| 11.5°C Belfast

ICC judges approve probe into ‘war crimes’ in Afghanistan conflict

The Taliban, Afghan forces and US military and intelligence personnel could all be investigated.

Close

A boy inspect his damaged home after after an attack near the Bagram Air Base In Parwan province of Kabul, Afghanistan (Rahmat Gul/AP)

A boy inspect his damaged home after after an attack near the Bagram Air Base In Parwan province of Kabul, Afghanistan (Rahmat Gul/AP)

A boy inspect his damaged home after after an attack near the Bagram Air Base In Parwan province of Kabul, Afghanistan (Rahmat Gul/AP)

Appeals judges at the International Criminal Court gave the green light for prosecutors to open an investigation targeting the Taliban, Afghan forces and US military and intelligence personnel for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The global court upheld an appeal by prosecutors against a pre-trial chamber’s rejection in April last year of prosecutor Fatou Bensouda’s request to open a probe in Afghanistan.

Pre-trial judges last year acknowledged that widespread crimes have been committed in Afghanistan, but rejected the investigation saying it would not be in the interests of justice because the likely lack of cooperation meant convictions would ultimately be unlikely.

That decision drew fierce criticism from human rights organisations who said it neglected the desire of victims to see justice in Afghanistan and effectively rewarded states that refused to cooperate with the Hague-based court.

Even though an investigation has now been authorised, it remains to be seen if any suspects eventually indicted by prosecutors will appear in court in The Hague, both Afghanistan and the United States have strongly opposed the investigation and the US government refuses to cooperate with the global court.

At a hearing in December, prosecutors argued that pretrial judges at the global court overstepped their powers in April last year when they refused to authorise an investigation. The appeals judges agreed.

Fatou Bensouda (Middlesex University/PA)
Fatou Bensouda (Middlesex University/PA)

“The Appeals Chamber considers it appropriate to amend the appealed decision to the effect that the prosecutor is authorised to commence an investigation into alleged crimes committed on the territory of Afghanistan since May 1 2003, as well as other alleged crimes that have a nexus to the armed conflict in Afghanistan,” presiding judge Piotr Hofmanski said.

After a preliminary probe in Afghanistan that lasted more than a decade, Ms Bensouda asked judges in November 2017 to authorise a far-reaching investigation.

She said there is information that members of the US military and intelligence agencies “committed acts of torture, cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity, rape and sexual violence against conflict-related detainees in Afghanistan and other locations, principally in the 2003-2004 period”.

She also said the Taliban and other insurgent groups have killed more than 17,000 Afghan civilians since 2009, including some 7,000 targeted killings, and that Afghan security forces are suspected of torturing prisoners at government detention centres.

Qatar United States Afghanistan Peace Deal
US peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, left, and Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the Taliban group’s top political leader sign a peace agreement (Hussein Sayed/AP)

Thursday’s ruling comes days after an ambitious peace deal was signed by the US and the Taliban.

At a December hearing, the government of Afghanistan said it objected to the investigation and has set up a special unit to investigate war crimes.

The ICC is a court of last resort that only takes on cases if domestic jurisdictions are unable or unwilling to prosecute.

There was no official US delegation at December’s appeal hearing, but President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, Jay Sekulow, appeared on behalf of the European branch of the American Centre for Law and Justice and told judges that the US position wouldn’t change.

He told appeals judges that “it is not in the interests of justice to waste the court’s resources while ignoring the reality of principled non-cooperation”.

PA