Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
International Criminal Court
Case No. ICC-02/17-33 (2019)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
From 2005 to 2015, the prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (ICC) conducted a preliminary investigation into possible international crimes in Afghanistan. The prosecutor faced considerable difficulty getting any cooperation from the relevant governments and did not formally preserve evidence during this period. Eventually, the prosecutor chose to open a formal criminal investigation under Article 15 of the Rome Statute into: (1) numerous violent crimes against humanity allegedly committed by the Taliban and other armed nongovernment groups against civilians, including women and children, to instill fear in the civilian population and (2) torture that was allegedly committed by or officially approved by the Afghan National Security Forces, the United States armed forces, and the United States Central Intelligence Agency. As required by Article 15 for prosecutor-initiated investigations, the prosecutor requested authorization from the ICC’s pretrial chamber to begin the official investigation. Evidence showed that neither Afghanistan nor the United States was actively conducting domestic criminal investigations or prosecutions of these alleged crimes. The ICC’s pretrial chamber reviewed the prosecutor’s authorization request.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 905,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,100 briefs, keyed to 995 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

