Skip to main content

PeakMetrics / Fact Checks

Crime & justice fact checks

Explore claims publishers have checked about crime & justice. Read their original ratings and follow the evidence.

6,853 published reviews in this topic

Deutsche Presse-AgenturCrime & justice

Die Corona-Regeln zur Eindämmung des Corona-Virus machen Alltägliches zu besonderen Situationen - auch Schlittenfahren und andere Freizeitaktivitäten im Schnee gehören dazu. Beispielsweise sollen auch am Rodelberg Abstände eingehalten und Ansammlungen vermieden werden. Weil das aus ihrer Sicht nicht geschehen war, löste die Polizei im Winter 2021 an manchen Rodelbergen in Deutschland das Schlittenfahren auf. Aber haben sich BürgerInnen deswegen gerächt und ein Polizeiauto unter Schnee vergraben? «Wer Unschuldigen den Schlitten und die Freude am Schnee raubt, bekommt Schnee ... viel Schnee.», heißt es in einem Facebookpost - belegt werden soll die Behauptung mit drei Bildern, auf denen zu sehen ist, wie ein Polizeiauto mit Schnee zugeschaufelt wird, ohne Orts- oder genauer Zeitangabe (hier archiviert).

Publisher’s rating: Die Fotos sind alt und haben keine aktuellen Bezug.

The post claimed that people retaliated against police for stopping sledding during the coronavirus restrictions by burying a police car in snow. The images were presented without a location or precise date. The investigation’s central question was whether they showed a recent incident connected to German sledding restrictions in winter 2020/2021. The review concludes that they did not: it reports that the photos had already been published or circulated before 2021, so they could not depict an event from that winter.

Fact CrescendoCrime & justice

Claim: police attacked any retired military officer for participating in delhi farmer protest

Publisher’s rating: False

Fact Crescendo investigated a post that combined images of a retired Sikh military officer and an injured Sikh man, presenting them as the same person and claiming the officer was attacked while participating in the farmers’ protest. The review reports that the post was shared on 7 December 2020. Its investigation found that the images showed two different people, so the image pairing did not establish that a retired officer had been attacked at the protest. (S1: “இந்த பதிவை Pravin Kumar என்பவர் 2020 டிசம்பர் 7ம் தேதி பதிவிட்டுள்ளார்.”; “சீக்கிய ராணுவ அதிகாரி மற்றும் கண்ணில் ஏற்பட்ட காயம் காரணமாக கட்டுப் போட்ட சீக்கியர் ஒருவரின் படத்தை இணைத்து பதிவிட்டுள்ளனர்.”) To identify the man in the military photograph, the review says it used reverse-image searching and found a Facebook post by his son, Sukhwinder Singh Sarpanch Uboke. The post identified the man as Captain Pratap Pal Singh Dhillon, said he had retired from the army in 1993, and was posted on 29 November 2020. The review also reports that Sukhwinder told Fact Crescendo his father was at home and had not joined the protest. (S1: “அப்போது படத்தில் இருப்பவரின் மகன் சுக்விந்தர் (Sukhwinder Singh Sarpanch Uboke) ராணுவ வீரர்களின் பொதுவான ஃபேஸ்புக் குழு பக்கத்தில் வெளியிட்ட பதிவு நமக்கு கிடைத்தது.”; “என் தந்தை கேப்டன் பிரதாப்பால் சிங் தில்லான் 1993ம் ஆண்டு ராணுவத்திலிருந்து ஓய்வு பெற்றார்.”; “என்னுடைய தந்தை போராட்டத்தில் பங்கேற்கவில்லை. அவர் வீட்டில்தான் உள்ளார்”) The injured man was identified separately by his grandson as farmer Balwant Singh Othal. The review reports that the grandson said Othal had joined the protest and was injured at the Haryana–Punjab border. Thus, the reported attack concerned the farmer, not the retired officer shown in the other photograph; the review says the two men’s resemblance was used to combine their images misleadingly. (S1: “காயம் அடைந்த அந்த விவசாயி என்னுடைய தாத்தா பல்வந்த் சிங் ஓட்டல்.”; “என்னுடைய தாத்தா விவசாயிகள் போராட்டத்தில் பங்கேற்றார். ஹரியானா – பஞ்சாப் எல்லையில் அவர் தாக்கப்பட்டார்.”; “இருவரின் தோற்ற ஒற்றுமையைப் பயன்படுத்தி ராணுவ அதிகாரி தாக்கப்பட்டார் என்று தவறான தகவல் சேர்த்துப் பகிர்ந்திருப்பது உறுதியாகிறது.”)

FACTLYCrime & justice

Photo of the 50-year-old rape victim in Badaun district of Uttar Pradesh

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The claim concerned a photo circulating as the image of the 50-year-old woman allegedly gang-raped and murdered inside a temple in Badaun district on 3 January 2021. FACTLY’s investigation found that the photo depicted a different woman and an earlier murder in Unnao district. It therefore concluded that the image did not show the Badaun victim. To trace the image, the review reports conducting a reverse image search. That search led to a similar image in a tweet posted on 24 December 2018, which identified the woman as Goldie Yadav and said she had been found dead in fields in Maurawan village, Unnao district. The review also describes a response from Unnao police to a post about the incident: police said they had taken the body into custody and sent it for post-mortem examination, and that a case had been registered and action was underway. As further corroboration, FACTLY says it found a Gaon Connection article reporting that Yadav was found dead in bushes on 24 December 2018. The review says that article identified a local man, Satish Yadav, as the killer, and that reporting about her death was also available from other news sources. These details place the photo in a 2018 Unnao case, rather than the January 2021 Badaun case; the shared image was misleadingly presented as showing the latter’s victim.

Vera FilesCrime & justice

Ang International Criminal Court ay walang hurisdiksyon sa Pilipinas o alinman sa mga opisyal nito dahil ang bansa ay hindi miyembro ng Rome Statute.

Publisher’s rating: Hindi totoo

Related reporting addresses a concrete test of the claim: Rodrigo Duterte’s challenge to the ICC’s jurisdiction over proceedings against him. GMA News reported that the Appeals Chamber rejected his appeal and confirmed the earlier decision rejecting his jurisdictional objection. The excerpt also gives the stated timing rationale: the prosecution’s preliminary examination began before the Philippines formally notified the court that it was withdrawing from the Rome Statute. That chronology contradicts the blanket assertion that withdrawal means the ICC cannot exercise jurisdiction over any Philippine official or case. This is evidence about Duterte’s case, not a ruling that the ICC has jurisdiction over every official or every matter involving the Philippines. The supplied excerpt does not set out the full legal reasoning or the limits of the ruling. A separate Tribune report describes Duterte’s defense as having long objected to the court’s jurisdiction and notes that the defense raised reasons for continued detention under the Rome Statute, but it does not provide additional detail on the withdrawal-timing analysis.

Vera FilesCrime & justice

The International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction over the Philippines or any of its officials because the country is not a member of the Rome Statute.

Publisher’s rating: False

Related reporting describes the ICC’s jurisdiction as applying to alleged crimes committed while the Philippines was still a member of the Rome Statute, despite the country’s later withdrawal. In 2025, ICC judges rejected Rodrigo Duterte’s challenge to the court’s authority to proceed against him. His lawyers argued that the Philippines had left before prosecutors formally opened an investigation, but the judges dismissed the challenge; the reported decision said countries may not use withdrawal to shield people from justice for alleged crimes already under consideration. The report says prosecutors announced a preliminary investigation in February 2018, the Philippines announced its withdrawal the following month, and the withdrawal took effect on March 16, 2019. The charges against Duterte cover alleged conduct from November 1, 2011, through that effective date. (S3) Later reporting also says the ICC retained jurisdiction over crimes committed while the Philippines was a member. An Associated Press report on Philippine authorities’ attempt to arrest former police chief Ronald dela Rosa describes him as wanted by the ICC in connection with the drug crackdown and says the court retained jurisdiction over crimes committed during the country’s membership. (S1) Taken together, these reports contradict the claim’s categorical assertion that withdrawal means the ICC has no jurisdiction over Philippine officials. They describe jurisdiction over alleged crimes within the relevant period, not unlimited jurisdiction over the Philippines or its officials for all conduct.