent interpretation of the requirement further limits the right to run for election and in turn narrows the field of candidates from which voters may choose, potentially depriving the country of resourceful political leadership. The article concludes with a call for reform.

The newest convention of the Council of Europe requires states parties to criminalize all activities related to the trafficking in human organs. It is the first international agreement specifically aimed at addressing this form or criminal trade. Trafficking in human organs is mostly a transnational criminal enterprise: the article highlights how contracting states will have to face specific problems in prosecuting offences committed in foreign countries. The effectiveness of the convention depends on the parties’ determination in solving such problems and in avoiding taking advantage from some reservations that – though admitted by the convention – could undermine its possible value as a means of combating transnational crime.

The UN Security Council's involvement in the area of international criminal justice raises concerns about judicial independence. Of primary concern in this study is the degree to which this political organ has come to determine and restrict jurisdiction of international criminal tribunals, with the effect of excluding cases involving alleged grave crimes by actors whose presence in situations of which the Council is seized is supported by its permanent members. This control, it will be argued, undermines the basic conditions for a sound administration of justice, as it impedes these tribunals from selecting the cases that may come before them in accordance with respect for human rights and the rule of law. More specifically, restrictions imposed by political organs, leading to unjustified unequal treatment before the law and the courts of perpetrators and victims of grave crime in a given situation, are contrary to principles of equality and non-discrimination. A theory of international judicial independence should therefore extend to a consideration of the legality of such restrictions and acknowledge it as an essential requirement of independence.