Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan II
International Criminal Court
Case No. ICC-02/17-138 (2020)
- 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 had received information from victims, but neither a state nor the United Nations Security Council had formally referred these crimes to the prosecutor. Ultimately, the prosecutor filed a motion requesting authorization from the ICC’s pretrial chamber to initiate a formal criminal investigation into: (1) violent crimes against humanity allegedly committed by the Taliban and other armed nongovernment groups against civilians and (2) torture allegedly committed by the Afghan National Security Forces, the United States armed forces, and the United States Central Intelligence Agency. The pretrial chamber determined that the case had a reasonable basis and was likely admissible. However, because Article 53 stated that the prosecutor could decline to initiate an investigation that was not in the interests of justice, the pretrial chamber then examined whether the prosecutor’s proposed investigation was in the interests of justice—and determined that it was not. Based on this finding, the pretrial chamber declined to authorize the investigation. The prosecutor appealed to the ICC’s appeals chamber.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hofmanski, J.)
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.

