The report provides in-depth analysis of the Taliban’s acts to deprive Afghans of the fundamental right to work on the basis of gender — acts that may amount to the crime against humanity of gender persecution.

In January 2024, six organizations, made a submission to the Gender Apartheid Inquiry, an examination of the situation of women in Afghanistan and Iran conducted by a U.K. Parliamentary Panel and the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute. The Gender Apartheid Inquiry aims to identify practical and meaningful steps to address rights violations and crimes against women and girls within existing legal frameworks, while also exploring how these acts fit into the concept of gender apartheid.

In this submission, Human Rights Watch highlights concerns about the human rights situation in Afghanistan. They briefly describe the human rights violations that women and girls face. They conclude that “the pattern of abuse against women and girls in Afghanistan amounts to the crime against humanity of gender persecution.”

This blog post discusses judicial reasoning in the ICC’s Al Hassan case, particularly on gender-based persecution. While Judges Prost and Mindua found evidence of persecution on both religious and gender grounds, Judge Akane disagreed. The authors critique Akane’s decision and emphasize the broader implications for gender-based persecution in international law.

In this blog post, the authors discuss the ICC judgment in the Al Hassan case, marking the first trial for gender-based persecution. The judgment was divided, resulting in some convictions, but Al Hassan was acquitted of sexual violence, forced marriage, and gender-based persecution due to disagreements on duress and legal interpretation.

On June 26, 2024, Trial Chamber X of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued the Trial Judgment in the Al Hassan case, concerning international crimes in Timbuktu, Mali, by Ansar Dine and AQIM (Al Qaeda in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb). Despite charges  that included war crimes and crimes against humanity such as forced marriage and rape, Al Hassan was acquitted of all gender-related charges, leading to confusion and disappointment among victims and observers. Although the judgment highlighted the coercive environment in Timbuktu where forced marriages occurred, with Judge Prost convicting Al Hassan, Judges Mindua and Akane acquitted him for different reasons. Mindua cited duress, while Akane claimed a lack of nexus and contribution to the crimes. The majority opinion affirmed that forced marriages were perpetrated by Ansar Dine/AQIM, facilitated by Al Hassan. The judgment’s flaws, particularly in understanding the coercive context and gendered violence, make it likely to be appealed. The Appeals Chamber may yet bring justice and reparations for the victims.

Trial Chamber X of the International Criminal Court (ICC) delivered its judgment in the Al Hassan case, sparking significant discussion regarding the Chamber’s unclear stance on gender-based persecution. Initially, the case seemed poised to clarify the definition of ‘attack’ in war crimes, an issue that has long eluded the ICC. However, the insufficiency of evidence linking Al Hassan to the destruction of cultural sites in Timbuktu led to his acquittal without a legal characterization of these acts. This omission leaves unresolved questions about the scope of ‘attacks’ under international humanitarian law. The Al Hassan judgment missed an opportunity to provide clarity, thus perpetuating ambiguity in ICC jurisprudence.

This blog post explores the Al Hassan case, where he was convicted of multiple serious crimes, including religious persecution but was acquitted of gender-based persecution. The judges agreed on the religious grounds but differed on gender persecution, with duress being a factor that excluded Al Hassan’s responsibility for gender-related crimes. The author discusses why, although the decision to not convict on charges of gender persecution is disappointing, it was still groundbreaking, providing an analysis of the legal reasoning behind the judgement.  

In this post, the author discusses how the German parliament passed a law reforming international criminal law to enhance prosecution of international crimes, close gaps in liability, strengthen victims’ rights, and improve court judgments’ global impact. The law updates provisions on sexual violence, enforced disappearances, functional immunity, war crimes, and trial documentation procedures.

Since the Taliban regained power in Afghanistan after the US troop withdrawal in 2021, the situation for women has dramatically worsened, with severe restrictions on their rights and freedoms, including education, work, healthcare, and mobility. This article explores avenues for holding the Taliban accountable for their actions, focusing on legal frameworks such as the Rome Statute and the Ljubljana Convention. It discusses the concept of “gender apartheid” and its potential inclusion in international conventions to address the systematic persecution of women. However, it raises concerns about the effectiveness of this approach compared to utilizing existing legal mechanisms like gender persecution. The article also suggests leveraging the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court to issue arrest warrants against Taliban leaders, both to pursue accountability and prevent international recognition of their regime.