
'Violations of fundamental rights': ICC cracks down on Taliban; Supreme Leader, Chief Justice named
Taliban
leaders, accusing them of crimes against humanity for systematically persecuting women, girls, and others who defied the group's strict gender policies.
The warrants named Haibatullah Akhundzada, the Taliban's Supreme Leader, and Abdul Hakim Haqqani, the regime's Chief Justice.
According to a statement from the ICC's Pre-Trial Chamber II, there are 'reasonable grounds to believe' that both men were responsible for ordering, inducing, or soliciting crimes of persecution on gender and political grounds. These crimes are alleged to have taken place across Afghanistan from 15 August 2021—when the Taliban seized power through at least 20 January 2025.
'While the Taliban have imposed certain rules and prohibitions on the population as a whole, they have specifically targeted girls and women by reason of their gender, depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms,' the Chamber said.
The ICC detailed a broad and ongoing pattern of repression, stating that the Taliban had 'severely deprived, through decrees and edicts, girls and women of the rights to education, privacy and family life and the freedoms of movement, expression, thought, conscience and religion.'
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Invertir en Cervecería Nacional CFD podría proporcionarte un ingreso adicional
Empieza a invertir hoy
Registro
Undo
The court also highlighted abuses against those perceived to be 'allies of girls and women,' as well as individuals whose gender identity or sexual expression diverged from Taliban norms.
The judges said that gender persecution under Article 7(1)(h) of the Rome Statute includes not only direct violence but also 'systemic and institutionalised forms of harm,' such as the enforcement of discriminatory societal norms.
These, they concluded, have resulted in 'serious and systemic violations of fundamental rights' in Afghanistan.
Although the arrest warrants remain under seal to protect victims and witnesses, the Court said it was in the interests of justice to publicly confirm their existence. The judges noted that public awareness 'may contribute to the prevention of the further commission of these crimes.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Time of India
40 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump's 50% levy on Brazil shows world nothing is off limits
Donald Trump threatened to impose a 50% tariff on Brazil over its domestic political affairs, the most extreme case yet of the US president weaponizing trade policy to make unrelated demands. Trump cited the treatment of former President Jair Bolsonaro — a right-wing populist leader — in his letter to Brazil on Wednesday, calling on authorities to drop charges against him over an alleged coup attempt. 'This Trial should not be taking place. It is a Witch Hunt that should end IMMEDIATELY!' Trump wrote in the letter. Brazil's leftist leader Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva fired back in a social media post, saying his nation will not be 'tutored' by anyone. He added that the case against those who planned a coup is a matter solely for the country's justice system and 'not subject to interference or threat.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like A failing liver is taking anshuman away! Please help him! Donate For Health Donate Now 'Any unilateral rate hikes will be responded to using Brazil's economic reciprocity law,' Lula wrote. 'The sovereignty, respect and intransigent defense of the Brazilian people's interests are what guide our relations with the world.' Trump's latest threat, against a nation that sells fewer goods to the US than it buys, risks reinforcing concerns that formal trade agreements may offer limited protection against future tariff hikes. It also again shows that the rates Trump unveiled in April on 'Liberation Day' carry little meaning. Live Events Read More | Trump imposes 50% tariff on Brazil, Lula warns of 'reciprocal measures' Trump has previously used tariff threats to accomplish other geopolitical goals. In January, he announced sweeping tariffs on Colombia before abruptly pulling the threat after reaching a deal on the return of deported migrants. He's also put 20% tariffs on China for its alleged failure to stop the flow of fentanyl to the US, and threatened BRICS nations with higher duties for undermining the dollar. Unprecedented Still, it's unprecedented for the US to add a tariff onto a foreign country to stop a judicial proceeding, according to Stephen Olson, visiting senior fellow at ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute and a former US trade negotiator. 'It signals to US trade partners that any and all issues that catch Trump's attention could become a problematic part of the trade agenda,' Olson said. 'It also raises questions as to whether the reciprocal tariff negotiations will ever really settle anything.' So far, Trump's flurry of new warnings have done little to rattle global markets as they did when the so-called reciprocal tariffs were announced in April, with traders focusing on Trump's overall extension of the deadline to Aug. 1. That's effectively given trading partners an extension for talks as skepticism persists on Wall Street that he will follow through on his import taxes. Currency hit But the move on Brazil shook the real, which slumped as much as 2.9% against the US dollar. US equity futures retreated amid uncertainty over the Trump administration's trade policies, with S&P 500 contracts slipping 0.2%, even as stocks gained in Europe and Asia. The Brazil letter was one of several sent by Trump on Wednesday. He levied a 30% rate on Algeria, Libya, Iraq and Sri Lanka, with 25% duties on products from Brunei and Moldova and a 20% rate on goods from the Philippines. They were largely in line with rates Trump previously announced, though he lowered them for Iraq and Sri Lanka while raising them on the Philippines, a US ally. Brazil is the first country to receive one of Trump's tariff notifications that was not on the initial list of trading partners when he announced higher so-called reciprocal tariffs in April. And the letter to Brazil also presents a warning shot to the BRICS group of developing nations, which Trump has cast as a threat to the US dollar's status as the world's key currency. Bloomberg Read More | No Trump letter for India, yet: What's happening Brazil is unusual among Trump's most recent tariff targets because it runs a deficit in trade with the US, while almost all the others post large surpluses. In 2024, Brazil imported some $44 billion of American products, while US imports from Brazil were around $42 billion, according to the Census Bureau — putting it among the top 20 American trading partners. Asked what formula he was using to determine the appropriate duty rate for trading partners, Trump told reporters at a White House event on Wednesday that it was 'based on common sense, based on deficits, based on how we've been over the years, and based on raw numbers.' 'They're based on very, very substantial facts, and also past history,' he said. Trump added to uncertainty earlier this week by claiming he was 'not 100% firm' on that new cut-off date for talks. He has since sought to signal to investors and trading partners that he is committed to carrying out his tariff threats, vowing Tuesday that 'all money will be due and payable starting AUGUST 1, 2025 — No extensions will be granted' on country-specific levies. Deputy Treasury Secretary Michael Faulkender on Wednesday indicated that even if tariffs kicked into effect, negotiations could continue beyond the August deadline. 'There's enormous progress that has been made with many of these countries, and for some of them it is just finalizing some of the terms of the framework,' he said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. 'Now obviously, the details of the trade agreement will be worked out well beyond August 1st, but a general framework is the objective to have by August 1st.' Still, the Brazil threat signaled that even if nations strike trade deals with the US by the Aug. 1 deadline, they may still face tariff escalation afterward, according to economists at Barclays Plc. led by Brian Tan. BRICS, Copper 'We suspect President Trump's announcement of a 50% tariff on Brazil is likely to erode Emerging Asian policymakers' confidence that a deal would put an end to uncertainty over US trade policy,' they wrote. The president has also raised the stakes for two key trading partners, saying the European Union could receive a unilateral tariff rate soon despite progress in negotiations, and vowing to hit India with an additional 10% levy for its participation in the BRICS. He has raised the specter of more industry-specific tariffs, as well, floating a 50% rate on copper products that sent that metal climbing as high as 17% in New York on Tuesday, a record one-day spike. He also pitched tariffs as high as 200% on pharmaceutical imports if drug companies don't shift production to the US in the next year. Read More | Trump tariffs aim to settle scores with countries, no matter their size While Trump has touted his tariff notification letters as deals, even the actual agreements he has managed to strike during the negotiating period with the UK and Vietnam have been far short of comprehensive, leaving many details unclear. Trump also secured a truce with China to lower rates and ease the flow of critical earth minerals. The result of Trump's criticism of BRICS economies and his high tariff threats may end up being that it only brings those economies closer together, according to Steven Okun, founder and CEO of APAC Advisors. 'It signals that countries should continue to expect Trump to use tariffs to get what he wants — and there's limited scope for a reprieve,' he said by phone. 'He can add tariffs for whatever reason at any time."


NDTV
44 minutes ago
- NDTV
How Taliban Has Now Become A Pawn In India-Pak Power Play
Afghanistan, long a theatre of regional contestation, continues to serve as a strategic chessboard for India and Pakistan - two historic rivals with deeply intertwined security, strategic, and economic interests in the region. This geopolitical manoeuvring was exemplified in India's abstention at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on a resolution calling for political inclusion and the reversal of the Taliban's repressive policies. Justifying its stance, India's Permanent Representative to the UN, Parvathaneni Harish, argued that a 'business as usual' approach without targeted new initiatives would do little to mitigate terrorism in the region. Meanwhile, Pakistan's continued senior-level diplomatic engagement with the Taliban, even as it accuses the administration of harbouring anti-Pakistan militant outfits in Afghanistan, underlines the duplicity of its approach. Why Afghanistan Is Important For Both For both India and Pakistan, Afghanistan serves not just as a site for the externalisation of their broader conflict, but also as a crucial gateway to Central Asia, critical to their economic and trade ambitions. Access to energy corridors and untapped mineral resources, including rare earth elements, elevates Afghanistan's geostrategic value. At a January meeting this year between India's foreign secretary and the Taliban foreign minister, both sides agreed to promote the use of Iran's Chabahar Port to facilitate regional trade and commercial activities. Similarly, regional energy initiatives, such as the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline, hinge on political stability and secure transit through Afghan territory. Water resources also factor in these regional stakes. Upstream river systems originate in Afghanistan and flow into Pakistan, making them a vital source. New Delhi, aware of this dynamic, also sees potential leverage in the evolving regional water politics. Moreover, the dominant Pashtun community in Afghanistan remains central to both countries' strategic calculus, despite their differing motivations and methods. The Pashtun population, concentrated on both sides of the contested Durand Line and including a small minority in India, has historically influenced New Delhi and Islamabad's policies toward Kabul, adding a complex layer of ethno-political considerations to the equation. Terrorist Launchpads India's cautious approach is rooted in its experience with Pakistan-backed militant groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), which was formed in Afghanistan's Kunar province, and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), whose earlier iterations reportedly trained Kashmiri militants in camps such as Khalid bin Walid during the Taliban administration of the 1990s. India's current strategy is focused on providing humanitarian aid and engaging diplomatically with the Taliban to maintain goodwill, while simultaneously pressing for security assurances to prevent Afghanistan from once again becoming a launchpad for anti-India militant outfits. New Delhi remains wary of an Afghanistan under significant Pakistani influence. Both JeM and LeT have pledged allegiance to the Taliban and provided fighters to the outfit in the late 1990s, asserting their position as valuable allies. In return, the Taliban allowed these groups to operate camps, recruit fighters, and plot cross-border attacks. While the recent status remains obscure, a 2022 UN report suggests that LeT and JeM have maintained training camps in Afghanistan following the Taliban's 2021 takeover of Kabul. According to the report, JeM maintained eight training camps in Nangarhar province, three of which were directly under Taliban control, while LeT operated three camps in Nangarhar and Kunar provinces. Azhar also reportedly travelled to Afghanistan post-2021 to meet with senior Taliban leaders, seeking operational space and continued support for the outfit. Proxy Terror Islamabad has long outsourced militant activities to proxies operating from Afghan territory, while allowing the above-ground presence of organisations like JeM and LeT within Pakistan. These groups are known to operate seminaries, fundraising fronts, and charitable organisations under the guise of political and social work, thereby gaining a degree of legitimacy. A recent statement during an interview by Bilawal Bhutto, member of the National Assembly of Pakistan, suggesting that JeM chief Masood Azhar might be in Afghanistan and that Pakistan can't possibly take actions that are out of the purview of even NATO forces, suggests potential efforts to deflect responsibility and maintain plausible deniability. This strategy enables Pakistan to insulate itself from international scrutiny while continuing to indirectly support militant networks. Alongside its pragmatic engagement with the Taliban administration, it is essential for New Delhi to sustain international pressure through global fora such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and with the support of allied partners.


NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Taliban Tells Afghan, 45, Who Married 6-Year-Old: "Wait Till She's 9"
A six-year-old girl has allegedly been forced to marry a 45-year-old man in southern Afghanistan after her father sold her for money. According to US-based Afghan outlet the marriage occurred in Marjah district, with the man, who has two other wives, allegedly paying the child's family for the union. The Taliban, reportedly '"horrified" by the situation, intervened to prevent the man from taking the child to his home, stating she could be sent to her husband's household at the age of nine. Local Taliban authorities have not issued a statement, but they have so far blocked the girl from being taken to the man's residence. The girl's father and the groom were arrested in Marjah district, though no formal charges have been filed. The girl is currently with her parents, as reported by Hasht-e Subh Daily. The marriage arrangement involved the customary practice of walwar, where the bride price is set based on the girl's physical appearance, education, and perceived value. The incident has sparked intense outrage across social media, with users expressing shock, heartbreak, and condemnation over the situation. Photos from the ceremony, depicting the man alongside the noticeably young girl, have triggered strong backlash online and among human rights advocates. Child Marriages in Afghanistan Since the Taliban regained control of Afghanistan in 2021, the country has seen a significant increase in child and early marriages, driven by deepening poverty and stringent restrictions on women and girls, particularly the prohibition of female education. Notably, Afghanistan lacks a legal minimum age for marriage. The previous civil code, which established 16 as the minimum age for girls, has not been restored. According to a report by UN Women from last year, the Taliban's ban on girls' education has contributed to a 25% surge in child marriages and a 45% increase in early childbearing nationwide, exacerbating the vulnerability of young girls in an already precarious socio-economic landscape. Human rights organisations have consistently called for urgent international intervention, emphasising that child marriage poses severe risks to girls' physical, mental, and social well-being. These groups highlight that girls coerced into early marriages frequently endure dire consequences, including premature pregnancies, which carry heightened health risks, as well as domestic violence and profound social isolation. Activists stress that these practices not only violate fundamental human rights but also undermine Afghanistan's long-term social and economic stability, urging global leaders to prioritise measures that protect and empower young girls.