Does the ICC’s Request for Warrants Against the Taliban’s Leaders Matter?

What led the ICC to make this move now, and what could it mean for Afghanistan?

Ahmadi: The ICC’s request for warrants against the Taliban’s emir, Haibatullah Akhundzada, and its chief justice, Abdul Hakim Haqqani, represents a significant milestone in the pursuit of justice and accountability for the Taliban’s extreme restrictions on women’s rights.

The ICC officially began its investigation shortly after the Taliban’s takeover in 2021 and has spent the last two years gathering exhaustive documentation of human rights violations and compiling evidence gathered by a dedicated coalition of organizations, human rights experts, legal advocates and survivors. Even while under investigation for committing gender persecution, the Taliban have increased their repressive measures. They have issued orders and decrees restricting women’s rights, most notably barring girls from public education above sixth grade, prohibiting women from traveling without a male companion and restricting women’s employment.

For many Afghans, this development carries the hope that the ICC’s warrants will extend beyond the two leaders to include other members of the Taliban’s leadership. These individuals, who operate as part of the Taliban’s machinery, have played pivotal roles in enabling and enforcing systemic crimes, particularly the widespread and institutionalized gender persecution that has stripped Afghan women and girls of their basic rights.

This step by the ICC is a significant validation of years of tireless efforts by Afghan civil society and human rights advocates, who have risked their lives to document the Taliban’s crimes. It highlights the critical importance of their work and serves as a powerful reminder that their advocacy is resonating on the international stage.  The ICC’s actions provide a renewed sense of purpose and a tangible sense of progress despite the many challenges that lie ahead.

Afghans, like the broader international community, understand that the individuals named in the arrest warrant request have not traveled abroad since seizing power and are unlikely to do so in a way that would require all parties to the Rome Statute to arrest people against whom there is an arrest warrant. Nevertheless, this action by the ICC carries immense symbolic and practical value. It sends a clear message that the plight of Afghan women and the broader atrocities committed by the Taliban have not been ignored. It also revives hope in the pursuit of justice, demonstrating that the global community acknowledges the suffering and remains committed to holding perpetrators accountable, no matter how long it takes.

The Taliban are unlikely to accept any arrest warrants quietly and may retaliate by imposing even harsher restrictions on Afghan women and girls, who are already suffering under their oppressive rules. In the past, the Taliban have often responded to criticism by tightening their control, using women as targets to show their defiance. This creates a serious risk of worsening the already difficult situation for women in Afghanistan. Because of this, it’s crucial for the international community — especially countries that have some level of contact or trade with the Taliban — to step up and apply stronger pressure.

These countries have a responsibility to push back against further restrictions on women and girls. This pressure should go beyond just words; it could include tying existing diplomatic relations to specific conditions, placing sanctions on Taliban leaders and working with others in the region to collectively push for women’s rights. At the same time, the world must also support Afghan women and the organizations fighting for their rights. This includes giving Afghan women platforms to speak out, making sure their voices are heard in global discussions and including them in decisions about Afghanistan’s future.

Why is the case being pursued by the ICC? Are there no alternative venues to hold the Taliban accountable for crimes committed against Afghan women?

Baillie: At present, there are no other venues available to Afghan women to seek justice for gender persecution. The ICC is a court of last resort. It is intended to consider cases that cannot be heard fully in national courts, typically because the courts lack the capacity to fairly and impartially decide cases related to atrocity crimes.

Since the 2021 Taliban takeover, Afghan courts have lost their independence and impartiality. Judges and prosecutors have been replaced with Taliban allies, including fighters and madrasa graduates who lack formal training in law and justice. Their decisions are frequently consistent with the Taliban’s restrictive interpretation of Shariah law rather than Afghan law, and, along with Taliban leadership, they have taken concerted steps to make the courts inaccessible to women. As a result, Afghan courts are unlikely to deliver credible justice — justice that recognizes and remedies the harms suffered by victims and holds perpetrators accountable — to Afghan women.

This is the first time gender crimes have been the main focus of an ICC case. Why is this important?

Baillie: The only crime alleged against Akhundzada and Haqqani is gender persecution, marking the first time an ICC prosecution has focused solely on the crime. The prosecutor’s application for arrest warrants now triggers a process of review by the judges to confirm the charges and issue the warrants. If arrest warrants are issued and prosecutions move forward, this will provide an important opportunity for the court not only to consider the situation of Afghan women but also to develop important precedent on the crime of persecution on the basis of gender.

Persecution on the basis of gender has been charged in three ICC cases previously, in Prosecutor v. Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz Ag Mohamed Ag Mahmoud for the treatment of women during the occupation of Timbuktu, Mali, and in Prosecutor v. Mahamat Said Abdel Kani and Prosecutor v. Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman for treatment of men forcibly conscripted into military service. In Al Hassan, the defendant was acquitted of the charge of gender persecution after the three-judge panel was unable to agree on whether the crime had been committed.

The potential prosecutions of Haibatullah and Haqqani would allow the court to not only consider whether and how gender persecution has been committed against Afghan women as a result of Taliban conduct but may also develop important precedent around the crime of persecution on the basis of gender. This precedent could support potential prosecutions in other contexts where women are systematically repressed, such as Iran.

Many commentators and advocates have argued that persecution is insufficient to describe the systematic repression and violence targeted toward Afghan women by the Taliban, and have labeled this treatment “gender apartheid.” Gender apartheid is not a recognized crime under international law, however, and cannot be prosecuted by the ICC.

How could this impact the Taliban’s international relations?

Worden: The ICC prosecutor’s indictment of the Taliban, even if confirmed, is unlikely to change the status quo in Afghanistan for suffering Afghan women and girls. The Taliban will not cooperate with the court, the indicted leaders do not travel and regional countries are not likely to change their relationship with the Taliban based on gender persecution charges by the ICC.