Afghanistan: UN Experts Welcome Arrest Warrants For Senior Taliban Leaders
'These arrest warrants mark a critical step forward for justice for the people of Afghanistan, especially women and girls, who, for nearly four years, have borne the brunt of the Taliban's institutionalised system of gender discrimination, oppression, domination, and persecution,' the experts said.
'It sends an important message that impunity will not last forever. To the victims and survivors, this action is a powerful affirmation that the international community sees, hears, and believes them. Their brave calls for action are at last being answered.'
The experts reminded States Parties to the Rome Statute of their obligation to help bring the wanted men to justice, and called for increased political, diplomatic, and financial support for the Court and its ongoing investigations.
'The ICC is a key pillar in a broader system of accountability and plays a crucial role in ensuring accountability for the most serious international crimes,' they said. 'We call on all States and in particular ICC Member States, to safeguard and support the Court and its independence and meet their obligations under the Rome Statute.'
The experts called for strengthened and sustained support for other, complementary initiatives to ensure accountability for gross human rights violations and international crimes in the country, as well as greater support for the people of Afghanistan. They particularly stressed the importance of a principled and coordinated strategy rooted in human rights.
'These arrest warrants must also send a clear message to Member States that there should be no normalisation of a regime which so explicitly denies the fundamental rights and dignity of more than half of the country's population,' the experts said. 'To those who seek to lend legitimacy to the Taliban we make it clear: you stand on the wrong side of history.'
*The experts:
Richard Bennett, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan;
Margaret Satterthwaite, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers;
Laura Nyirinkindi (Chair), Claudia Flores (Vice-Chair), Dorothy Estrada Tanck, Ivana Krstić, and Haina Lu, Working group on discrimination against women and girls;
Nahla Haidar, Chair of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women;
Graeme Reid, Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity;
Reem Alsalem, Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences;
Bernard Duhaime, Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence
Special Rapporteurs/Independent Experts/Working Groups are independent human rights experts appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council. Together, these experts are referred to as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. While the UN Human Rights office acts as the secretariat for Special Procedures, the experts serve in their individual capacity and are independent fromany government or organization, including OHCHR and the UN. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the UN or OHCHR.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
3 days ago
- Scoop
Afghanistan: UN Report Documents Human Rights Violations Of Forced Returnees
KABUL/GENEVA (24 July 2025) – A UN report published today documents the cases of individuals involuntarily returned to Afghanistan who have experienced serious human rights violations on the basis of their specific profiles. These violations have included torture and ill-treatment, arbitrary arrest and detention, and threats to personal security – at the hands of the de facto authorities. Since 2023, large numbers of Afghans have been involuntarily returned to the country, primarily by Pakistan and Iran. The report issued by the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan and the UN Human Rights Office found that groups of people returning to the country who were at particular risk of reprisals and other human rights violations by the de facto authorities were women and girls, individuals affiliated with the former government and its security forces, media workers and civil society. It is based on interviews conducted in 2024 with 49 individuals involuntarily returned to Afghanistan. 'Nobody should be sent back to a country where they face risk of persecution on account of their identity or personal history,' said UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk. 'In Afghanistan, this is even more pronounced for women and girls, who are subjected to a range of measures that amount to persecution on the basis of their gender alone.' Interviewees affiliated with the former government and its security forces revealed that they had been forced to go into hiding since returning due to fears of reprisals, despite the de facto authorities' publicly stated amnesty for all who had previously fought against them in the conflict. For women involuntarily returned to the country, the situation is particularly severe. One former TV reporter who left the country after the takeover in August 2021 due to earlier Taliban threats described how, after her involuntary return to Afghanistan, she and other women in similar situation found there that there were no job opportunities, no freedom of movement, and no access to education beyond grade six for women and girls. 'I can unequivocally state that I am effectively under house detention,' she said. A former government official described how, after his return in 2023, he was detained for two nights in a house where he was severely tortured, including beatings with sticks, cables and wood, waterboarding, and was subjected to a mock execution. His leg was broken as a result. Sending people back to a country where they are at risk of persecution, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, enforced disappearance or other irreparable harm, is in violation of the principle of non-refoulement and a serious breach of international law. The report urges States to ensure that individualised assessments are carried out before any return of persons to Afghanistan, and to refrain from returning any individuals at real risk of serious human rights violations to Afghanistan. States are also called on to increase the availability of safe pathways for Afghans at risk to leave the country and to remain safely in their territories without fear of detention for purposes of expulsion. Many hundreds of thousands of Afghans have been involuntarily returned from Pakistan and Iran, placing enormous pressure on the limited resources available to the de facto authorities to address their needs more generally. The report also recommends that States increase financial support to ensure that sustainable reintegration is possible. 'While the de facto authorities have responded in a coordinated manner to the significant influx of returnees to Afghanistan in recent years, more needs to be done to ensure that all returnees are included in society and have their human rights upheld,' said Roza Otunbayeva, the Secretary-General's Special Representative for Afghanistan and head of UNAMA. 'The participation of all Afghans in the social, political and economic life of the country is critical to the development and prosperity of the nation. I urge the de facto authorities to uphold their obligations under international law and their responsibilities to the Afghan people.'
Scoop
3 days ago
- Scoop
Torture, Threats And Arbitrary Arrests: UN Warns Of ‘Serious Abuses' Against Afghans Forced To Return
24 July 2025 These abuses include threats, cases of torture, mistreatment and arbitrary arrest and detention, according to the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The report said these violations were committed against Afghans 'based on their profile' and targeted women, media workers and civil society members as well as individuals affiliated with the former government that fell in 2021 and its security forces, despite the Taliban's claims that such individuals benefit from an amnesty. ' No one should be returned to a country where they are at risk of being persecuted because of their identity or personal history,' said Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. 'In Afghanistan, this situation is even more pronounced for women and girls, who are subjected to a series of measures that amount to persecution solely on the basis of their gender.' Since 2023 and the start of large-scale deportation campaigns launched by Iran and Pakistan, millions of Afghans have returned to their country. In 2025 alone, more than 1.8 million people have returned to Afghanistan, 1.5 million of them from Iran. Women under house arrest The UN refugee agency, UNHCR, recently estimated that the total could reach three million by the end of the year, returning to a country facing a severe humanitarian crisis. The situation of women forcibly returned is particularly dire. A former television journalist, who left the country after the Taliban's takeover in August 2021, described how, after being involuntarily returned to Afghanistan, she saw her prospects vanish. 'I am very worried for my personal safety and feel immense frustration with the current situation imposed on women in [my province]. I can unequivocally say that I am effectively under house arrest. There are no job opportunities, no freedom of movement and no access to education – whether to learn or to teach – for women and girls,' she testified. Many people are also forced to live in hiding since returning to Afghanistan due to real or feared threats from the de facto authorities. This is the case for individuals affiliated with the former government and its security forces, who have had to go into hiding for fear of reprisals, despite the public amnesty announced by the de facto authorities. Living in hiding A former official described how, after returning in 2023, he was detained for two nights in a house where he was severely tortured, beaten with sticks, cables and wood, subjected to water torture and faced a mock execution. Other refugees returned from Iran must frequently change locations to avoid being identified, such as one former judge. ' I try to stay hidden because I know that the prisoners who were detained because of my decisions are now senior government officials and are still looking for me. If they find me, I'm sure they'll kill me. They already threatened me when I was a judge,' they said. Faced with these serious abuses, the UN is urging States not to return anyone to Afghanistan who faces a real risk of serious human rights violations. ' Member States should expand resettlement opportunities for at-risk Afghans and ensure their protection, giving priority to those most likely to suffer human rights violations if returned to Afghanistan, including women and girls, individuals affiliated with the former government and security forces, media professionals, civil society activists and human rights defenders,' the report said.
Scoop
4 days ago
- Scoop
U.S. Court Agrees Trump Administration's ICC Sanctions Likely Violate First Amendment Rights Of Fortify Rights CEO
(Bangkok, July 23, 2025)—A U.S. federal court last week granted a preliminary injunction in Smith v. Trump, a lawsuit brought by Fortify Rights CEO Matthew Smith and human rights advocate Akila Radhakrishnan challenging the Trump administration's executive order imposing sanctions on officials of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and banning advocates from communicating with the ICC under threat of criminal prosecution. The court issued the order on July 17 and concluded that the advocates were likely to succeed on their claim that the speech restrictions imposed on them by the executive order violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects the right to freedom of speech. The preliminary injunction prohibits the administration from punishing the two advocates for their work related to the ICC while the litigation is pending. 'I'm grateful the court recognized the serious threat this executive order against the ICC poses to fundamental freedoms and to our ability to pursue accountability for mass atrocity crimes,' said Matthew Smith. 'This case is not only about our rights — it's about safeguarding the space for all human rights defenders to advocate for justice, speak truth to power, and demand international accountability without fear of reprisal.' Both Smith and Radhakrishnan are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)—a leading American organization that defends and promotes individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. As the lawsuit explains, the sanctions violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by prohibiting Smith, Radhakrishnan, and other Americans like them from speaking with the ICC's Office of the Prosecutor, including by providing legal advice, expert analysis, and evidence. 'Preventing our clients and others like them from doing critical human rights work with the ICC is unconstitutional, and we're heartened that the court saw that as well,' said Charlie Hogle, staff attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project. 'The First Amendment does not allow the government to impose sweeping limits on what Americans can say and who they can say it to.' Under the executive order, people in the U.S. who have devoted their lives to seeking justice for the victims of atrocities — like the genocide of Myanmar's Rohingya people, or gender-based violence committed against Afghan women under the Taliban — could face stiff penalties simply for exercising their constitutional right to engage and advocate with ICC investigators and prosecutors. The international community, including the United States, established the ICC in 1998 to help maintain international peace and security. The ICC investigates and prosecutes crimes of the severest magnitude — including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes — when domestic courts are unwilling or unable to do so. Today, 125 countries have joined the ICC's founding treaty, known as the Rome Statute. As the lawsuit explains, although the United States has not ratified the Rome Statute, it has supported the ICC's critical work on a wide range of matters. 'Fighting this order isn't only a defense of the work I do, or the court itself,' wrote Matthew Smith in an op-ed published June 6 in the New York Times. 'It's also a statement about what kind of country we want to be.' On Friday last week, the New York Times referred to the court's decision to grant a preliminary injunction 'a striking, if tentative, blow to the president's efforts to penalize and isolate the world's highest criminal court.' For more information about the lawsuit, please see the ACLU's webpage devoted to Smith v. Trump.
