Some families of those killed in a Jeju Air plane crash last December have filed a criminal complaint against 15 people, including South Korea’s transport minister and the airline’s CEO, for professional negligence.

The 72 bereaved relatives are calling for a more thorough investigation into the crash, which killed 179 of the 181 people on board – making it the deadliest plane crash on South Korean soil.

The crash was “not a simple accident”, they allege, but a “major civic disaster caused by negligent management of preventable risks”.

Nearly five months on, authorities are still studying what may have caused the plane to crash-land at Muan International Airport and then burst into flames.

The police had already opened a criminal investigation before this latest complaint, and barred Jeju Air CEO Kim E-bae from leaving the country, but no one has been indicted over the incident.

One of the relatives, Kim Da-hye, denounced the “lack of progress” in investigations.

“We are filled with deep anger and despair. Having taken this extraordinary measure of filing a criminal complaint, we will not give up and will continue to pursue the truth,” Mr Kim said in a statement to the media.

Among the 15 people named in the complaint were government officials, airline officials and airport staff responsible for construction, supervision, facility management and bird control.

The complaint filed on Tuesday raises questions around the circumstances of the crash, including whether air traffic control responded appropriately and whether the reinforcement of a mound at the end of the runway violated regulations.

The aircraft, a Boeing 737-800, took off from the Thai capital of Bangkok on the morning of 29 December, and was flying to Muan in South Korea.

Five minutes after the pilots made contact with Muan International Airport, they reported striking a bird and declared a mayday signal.

The pilots then tried to land from the opposite direction, during which the aircraft belly-landed without its landing gear deployed. It later overran the runway, slammed into a concrete structure and exploded.

Earlier this year, investigators said they found bird feathers in both engines of the jet, but did not conclude the extent to which the bird strike was a contributing factor.

Since the incident, some bereaved families have also been targeted by a torrent of conspiracies and malicious jokes online.

These included suggestions that families were “thrilled” to receive compensation from authorities, or that they were “fake victims”. As of March this year, eight people have been apprehended for making such derogatory and defamatory online posts.

In the latest India-Pakistan stand-off, there were no ultimatums, no red buttons.

Yet the cycle of military retaliation, veiled signals and swift international mediation quietly evoked the region’s most dangerous shadow. The crisis didn’t spiral towards nuclear war, but it was a reminder of how quickly tensions here can summon that spectre.

Even scientists have modelled how easily things could unravel. A 2019 study by a global team of scientists opened with a nightmare scenario where a terrorist attack on India’s parliament in 2025 triggers a nuclear exchange with Pakistan.

Six years later, a real-world stand-off – though contained by a US-brokered ceasefire on Saturday – stoked fears of a full-blown conflict. It also revived uneasy memories of how fragile stability in the region can be.

As the crisis escalated, Pakistan sent “dual signals” – retaliating militarily while announcing a National Command Authority (NCA) meeting, a calculated reminder of its nuclear capability. The NCA oversees control and potential use of the country’s nuclear arsenal. Whether this move was symbolic, strategic or a genuine alert, we may never know. It also came just as US Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly stepped in to defuse the spiral.

President Trump said the US didn’t just broker a ceasefire – it averted a “nuclear conflict”. On Monday, in an address to the nation, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said: “[There] is no tolerance for nuclear blackmail; India will not be intimidated by nuclear threats.

“Any terrorist safe haven operating under this pretext will face precise and decisive strikes,” Modi added.

India and Pakistan each possess about 170 nuclear weapons, according to the think-tank Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri). As of January 2024, Sipri estimated there were 12,121 nuclear warheads worldwide. Of these, about 9,585 were held in military stockpiles, with 3,904 actively deployed – 60 more than the previous year. The US and Russia together account for more than 8,000 nuclear weapons.

The bulk of both India’s and Pakistan’s deployed arsenals lies in their land-based missile forces, though both are developing nuclear triads capable of delivering warheads by land, air and sea, according to Christopher Clary, a security affairs expert at the University at Albany in the US.

“India likely has a larger air leg (aircraft capable of delivering nuclear weapons) than Pakistan. While we know the least of Pakistan’s naval leg, it is reasonable to assess that India’s naval leg is more advanced and more capable than Pakistan’s sea-based nuclear force,” he told the BBC.

One reason, Mr Clary said, is that Pakistan has invested nowhere near the “time or money” that India has in building a nuclear-powered submarine, giving India a “clear qualitative” edge in naval nuclear capability.

Since testing nuclear weapons in 1998, Pakistan has never formally declared an official nuclear doctrine.

India, by contrast, adopted a no-first-use policy following its own 1998 tests. But this stance has shown signs of softening. In 2003, India reserved the right to use nuclear weapons in response to chemical or biological attacks – effectively allowing for first use under certain conditions.

Further ambiguity emerged in 2016, when then–defence minister Manohar Parrikar suggested India shouldn’t feel “bound” by the policy, raising questions about its long-term credibility. (Parrikar clarified that this was his own opinion.)

The absence of a formal doctrine doesn’t mean Pakistan lacks one – official statements, interviews and nuclear developments offer clear clues to its operational posture, according to Sadia Tasleem of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Pakistan’s nuclear threshold remains vague, but in 2001, Khalid Kidwai – then head of the Strategic Plans Division of the NCA – outlined four red lines: major territorial loss, destruction of key military assets, economic strangulation or political destabilisation.

In 2002, then-president Pervez Musharraf clarified that “nuclear weapons are aimed solely at India”, and would only be used if “the very existence of Pakistan as a state” was at stake.

In his memoir, former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo wrote that he was jolted awake at night to speak with an unnamed “Indian counterpart” who feared Pakistan was preparing to use nuclear weapons during the 2019 stand-off with India.

Around the same time, Pakistani media quoted a senior official issuing a stark warning to India: “I hope you know what the [National Command Authority] means and what it constitutes. I said that we will surprise you. Wait for that surprise… You have chosen a path of war without knowing the consequences for the peace and security of the region.”

During the 1999 Kargil War, Pakistan’s then-foreign secretary Shamshad Ahmed warned that the country would not “hesitate to use any weapon” to defend its territory. Years later, US official Bruce Riedel revealed that intelligence indicated Pakistan was preparing its nuclear arsenal for possible deployment.

But there is scepticism on both sides over such claims.

Former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan Ajay Bisaria wrote in his memoir that Pompeo overstated both the risk of nuclear escalation and the US role in calming the conflict in 2019. And during Kargil, Pakistan “knew the Indian Air Force wouldn’t cross into its territory” – so there was no real trigger for even an implicit nuclear threat, insist Pakistani analysts.

“Strategic signalling reminds the world that any conflict can spiral – and with India and Pakistan, the stakes are higher due to the nuclear overhang. But that doesn’t mean either side is actively threatening nuclear use,” Ejaz Haider, a Lahore-based defence analyst, told the BBC.

But nuclear escalation can happen by accident too. “This could happen by human error, hackers, terrorists, computer failures, bad data from satellites and unstable leaders,” Prof Alan Robock of Rutgers University, lead author of the landmark 2019 paper by a global team of scientists, told the BBC.

In March 2022, India accidentally fired a nuclear-capable cruise missile which travelled 124km (77 miles) into Pakistani territory before crashing, reportedly damaging civilian property. Pakistan said India failed to use the military hotline or issue a public statement for two days. Had this occurred during heightened tensions, the incident could have spiralled into serious conflict, experts say. (Months later, India’s government sacked three air force officers for the “accidental firing of a missile”.)

Yet, the danger of nuclear war remains “relatively small” between India and Pakistan, according to Mr Clary.

“So long as there is not major ground combat along the border, the dangers of nuclear use remain relatively small and manageable,” he said.

“In ground combat, the ‘use it or lose it’ problem is propelled by the possibility that your ground positions will be overrun by the enemy.” (‘Use it or lose it‘ refers to the pressure a nuclear-armed country may feel to launch its weapons before they are destroyed in a first strike by an adversary.)

Sumit Ganguly, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, believes that “neither India nor Pakistan wants to be labelled as the first violator of the post-Hiroshima nuclear taboo”.

“Furthermore, any side that resorts to the use of nuclear weapons would face substantial retaliation and suffer unacceptable casualties,” Mr Ganguly told the BBC.

At the same time, both India and Pakistan appear to be beefing up their nuclear arsenal.

With new delivery systems in development, four plutonium reactors and expanding uranium enrichment, Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal could reach around 200 warheads by the late 2020s, according to The Nuclear Notebook, researched by the Federation of American Scientists’ Nuclear Information Project.

And as of early 2023, India was estimated to have about 680kg of weapons-grade plutonium – enough for roughly 130-210 nuclear warheads, according to the International Panel on Fissile Materials.

Despite repeated crises and close calls, both sides have so far managed to avoid a catastrophic slide into nuclear conflict. “The deterrent is still holding. All Pakistanis did was to respond to conventional strikes with counter-conventional strikes of their own,” writes Umer Farooq, an Islamabad-based analyst.

Yet, the presence of nuclear weapons injects a constant undercurrent of risk – one that can never be entirely ruled out, no matter how experienced the leadership or how restrained the intentions.

“When nuclear weapons can be involved, there is always an unacceptable level of danger,”John Erath, senior policy director at the non-profit Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, told the BBC.

“The Indian and Pakistani governments have navigated these situations in the past, so the risk is small. But with nuclear weapons, even a small risk is too large.”

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has said Canadians were not “impressed” by the UK government’s invitation to US President Donald Trump for a second state visit.

The newly elected Carney told Sky News that the UK’s invitation earlier this year did not help Canadians, who were facing repeat comments from Trump about making Canada the 51st US state.

“To be frank, [Canadians] weren’t impressed by that gesture… given the circumstance,” he said. “It was at a time when we were being quite clear about the issues around sovereignty.”

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer invited Trump to come to the UK for a visit during a meeting at the White House in February.

Asked whether the invitation was “appropriate”, Carney said that was a decision for the government of the UK and Buckingham Palace.

“I leave the diplomacy to the UK government,” he said.

The BBC has contacted the Carney’s office and No 10 for comment.

Buckingham Palace declined to respond.

The criticism from Carney comes as the Canadians prepare to welcome King Charles III and Queen Camilla at the end of this month for a royal visit.

During the Sky News interview, Carney said his invitation for the King – Canada’s head of state – to attend the opening of Canada’s Parliament “is not coincidental”.

“It is also a reaffirming moment, will be a reaffirming,” Carney said, saying issues around Canada’s sovereignty “have been accentuated by the president”.

During his visit, the King will also read the Speech from the Throne – a function usually carried out by the governor general.

The last time this happened was in October 1977 when Queen Elizabeth II read the speech for the second time in Canada’s history. The first was in 1957.

Since returning to the White House, Trump has made repeated comments undermining Canada’s sovereignty, including that the Canadian border is an “artificially drawn line”.

Meanwhile, Carney has firmly said Canada is “not for sale, ever”.

Carney – who said he would only meet the US president “until we get the respect we deserve” – sat down with Trump in Washington DC last week to begin negotiations on a new trade and security relationship.

During the visit, Trump repeated his 51st state comments.

Pressed on that, Carney told Sky News that Trump has shifted his tone from “expectation to a desire for that to happen”.

“He also came from a place where he recognised that was not going to happen.”

In the latest India-Pakistan stand-off, there were no ultimatums, no red buttons.

Yet the cycle of military retaliation, veiled signals and swift international mediation quietly evoked the region’s most dangerous shadow. The crisis didn’t spiral towards nuclear war, but it was a reminder of how quickly tensions here can summon that spectre.

Even scientists have modelled how easily things could unravel. A 2019 study by a global team of scientists opened with a nightmare scenario where a terrorist attack on India’s parliament in 2025 triggers a nuclear exchange with Pakistan.

Six years later, a real-world stand-off – though contained by a US-brokered ceasefire on Saturday – stoked fears of a full-blown conflict. It also revived uneasy memories of how fragile stability in the region can be.

As the crisis escalated, Pakistan sent “dual signals” – retaliating militarily while announcing a National Command Authority (NCA) meeting, a calculated reminder of its nuclear capability. The NCA oversees control and potential use of the country’s nuclear arsenal. Whether this move was symbolic, strategic or a genuine alert, we may never know. It also came just as US Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly stepped in to defuse the spiral.

President Trump said the US didn’t just broker a ceasefire – it averted a “nuclear conflict”. On Monday, in an address to the nation, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said: “[There] is no tolerance for nuclear blackmail; India will not be intimidated by nuclear threats.

“Any terrorist safe haven operating under this pretext will face precise and decisive strikes,” Modi added.

India and Pakistan each possess about 170 nuclear weapons, according to the think-tank Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri). As of January 2024, Sipri estimated there were 12,121 nuclear warheads worldwide. Of these, about 9,585 were held in military stockpiles, with 3,904 actively deployed – 60 more than the previous year. The US and Russia together account for more than 8,000 nuclear weapons.

The bulk of both India’s and Pakistan’s deployed arsenals lies in their land-based missile forces, though both are developing nuclear triads capable of delivering warheads by land, air and sea, according to Christopher Clary, a security affairs expert at the University at Albany in the US.

“India likely has a larger air leg (aircraft capable of delivering nuclear weapons) than Pakistan. While we know the least of Pakistan’s naval leg, it is reasonable to assess that India’s naval leg is more advanced and more capable than Pakistan’s sea-based nuclear force,” he told the BBC.

One reason, Mr Clary said, is that Pakistan has invested nowhere near the “time or money” that India has in building a nuclear-powered submarine, giving India a “clear qualitative” edge in naval nuclear capability.

Since testing nuclear weapons in 1998, Pakistan has never formally declared an official nuclear doctrine.

India, by contrast, adopted a no-first-use policy following its own 1998 tests. But this stance has shown signs of softening. In 2003, India reserved the right to use nuclear weapons in response to chemical or biological attacks – effectively allowing for first use under certain conditions.

Further ambiguity emerged in 2016, when then–defence minister Manohar Parrikar suggested India shouldn’t feel “bound” by the policy, raising questions about its long-term credibility. (Parrikar clarified that this was his own opinion.)

The absence of a formal doctrine doesn’t mean Pakistan lacks one – official statements, interviews and nuclear developments offer clear clues to its operational posture, according to Sadia Tasleem of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Pakistan’s nuclear threshold remains vague, but in 2001, Khalid Kidwai – then head of the Strategic Plans Division of the NCA – outlined four red lines: major territorial loss, destruction of key military assets, economic strangulation or political destabilisation.

In 2002, then-president Pervez Musharraf clarified that “nuclear weapons are aimed solely at India”, and would only be used if “the very existence of Pakistan as a state” was at stake.

In his memoir, former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo wrote that he was jolted awake at night to speak with an unnamed “Indian counterpart” who feared Pakistan was preparing to use nuclear weapons during the 2019 stand-off with India.

Around the same time, Pakistani media quoted a senior official issuing a stark warning to India: “I hope you know what the [National Command Authority] means and what it constitutes. I said that we will surprise you. Wait for that surprise… You have chosen a path of war without knowing the consequences for the peace and security of the region.”

During the 1999 Kargil War, Pakistan’s then-foreign secretary Shamshad Ahmed warned that the country would not “hesitate to use any weapon” to defend its territory. Years later, US official Bruce Riedel revealed that intelligence indicated Pakistan was preparing its nuclear arsenal for possible deployment.

But there is scepticism on both sides over such claims.

Former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan Ajay Bisaria wrote in his memoir that Pompeo overstated both the risk of nuclear escalation and the US role in calming the conflict in 2019. And during Kargil, Pakistan “knew the Indian Air Force wouldn’t cross into its territory” – so there was no real trigger for even an implicit nuclear threat, insist Pakistani analysts.

“Strategic signalling reminds the world that any conflict can spiral – and with India and Pakistan, the stakes are higher due to the nuclear overhang. But that doesn’t mean either side is actively threatening nuclear use,” Ejaz Haider, a Lahore-based defence analyst, told the BBC.

But nuclear escalation can happen by accident too. “This could happen by human error, hackers, terrorists, computer failures, bad data from satellites and unstable leaders,” Prof Alan Robock of Rutgers University, lead author of the landmark 2019 paper by a global team of scientists, told the BBC.

In March 2022, India accidentally fired a nuclear-capable cruise missile which travelled 124km (77 miles) into Pakistani territory before crashing, reportedly damaging civilian property. Pakistan said India failed to use the military hotline or issue a public statement for two days. Had this occurred during heightened tensions, the incident could have spiralled into serious conflict, experts say. (Months later, India’s government sacked three air force officers for the “accidental firing of a missile”.)

Yet, the danger of nuclear war remains “relatively small” between India and Pakistan, according to Mr Clary.

“So long as there is not major ground combat along the border, the dangers of nuclear use remain relatively small and manageable,” he said.

“In ground combat, the ‘use it or lose it’ problem is propelled by the possibility that your ground positions will be overrun by the enemy.” (‘Use it or lose it‘ refers to the pressure a nuclear-armed country may feel to launch its weapons before they are destroyed in a first strike by an adversary.)

Sumit Ganguly, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, believes that “neither India nor Pakistan wants to be labelled as the first violator of the post-Hiroshima nuclear taboo”.

“Furthermore, any side that resorts to the use of nuclear weapons would face substantial retaliation and suffer unacceptable casualties,” Mr Ganguly told the BBC.

At the same time, both India and Pakistan appear to be beefing up their nuclear arsenal.

With new delivery systems in development, four plutonium reactors and expanding uranium enrichment, Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal could reach around 200 warheads by the late 2020s, according to The Nuclear Notebook, researched by the Federation of American Scientists’ Nuclear Information Project.

And as of early 2023, India was estimated to have about 680kg of weapons-grade plutonium – enough for roughly 130-210 nuclear warheads, according to the International Panel on Fissile Materials.

Despite repeated crises and close calls, both sides have so far managed to avoid a catastrophic slide into nuclear conflict. “The deterrent is still holding. All Pakistanis did was to respond to conventional strikes with counter-conventional strikes of their own,” writes Umer Farooq, an Islamabad-based analyst.

Yet, the presence of nuclear weapons injects a constant undercurrent of risk – one that can never be entirely ruled out, no matter how experienced the leadership or how restrained the intentions.

“When nuclear weapons can be involved, there is always an unacceptable level of danger,”John Erath, senior policy director at the non-profit Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, told the BBC.

“The Indian and Pakistani governments have navigated these situations in the past, so the risk is small. But with nuclear weapons, even a small risk is too large.”

Former Uruguayan President José Mujica, known as “Pepe”, has died at the age of 89.

The ex-guerrilla who governed Uruguay from 2010 to 2015 was known as the world’s “poorest president” because of his modest lifestyle.

Current President Yamandú Orsi announced his predecessor’s death on X, writing: “thank you for everything you gave us and for your deep love for your people.”

The politician’s cause of death is not known but he had been suffering from oesophageal cancer.

Because of the simple way he lived as president, his criticism of consumerism and the social reforms he promoted – which, among other things, meant Uruguay became the first country to legalise the recreational use of marijuana – Mujica became a well-known political figure in Latin America and beyond.

His global popularity is unusual for a president of Uruguay, a country with just 3.4 million inhabitants where his legacy has also generated some controversy.

In fact, even though many tended to see Mujica as someone outside the political class, that was not the case.

He said his passion for politics, as well as for books and working the land, was passed on to him by his mother, who raised him in a middle-class home in Montevideo, the capital city.

As a young man, Mujica was a member of the National Party, one of Uruguay’s traditional political forces, which later became the centre-right opposition to his government.

In the 1960s, he helped set up the Tupamaros National Liberation Movement (MLN-T), a leftist urban guerrilla group that carried out assaults, kidnappings and executions, although he always maintained that he did not commit any murder.

Influenced by the Cuban revolution and international socialism, the MLN-T launched a campaign of clandestine resistance against the Uruguayan government, which at the time was constitutional and democratic, although the left accused it of being increasingly authoritarian.

During this period, Mujica was captured four times. On one of those occasions, in 1970, he was shot six times and nearly died.

He escaped from prison twice, on one occasion through a tunnel with 105 other MLN-T prisoners, in one of the largest escapes in Uruguayan prison history.

When the Uruguayan military staged a coup in 1973, they included him in a group of “nine hostages” who they threatened to kill if the guerrillas continued their attacks.

During the more than 14 years he spent in prison during the 1970s and 1980s, he was tortured and spent most of that time in harsh conditions and isolation, until he was freed in 1985 when Uruguay returned to democracy.

He used to say that during his time in prison, he experienced madness first hand, suffering from delusions and even talking to ants.

The day he was freed was his happiest memory, he says: “Becoming president was insignificant compared to that.”

A few years after his release, he served as a lawmaker, both in the Chamber of Representatives and in the Senate, the country’s lower and upper houses respectively.

In 2005, he became minister in the first government of the Frente Amplio, the Uruguayan leftist coalition, before becoming Uruguay’s president in 2010.

He was 74 years old at the time, and, to the rest of the world, still unknown.

His election marked an important moment for the Latin American left, which was already strong on the continent at that time. Mujica became leader alongside other left-wing presidents such as Luis Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil and Hugo Chávez in Venezuela.

However, Mujica governed in his own way, demonstrating pragmatism and audacity on several occasions, political commentators say.

During his administration, amid a fairly favourable international context, the Uruguayan economy grew at an average annual rate of 5.4%, poverty was reduced, and unemployment remained low.

Uruguay also drew global attention for the social laws passed by parliament during those years, such as the legalisation of abortion, the recognition of same-sex marriage, and state regulation of the marijuana market.

While in office, Mujica rejected moving into the presidential residence (a mansion), as heads of state around the world usually do.

Instead, he remained with his wife – politician and former guerrilla Lucía Topolansky – in their modest home on the outskirts of Montevideo, with no domestic help and little security.

This combined with the fact that he always dressed casually, that he was often seen driving his light blue 1987 Volkswagen Beetle and gave away a large portion of his salary, led some media outlets to call him “the world’s poorest president”.

But Mujica always rejected that title: “They say I’m the poorest president. No, I’m not,” he told me in a 2012 interview at his home. “Poor are those who want more […] because they’re in an endless race.”

Despite Mujica preaching austerity, his government did significantly increase public spending, widening the fiscal deficit and leading his opponents to accuse him of waste.

Mujica was also criticised for failing to reverse the growing problems in Uruguayan education, despite having promised that education would be a top priority for his administration.

However, unlike other leaders in the region, he was never accused of corruption or of undermining his country’s democracy.

By the end of his administration, Mujica had a high domestic popularity rating (close to 70%) and was elected senator, but also spent part of his time travelling the world after he stepped down as president.

“So what it is that catches the world’s attention? That I live with very little, a simple house, that I drive around in an old car? Then this world is crazy because it’s surprised by [what is] normal,” he reflected before leaving office.

Mujica retired from politics in 2020 though he remained a central figure in Uruguay.

His political heir, Yamandú Orsi, was elected president of Uruguay in November 2024 and his group within the Frente Amplio obtained the largest number of parliamentary seats since the country’s return to democracy.

Last year, Mujica announced he had cancer and references to his age and the inexorable proximity of death became more frequent – but he always accepted the final outcome as something natural, without drama.

In the last interview he gave the BBC in November last year, he said: “One knows that death is inevitable. And perhaps it’s like the salt of life.”

A duck has been caught speeding on traffic cameras in the town of Koeniz in central Switzerland.

Local police said the mallard – a wild duck – was snapped on radar images on 13 April clocking in at 52km/h (32 mph) in a 30km zone.

Adding to the mystery, authorities said the duck was likely a repeat offender and shared an image of a similar looking duck travelling in the same spot, at the same speed and on the same date in 2018.

There has been speculation about whether the “notorious racer” duck incident was a belated April Fool’s joke, but the police inspectorate said it is impossible to manipulate images on the radar system.

Authorities said traffic cameras are tested each year by Switzerland’s Federal Institute of Metrology and the photos taken are sealed.

In a Facebook post, Koeniz officials wished the public “a lot of fun” in making sense of the “curious coincidences” seven years in the making.

“We wish you a lot of fun sensing about curious coincidences, criminal machinations of animals and the maximum flight speed of ducks,” the post read.

Some comments have asked what the penalty will be for the “racer duck’s” transgressions.

The prime minister of Peru, Gustavo Adrianzén, has resigned hours before he was due to face a no-confidence vote in Congress.

Members of Peru’s Congress had called for the no-confidence vote after the recent kidnap and killing of 13 mine workers, which shocked the country.

Adrianzén’s resignation is another blow to the embattled president, Dina Boluarte, who has seen her approval ratings plummet as crime rates in the country have soared.

The resignation of the prime minister – the third to serve under Boluarte – forces the president to replace her entire cabinet, adding to Peru’s political upheaval.

Under Peru’s constitution, all ministers have to step down if the prime minister quits.

While the president can rename the same people to the posts they resigned from, she can only do so once a new prime minister is in place.

The collapse of the cabinet comes at an already rocky time in Peruvian politics.

Shortly before Prime Minister Adrianzén announced his resignation, Boluarte had reshuffled her existing cabinet, announcing new ministers of finance, interior, and transport.

All three will now have to step down, just hours after being sworn in by the president.

The already low approval rating of President Boluarte – who was sworn in when the previous president, Pedro Castillo, was impeached – have fallen further as Peruvians grow increasingly impatient at what they say is her failure to tackle crime.

In recent months, hundreds of people have taken to the streets in protest at the growing problem of extortion, as gangs increasingly demand payments even from the smallest businesses, including transport workers.

Dressed in white, they demanded “an immediate answer to combat extortion and targeted killings”.

In the latest India-Pakistan stand-off, there were no ultimatums, no red buttons.

Yet the cycle of military retaliation, veiled signals and swift international mediation quietly evoked the region’s most dangerous shadow. The crisis didn’t spiral towards nuclear war, but it was a reminder of how quickly tensions here can summon that spectre.

Even scientists have modelled how easily things could unravel. A 2019 study by a global team of scientists opened with a nightmare scenario where a terrorist attack on India’s parliament in 2025 triggers a nuclear exchange with Pakistan.

Six years later, a real-world stand-off – though contained by a US-brokered ceasefire on Saturday – stoked fears of a full-blown conflict. It also revived uneasy memories of how fragile stability in the region can be.

As the crisis escalated, Pakistan sent “dual signals” – retaliating militarily while announcing a National Command Authority (NCA) meeting, a calculated reminder of its nuclear capability. The NCA oversees control and potential use of the country’s nuclear arsenal. Whether this move was symbolic, strategic or a genuine alert, we may never know. It also came just as US Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly stepped in to defuse the spiral.

President Trump said the US didn’t just broker a ceasefire – it averted a “nuclear conflict”. On Monday, in an address to the nation, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said: “[There] is no tolerance for nuclear blackmail; India will not be intimidated by nuclear threats.

“Any terrorist safe haven operating under this pretext will face precise and decisive strikes,” Modi added.

India and Pakistan each possess about 170 nuclear weapons, according to the think-tank Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri). As of January 2024, Sipri estimated there were 12,121 nuclear warheads worldwide. Of these, about 9,585 were held in military stockpiles, with 3,904 actively deployed – 60 more than the previous year. The US and Russia together account for more than 8,000 nuclear weapons.

The bulk of both India’s and Pakistan’s deployed arsenals lies in their land-based missile forces, though both are developing nuclear triads capable of delivering warheads by land, air and sea, according to Christopher Clary, a security affairs expert at the University at Albany in the US.

“India likely has a larger air leg (aircraft capable of delivering nuclear weapons) than Pakistan. While we know the least of Pakistan’s naval leg, it is reasonable to assess that India’s naval leg is more advanced and more capable than Pakistan’s sea-based nuclear force,” he told the BBC.

One reason, Mr Clary said, is that Pakistan has invested nowhere near the “time or money” that India has in building a nuclear-powered submarine, giving India a “clear qualitative” edge in naval nuclear capability.

Since testing nuclear weapons in 1998, Pakistan has never formally declared an official nuclear doctrine.

India, by contrast, adopted a no-first-use policy following its own 1998 tests. But this stance has shown signs of softening. In 2003, India reserved the right to use nuclear weapons in response to chemical or biological attacks – effectively allowing for first use under certain conditions.

Further ambiguity emerged in 2016, when then–defence minister Manohar Parrikar suggested India shouldn’t feel “bound” by the policy, raising questions about its long-term credibility. (Parrikar clarified that this was his own opinion.)

The absence of a formal doctrine doesn’t mean Pakistan lacks one – official statements, interviews and nuclear developments offer clear clues to its operational posture, according to Sadia Tasleem of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Pakistan’s nuclear threshold remains vague, but in 2001, Khalid Kidwai – then head of the Strategic Plans Division of the NCA – outlined four red lines: major territorial loss, destruction of key military assets, economic strangulation or political destabilisation.

In 2002, then-president Pervez Musharraf clarified that “nuclear weapons are aimed solely at India”, and would only be used if “the very existence of Pakistan as a state” was at stake.

In his memoir, former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo wrote that he was jolted awake at night to speak with an unnamed “Indian counterpart” who feared Pakistan was preparing to use nuclear weapons during the 2019 stand-off with India.

Around the same time, Pakistani media quoted a senior official issuing a stark warning to India: “I hope you know what the [National Command Authority] means and what it constitutes. I said that we will surprise you. Wait for that surprise… You have chosen a path of war without knowing the consequences for the peace and security of the region.”

During the 1999 Kargil War, Pakistan’s then-foreign secretary Shamshad Ahmed warned that the country would not “hesitate to use any weapon” to defend its territory. Years later, US official Bruce Riedel revealed that intelligence indicated Pakistan was preparing its nuclear arsenal for possible deployment.

But there is scepticism on both sides over such claims.

Former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan Ajay Bisaria wrote in his memoir that Pompeo overstated both the risk of nuclear escalation and the US role in calming the conflict in 2019. And during Kargil, Pakistan “knew the Indian Air Force wouldn’t cross into its territory” – so there was no real trigger for even an implicit nuclear threat, insist Pakistani analysts.

“Strategic signalling reminds the world that any conflict can spiral – and with India and Pakistan, the stakes are higher due to the nuclear overhang. But that doesn’t mean either side is actively threatening nuclear use,” Ejaz Haider, a Lahore-based defence analyst, told the BBC.

But nuclear escalation can happen by accident too. “This could happen by human error, hackers, terrorists, computer failures, bad data from satellites and unstable leaders,” Prof Alan Robock of Rutgers University, lead author of the landmark 2019 paper by a global team of scientists, told the BBC.

In March 2022, India accidentally fired a nuclear-capable cruise missile which travelled 124km (77 miles) into Pakistani territory before crashing, reportedly damaging civilian property. Pakistan said India failed to use the military hotline or issue a public statement for two days. Had this occurred during heightened tensions, the incident could have spiralled into serious conflict, experts say. (Months later, India’s government sacked three air force officers for the “accidental firing of a missile”.)

Yet, the danger of nuclear war remains “relatively small” between India and Pakistan, according to Mr Clary.

“So long as there is not major ground combat along the border, the dangers of nuclear use remain relatively small and manageable,” he said.

“In ground combat, the ‘use it or lose it’ problem is propelled by the possibility that your ground positions will be overrun by the enemy.” (‘Use it or lose it‘ refers to the pressure a nuclear-armed country may feel to launch its weapons before they are destroyed in a first strike by an adversary.)

Sumit Ganguly, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, believes that “neither India nor Pakistan wants to be labelled as the first violator of the post-Hiroshima nuclear taboo”.

“Furthermore, any side that resorts to the use of nuclear weapons would face substantial retaliation and suffer unacceptable casualties,” Mr Ganguly told the BBC.

At the same time, both India and Pakistan appear to be beefing up their nuclear arsenal.

With new delivery systems in development, four plutonium reactors and expanding uranium enrichment, Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal could reach around 200 warheads by the late 2020s, according to The Nuclear Notebook, researched by the Federation of American Scientists’ Nuclear Information Project.

And as of early 2023, India was estimated to have about 680kg of weapons-grade plutonium – enough for roughly 130-210 nuclear warheads, according to the International Panel on Fissile Materials.

Despite repeated crises and close calls, both sides have so far managed to avoid a catastrophic slide into nuclear conflict. “The deterrent is still holding. All Pakistanis did was to respond to conventional strikes with counter-conventional strikes of their own,” writes Umer Farooq, an Islamabad-based analyst.

Yet, the presence of nuclear weapons injects a constant undercurrent of risk – one that can never be entirely ruled out, no matter how experienced the leadership or how restrained the intentions.

“When nuclear weapons can be involved, there is always an unacceptable level of danger,”John Erath, senior policy director at the non-profit Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, told the BBC.

“The Indian and Pakistani governments have navigated these situations in the past, so the risk is small. But with nuclear weapons, even a small risk is too large.”

President Cyril Ramaphosa has called a group of 59 white South Africans who have moved to the US to resettle “cowards”, saying “they’ll be back soon”.

The group of Afrikaners arrived in the US on Monday after President Donald Trump granted them refugee status, saying they faced racial discrimination.

But Ramaphosa said those who wanted to leave were not happy with efforts to address the inequities of the apartheid past, terming their relocation a “sad moment for them”.

“As South Africans, we are resilient. We don’t run away from our problems. We must stay here and solve our problems. When you run away you are a coward, and that’s a real cowardly act,” he added.

Trump and his close ally, South Africa-born Elon Musk, have said there was a “genocide” of white farmers in South Africa – a claim that has been widely discredited.

The US has also accused the South African government of seizing land from white farmers without paying compensation.

More than 30 years after the end of decades of rule by South Africa’s white minority, black farmers own only a small fraction of the country’s best farmland, with the majority still in white hands, leading to anger over the slow pace of change.

In January President Ramaphosa signed a controversial law allowing the government to seize privately owned land without compensation in certain circumstances, when it is deemed “equitable and in the public interest”.

But the government says no land has yet been seized under the act.

• Racially charged row between Musk and South Africa over Starlink
• What’s really driving Trump’s fury with South Africa?

Trump has offered to resettle the white Afrikaners, descendants of mostly Dutch settlers, saying they were fleeing a “terrible situation” in South Africa.

Speaking on Monday at an agricultural exhibition in the Free State province, Ramaphosa said the Afrikaners were moving to the US because they were not “favourably disposed” to efforts aimed at addressing the country’s challenges.

“If you look at all national groups in our country, black and white, they’ve stayed in this country because it’s our country and we must not run away from our problems. We must stay here and solve our problems,” Ramaphosa said.

“I can bet you that they will be back soon because there is no country like South Africa,” he added.

His “coward” remark angered some social media users, who condemned it as an insult to aggrieved white South Africans.

The group of Afrikaners were welcomed by top US officials who claimed they had been “living under a shadow of violence and terror” in South Africa.

“Welcome to the land of the free,” Deputy Secretary of State Chris Landau said as he received the South Africans who landed at Dulles airport near Washington DC on Monday.

Some held young children and waved small American flags in the arrival area adorned with red, white and blue balloons on the walls.

Earlier on Monday, President Ramaphosa told an Africa CEO forum in Abidjan, Ivory Coast, that he had recently told Trump during a phone call the US assessment of the situation was “not true”.

“We’re the only country on the continent where the colonisers came to stay and we have never driven them out of our country,” he added, dismissing claims Afrikaners were being persecuted.

Ramaphosa said dozens of white South Africans who arrived in the US on Monday “don’t fit the bill” for refugees.

According to the US embassy in South Africa, to be considered eligible for the refugee resettlement scheme, someone must be:

• Of South African nationality
• Afrikaner or from a racial minority
• Able to cite an incident of past persecution or fear of persecution in the future.

The South African leader said he was due to meet his US counterpart soon regarding the issue.

Trump has threatened to boycott the forthcoming G20 summit in South Africa unless the “situation is taken care of”.

• Almost 70,000 South Africans interested in US asylum
• Is it checkmate for South Africa after Trump threats?
• US cuts send South Africa’s HIV treatment ‘off a cliff’

A Los Angeles judge has reduced the sentence of Erik and Lyle Menendez, making them eligible for parole more than 30 years after they killed their parents in a Beverly Hills mansion.

Judge Michael Jesic resentenced the brothers on Tuesday, after hearing evidence from relatives and prison staff about their attempts to make amends while behind bars.

The district attorney had argued that they were not rehabilitated, but now the state parole board will consider the possibility of the brothers’ release as early as next month.

The brothers have long argued that they killed Kitty and Jose Menendez out of self-defence after years of sexual abuse, in a high-profile case that prompted a Netflix show which renewed interest in the story.

After hearing that they had been resentenced to 50 years to life with the possibility of parole, the brothers delivered an emotional statement to the court.

They went through grim details of the brutal killings and their decision to reload their shotguns and keep shooting their parents at point-blank range in the living room of their home. The siblings were aged 18 and 21 at the time.

“I had to stop being selfish and immature to really understand what my parents went though in those last moments,” Erik Menendez, 54, told the court.

He described the “shock, confusion and betrayal” they must have felt seeing their sons holding guns and opening fire.

• When might the Menendez brothers be released?

Both apologised for their actions and talked about their hopes of working with sex abuse victims and helping those incarcerated if they were given a second chance outside prison.

The voice of Lyle Menendez, 57, cracked as he talked about the impact of his “unfathomable” actions on their relatives.

“I lied to you and forced you into a spotlight of public humiliation,” he said to his family.

Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman said the decision to resentence the pair was “monumental” and carried “significant implications for the families involved”.

Much of the hearing centred on what the brothers have been doing in prison for the last 30 years.

Family members and those who worked with them in prison detailed the educational courses they completed and programmes they created to improve the lives of inmates, including a hospice initiative for the elderly and sick.

Judge Jesic called the brothers’ work while in prison “remarkable”, but noted that their 1996 sentences to life without parole were justified at the time.

He said that under the guidelines, they were eligible for resentencing, issuing his new sentence of 50 years to life. The brothers have been held in custody since 1990.

As the judge continued reading, the brothers smiled and waved to their attorneys and family members who crowded into the courtroom. Family members embraced with smiles.

“Today is a great day,” defence lawyer Mark Geragos told reporters outside court. He said they were “one huge step closer to bringing the boys home”.

Anamaria Baralt, the brothers’ cousin who testified inside court earlier in the day, said their family was elated.

“It is a difficult process,” she said of the parole hearing that awaits the brothers, but noted they will “eagerly step through those doors if it means we can have them home”.

Inside court earlier, relatives pleaded with the judge to allow the siblings’ release.

Ms Baralt, who said she has been close with them since they were children, told the judge they deserved a “second chance at life”.

“It’s been a nightmare,” she said. “I am desperate for this process to be over.”

Ms Baralt told the court she speaks with the brothers frequently and testified that they had taken “ownership of their actions”.

• Prosecutors claim retaliation by new LA DA over Menendez brothers support
• What is the controversy around Netflix’s Menendez drama?

She said Lyle Menendez had acknowledged to her he had asked a witness to lie when testifying at their previous trial.

But she added: “They are very different men from the boys they were.”

The judge also heard from a retired Florida judge – who said he has never testified on behalf of any criminal defendant – and Anerae “X-Raided” Brown, a rapper who was in prison with both brothers and credits their help for his release.

The district attorney’s office, which fiercely opposes the brothers being released, questioned each witness about Erik and Lyle Menendez’s “litany of lies” they have clung to since the murders.

Prosecutors said they lied to law enforcement immediately after the crimes, lied to family members about their guilt and gave false evidence at their trials.

Prosecutors have said the brothers have continued to “make excuses” for their conduct instead of taking full responsibility.

“There’s no doubt they’ve done all these positive things in prison,” Deputy District Attorney Habib Balian said in his closing argument.

But, he added, when reversing a jury’s unanimous verdict in such a brutal murder case, it’s important to “make certain they are truly rehabilitated”.

The case was thrust back into the spotlight after a new Netflix drama, Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story, as well as the release of docudrama, The Menendez Brothers.

It introduced the case to a new generation and garnered attention from celebrities – including Kim Kardashian and Rosie O’Donnell – who called for the brothers to be released. The previous district attorney, George Gascón, backed their resentencing bid, allowing the effort to go before a judge.

The next step for the brothers will be the California parole board.

The board has already been vetting the siblings after a request by Governor Gavin Newsom. The governor is separately weighing a request from the brothers for clemency, which could take the form of a reduced sentence or a pardon – if approved.

A risk assessment has been completed on the brothers as part of their request for clemency. The district attorney said it indicated a “moderate risk of violence”. However, the full report has not been released.

Newsom asked the parole board to conduct a risk assessment, which has already been drafted, that examines whether they pose a risk to the general public if released.

The state’s parole board is set to conduct a separate hearing on 13 June for the brothers.

It’s unclear what could come at the hearing, or if there might be multiple hearings vetting their potential release.

Svitlana says her daughter loved her school in Poland.

“Even when we moved to another area, she didn’t want to change schools,” says the 31-year-old Ukrainian mother. “She liked it so much. There was no bullying.”

Now she says the atmosphere at the school – and in Poland overall – has changed.

“Two weeks ago, she came home and said “One boy said to me today, ‘Go back to Ukraine’.” Svitlana was astonished.

She is one of dozens of Ukrainians living in Poland who have told the BBC that anti-Ukrainian sentiment has risen considerably in recent months.

Many described experiencing abuse on public transport, bullying in schools and xenophobic material online.

A polarising presidential election campaign has added to the tension, with the first round of voting taking place on Sunday.

The day after Svitlana’s daughter was told to go back to Ukraine, the abuse became even worse.

“Girls from the class above started complaining about her speaking Ukrainian. Then they pretended to fall to the ground shouting ‘Missile! Get down!’ and laughing,” Svitlana says. “She came home crying.”

A Russian missile had slammed into Svitlana’s hometown in Ukraine days before, killing scores of civilians, including children. Her daughter was traumatised.

Svitlana – not her real name did not want to be identified as she fears reprisals. She showed us screenshots of messages with school staff where she complains about her daughter’s treatment.

She said she had noticed attitudes changing towards Ukrainians in other places, too: “At work, many people have been saying Ukrainians come here and behave badly. And my Ukrainian friends say they want to go home because Polish people don’t accept us. It’s frightening to live here now.”

According to government statistics, at least 2.5 million Ukrainians live in Poland, comprising almost 7% of the total population of Poland.

When the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022, there was an outpouring of compassion from Poles. “It was amazing. Every day people were calling, asking, ‘How can we help?'” says activist Natalia Panchenko, head of the Warsaw-based ‘Stand with Ukraine’ Foundation.

“Some of them organised humanitarian convoys or brought refugees here. They gave their houses, food, everything they have – and their hearts, too.”

Three years later, Natalia says she believes the majority of Poles still support Ukraine. But some don’t – and her organisation has noticed an upsurge of anti-Ukrainian online abuse that began several months ago.

“Then it started to come to real life,” she says. “Recently, we have more and more of these kinds of situations… xenophobic [abuse] of people working in shops or hotels just because they speak with a Ukrainian accent.”

Natalia says that many Ukrainian refugees are traumatised. “These groups of women and children are in Poland because of the war, very often their relatives are on the front line, in captivity or dead… and this is the group of people being targeted.”

Research suggests that Poland’s public opinion of Ukrainians is indeed worsening. According to a March 2025 poll by the respected CBOS Centre, just 50% of Poles are in favour of accepting Ukrainian refugees, a fall of seven percentage points in four months. Two years ago, the figure was 81%.

Around a million Ukrainians are officially registered as having arrived after the start of the full-scale invasion. Poland spends 4.2% of its GDP on Ukrainian refugees.

Ukraine has become a hot-button political issue in Poland’s crucial presidential election campaign.

Far-right populist Slawomir Mentzen, currently polling third, is virulently anti-Ukrainian and supports an “agreement” with Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

In second place is conservative Karol Nawrocki, who opposes EU and Nato membership for Ukraine and financial assistance for refugees, but supports the war effort.

The most pro-Ukraine candidate is front-runner Rafal Trzaskowski from Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s coalition, although even he has promised a reduction in social welfare for Ukrainians.

Trzaskowski has refrained from espousing his pro-Ukrainian credentials in order to attract the centrist vote in the elections, says political analyst Marcin Zaborowski.

“He’s responding to the change in public attitudes. The initial enthusiasm for supporting war victims is disappearing, negative sentiments are taking over and it’s not an entirely comfortable issue for him.”

Another far-right candidate, Grzegorz Braun, is under investigation by police for tearing down a Ukrainian flag from a city hall building during an election rally in April. Braun, who is polling at just 3%, regularly fulminates against what he calls the “Ukrainisation of Poland”.

Last week, the Polish government warned of an “unprecedented attempt” by Russia to interfere in the Polish elections by spreading “false information among Polish citizens online”. Moscow denies all allegations of election interference.

Michal Marek, who runs an NGO that monitors disinformation and propaganda in Poland, offers some examples of the anti-Ukraine material being circulated on social media.

“The main narratives are that Ukrainians are stealing money from the Polish budget, that Ukrainians do not respect us, that they want to rob and kill us and are responsible for the war,” he says.

“This information starts in Russian-speaking Telegram channels, and, after that, we see the same photos and the same text just translated by Google Translate. And they are pushing [the material] into the Polish infosphere.”

Mr Marek links such disinformation directly with the increase in anti-Ukraine sentiment in Poland, and says an increasing number of Poles are becoming influenced by propaganda.

“But we will only see the effect after the election – what percentage of Poles want to vote for openly pro-Russian candidates.”

At least 50 Palestinians have been killed in a series of Israeli air strikes in northern Gaza, a local hospital says.

The Indonesian hospital reported that 22 children and 15 women were among the dead after a number of homes in Jabalia town and refugee camp were hit overnight. A video shared online appeared to show at least a dozen bodies on the floor there.

The Israeli military said it was looking into the reports. It had warned residents of Jabalia and neighbouring areas to evacuate on Tuesday after a Palestinian armed group launched rockets into Israel.

It came as the UN’s humanitarian affairs chief urged members of the UN Security Council to take action to “prevent genocide” in Gaza.

Speaking at a meeting in New York on Tuesday, Tom Fletcher accused Israel of “deliberately and unashamedly imposing inhumane conditions on civilians”.

He also called on Israel to lift its 10-week blockade on Gaza and criticised the Israeli-US plan to take over the distribution of humanitarian aid by using private companies, saying it was a “fig leaf for further violence and displacement” of Palestinians.

Israel’s envoy to the UN, Danny Danon, said the accusations were “baseless and outrageous”.

He insisted the existing system for aid was “broken” because it was being used to help Hamas’s war effort – an allegation both the UN and the armed group have denied.

Local health officials said a total of 70 people were killed in Israeli strikes across Gaza on Wednesday, most of them around Jabalia.

Residents of the northern area reported hearing multiple explosions overnight, and videos shared by activists showed flames lighting up the sky.

As he clambered over the rubble of a collapsed building, Hadi Moqbel, 42, said several members of his family were killed.

“They fired two rockets, they told us the house of Moqbel [had been hit],” he told Reuters news agency.

“We came running, we saw body parts on the ground, children killed, [a] woman killed and a baby killed… He was two months old.”

On Tuesday night, the Israeli military issued what it described as a “final warning” to residents of Jabalia town, Jabalia camp and five neighbouring areas.

It ordered them to evacuate immediately to shelters in Gaza City, saying Israeli forces would “attack with great force any area from which rockets are launched”.

Earlier, the military said three rockets launched from Gaza crossed into Israeli territory, triggering sirens in Israeli border communities and the town of Sderot. Two of the rockets were intercepted by the Israeli air force and the third fell in an open area, it added.

Palestinian Islamic Jihad, an armed group allied to Hamas, said it launched the rockets in response to what it called “Zionist massacres”.

Israel cut off all deliveries of aid and other supplies to Gaza on 2 March and resumed its offensive against Hamas on 18 March after the collapse of a two-month ceasefire.

The UN says 20% of the 2.1 million population has been displaced again, and that 70% of Gaza is now either within Israeli military “no-go” zones or under evacuation orders.

Severe shortages of food and fuel have forced all UN-supported bakeries and more than 60% of the 180 community kitchens providing hot meals to shut down.

A UN-backed assessment released on Monday warned that the entire population was facing high levels of acute food insecurity, with half a million people facing starvation.

The UN has said Israel is obliged under international law to ensure food and medical supplies for Gaza’s population. Israel has said it is complying with international law and there is no shortage of aid because thousands of lorry loads entered during the ceasefire.

Palestinians are hoping Hamas’s decision on Monday to release the last living Israeli-American hostage in Gaza, Edan Alexander, could pave the way for a possible new ceasefire deal with Israel and the end of the blockade.

Hamas said it freed Mr Alexander as a goodwill gesture to US President Donald Trump, who is visiting the Middle East this week.

On Wednesday, Trump told a summit of Gulf leaders in Riyadh that he was hopeful that more of the 58 hostages still being held by Hamas in Gaza would be freed.

“All hostages must be released as a stepping stone to peace,” he said. “I think that’s going to be happening.”

At the same time, his special envoys Steve Witkoff and Adam Boehler participated in a new round of talks in Qatar.

Witkoff told hostages’ relatives in Israel on Tuesday: “The president’s not going to tolerate anything other than everybody coming home.”

Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has said Israel is preparing to expand its military offensive in Gaza and insisted that nothing will stop the war.

He told injured reservist soldiers on Monday that Israeli forces would go into the territory in the coming days “with full force to complete the operation” to destroy Hamas.

“There will be no situation where we stop the war. A temporary ceasefire might happen, but we are going all the way,” he added.

On Tuesday, a massive Israeli air strike on the European hospital’s compound in Khan Younis killed at least 28 people, according to local officials.

The Israeli military described it as “a precise strike on Hamas terrorists who were operating in a command-and-control centre” underneath the hospital.

Israeli media reports said the target was Mohammed Sinwar, who is believed to have become the top Hamas leader in Gaza after his brother Yahya was killed by Israeli forces last October.

Israel launched a military campaign to destroy Hamas in response to an unprecedented cross-border attack on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage.

At least 52,928 people have been killed in Gaza since then, including 2,799 since the Israeli offensive resumed, according to the territory’s Hamas-run health ministry.

Former Uruguayan President José Mujica, known as “Pepe”, has died at the age of 89.

The ex-guerrilla who governed Uruguay from 2010 to 2015 was known as the world’s “poorest president” because of his modest lifestyle.

Current President Yamandú Orsi announced his predecessor’s death on X, writing: “thank you for everything you gave us and for your deep love for your people.”

The politician’s cause of death is not known but he had been suffering from oesophageal cancer.

Because of the simple way he lived as president, his criticism of consumerism and the social reforms he promoted – which, among other things, meant Uruguay became the first country to legalise the recreational use of marijuana – Mujica became a well-known political figure in Latin America and beyond.

His global popularity is unusual for a president of Uruguay, a country with just 3.4 million inhabitants where his legacy has also generated some controversy.

In fact, even though many tended to see Mujica as someone outside the political class, that was not the case.

He said his passion for politics, as well as for books and working the land, was passed on to him by his mother, who raised him in a middle-class home in Montevideo, the capital city.

As a young man, Mujica was a member of the National Party, one of Uruguay’s traditional political forces, which later became the centre-right opposition to his government.

In the 1960s, he helped set up the Tupamaros National Liberation Movement (MLN-T), a leftist urban guerrilla group that carried out assaults, kidnappings and executions, although he always maintained that he did not commit any murder.

Influenced by the Cuban revolution and international socialism, the MLN-T launched a campaign of clandestine resistance against the Uruguayan government, which at the time was constitutional and democratic, although the left accused it of being increasingly authoritarian.

During this period, Mujica was captured four times. On one of those occasions, in 1970, he was shot six times and nearly died.

He escaped from prison twice, on one occasion through a tunnel with 105 other MLN-T prisoners, in one of the largest escapes in Uruguayan prison history.

When the Uruguayan military staged a coup in 1973, they included him in a group of “nine hostages” who they threatened to kill if the guerrillas continued their attacks.

During the more than 14 years he spent in prison during the 1970s and 1980s, he was tortured and spent most of that time in harsh conditions and isolation, until he was freed in 1985 when Uruguay returned to democracy.

He used to say that during his time in prison, he experienced madness first hand, suffering from delusions and even talking to ants.

The day he was freed was his happiest memory, he says: “Becoming president was insignificant compared to that.”

A few years after his release, he served as a lawmaker, both in the Chamber of Representatives and in the Senate, the country’s lower and upper houses respectively.

In 2005, he became minister in the first government of the Frente Amplio, the Uruguayan leftist coalition, before becoming Uruguay’s president in 2010.

He was 74 years old at the time, and, to the rest of the world, still unknown.

His election marked an important moment for the Latin American left, which was already strong on the continent at that time. Mujica became leader alongside other left-wing presidents such as Luis Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil and Hugo Chávez in Venezuela.

However, Mujica governed in his own way, demonstrating pragmatism and audacity on several occasions, political commentators say.

During his administration, amid a fairly favourable international context, the Uruguayan economy grew at an average annual rate of 5.4%, poverty was reduced, and unemployment remained low.

Uruguay also drew global attention for the social laws passed by parliament during those years, such as the legalisation of abortion, the recognition of same-sex marriage, and state regulation of the marijuana market.

While in office, Mujica rejected moving into the presidential residence (a mansion), as heads of state around the world usually do.

Instead, he remained with his wife – politician and former guerrilla Lucía Topolansky – in their modest home on the outskirts of Montevideo, with no domestic help and little security.

This combined with the fact that he always dressed casually, that he was often seen driving his light blue 1987 Volkswagen Beetle and gave away a large portion of his salary, led some media outlets to call him “the world’s poorest president”.

But Mujica always rejected that title: “They say I’m the poorest president. No, I’m not,” he told me in a 2012 interview at his home. “Poor are those who want more […] because they’re in an endless race.”

Despite Mujica preaching austerity, his government did significantly increase public spending, widening the fiscal deficit and leading his opponents to accuse him of waste.

Mujica was also criticised for failing to reverse the growing problems in Uruguayan education, despite having promised that education would be a top priority for his administration.

However, unlike other leaders in the region, he was never accused of corruption or of undermining his country’s democracy.

By the end of his administration, Mujica had a high domestic popularity rating (close to 70%) and was elected senator, but also spent part of his time travelling the world after he stepped down as president.

“So what it is that catches the world’s attention? That I live with very little, a simple house, that I drive around in an old car? Then this world is crazy because it’s surprised by [what is] normal,” he reflected before leaving office.

Mujica retired from politics in 2020 though he remained a central figure in Uruguay.

His political heir, Yamandú Orsi, was elected president of Uruguay in November 2024 and his group within the Frente Amplio obtained the largest number of parliamentary seats since the country’s return to democracy.

Last year, Mujica announced he had cancer and references to his age and the inexorable proximity of death became more frequent – but he always accepted the final outcome as something natural, without drama.

In the last interview he gave the BBC in November last year, he said: “One knows that death is inevitable. And perhaps it’s like the salt of life.”

A British teenager has been arrested in Tbilisi, Georgia, on suspicion of drug offences.

Bella Culley, 18, from Billingham on Teesside, who had gone missing in Thailand, has been charged with illegally buying, possessing and importing large quantities of narcotics including marijuana.

Georgian Police have said, if found guilty, she could face up to 20 years in jail or life imprisonment.

Miss Culley did not speak during an initial hearing before she was sent to an all-female pre-trial detention facility in the city of Rustavi, her lawyer said.

Ia Todua, who has been appointed by the state to represent Miss Culley, confirmed she arrived in Georgia from Thailand on 10 May and had been held in temporary detention.

She said other lawyers had been in touch to represent Miss Culley and the British consular service planned a meeting.

Ms Todua said: “She was so clenched, she is a child, in my personal opinion.

“When she was explained the essence of the accusation she was worried to speak.

“When we asked her to testify at that moment she decided to choose silence.”

The Foreign Office has confirmed that it is “supporting the family of a British woman who is detained in Georgia”.

Georgian Police said officers had seized up to 12kg (26lbs) of marijuana and just over 2kg (4.4lbs) of the narcotic drug hashish in a travel bag at Tbilisi International Airport.

A spokesperson said the arrest was the result of a joint operation between multiple departments.

Ms Culley had been “charged with the illegal purchase and possession of a particularly large amount of narcotics, the illegal purchase and possession of the narcotic drug marijuana, and the illegal importation of the drug into Georgia”, the force said.

Cleveland Police has confirmed an 18-year-old woman from Billingham has been arrested in Georgia “on suspicion of drugs offences” and remains in custody.