The following article was published in the March 2026 special issue of the International Review of Contemporary Law, the journal of the IADL, marking International Women’s Day.
Origins and Nature of the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal
The Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal (PPT) was formally established in Bologna in 1979, building on the institutional legacy of the Russell Tribunal II on Latin America (1974–1976) and the International Conference of Algiers, which concluded on 4 July 1976 with the adoption of the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Peoples, establishing self-determination as its guiding principle.[1] Within this framework, the PPT represents the formalization of a theoretical and political endeavor aimed at recognizing peoples, not only States, as legal subjects and safeguarding their fundamental rights within the international system.
The PPT belongs to the tradition of the so-called “people’s tribunals” or “opinion tribunals,” initiatives originally launched by Bertrand Russell and Jean-Paul Sartre in the context of the Vietnam War. With the establishment of the first Russell Tribunal (1966–1967), they sought to create an instrument of moral and political judgment, denouncing the risk of the “crime of silence” in response to what was considered an act of aggression perpetrated by a superpower against a people engaged in the struggle for self-determination. Russell and Sartre intended that the legacy of the Nuremberg Tribunal be seen not as an exceptional, historically circumscribed, and non-replicable episode, but as the first significant affirmation of a principle a principle destined to consolidate within the international order: namely, that the commission of international crimes entails the necessity of a formal ascertainment of responsibility, both at the level of state international responsibility and at that of individual criminal responsibility for those who, even when holding official positions, contributed to the commission of such crimes.
From this perspective, the Tribunal promoted by Russell and Sartre, and the subsequent establishment of the second Russell Tribunal and the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal, under the guidance of the Italian jurist Lelio Basso, can be situated within a broader evolutionary dynamic of contemporary international law. This dynamic has manifested, on the one hand, in the increasing recognition of the centrality of peoples’ rights as collective subjects within the international legal order, and on the other, in the development of forms of moral jurisdiction aimed at public denunciation and the legal characterization of crimes attributable primarily, though not exclusively, to states, thereby addressing the gaps resulting from the inertia or inadequacy of traditional institutional mechanisms.
In the face of the progressive proliferation, both over time and across regions, of bodies directly linked to the tradition inaugurated by Russell and Sartre, these experiences were long subject to criticism questioning their legitimacy. This reservation was exemplified by the position of French President Charles de Gaulle, who, in a letter addressed to Sartre, expressed his opposition both to the nature of the initiative and to the possibility of hosting a public session in Paris. Reference to de Gaulle’s position remains theoretically significant today, as it allows for a critical examination of the assumption that the exercise of judicial functions belongs exclusively to the state. It is precisely this state-centric conception of justice that, for a long time, relegated the early opinion tribunals in general, and the PPT in particular, to a merely imitative dimension, thereby minimizing their innovative significance and nature. In fact, their pioneering role lies in their ability to bring to public and international attention situations of particular gravity, prompting a collective assumption of responsibility aimed at preventing the entrenchment of impunity and, consequently, the escalation of violence against specific individuals and communities. Moreover, with specific regard to the PPT, its activity has assumed the function of a critical interrogation of existing legal categories in light of the documented violations in the various contexts under its review. This function has translated not only into the denunciation and fact-findings of events, but also into a targeted promotion of normative development in cases where international law has proven incomplete, inadequate, or ineffective.
Understanding the dialectical relationship that the PPT has maintained throughout its history with international law—conceived both as a set of existing positive norms and as an evolving horizon—makes it easier to grasp the plurality of meanings attributed to the exercise of justice in its practice. This exercise is not confined exclusively to the strictly judicial dimension, but unfolds as a complex practice that intertwines fact-finding, legal qualification, normative development, attribution of responsibility, and ethical-political mobilization. From this perspective, the interaction between the exercise of justice, social participation, and the recognition of victims’ centrality constitutes the core of the PPT’s experience.
The active engagement of the communities concerned and the valorization of victims’ voices as rights-holders guide the Tribunal’s work both procedurally and conceptually, defining its inherently composite nature, which is simultaneously legal, social, and political. In this context, the PPT assumes a primary function of acknowledging and responding to demands for transformation that in part exceed the notion of justice as framed by formalistic and positivist frameworks. Far from replacing state or international judicial organs—a reason why comparisons with formal jurisdictional institutions can often be limited— the Tribunal has operated as a space for the public emergence of violations and for the collective re-elaboration and reinterpretation of legal categories, offering victims not only a venue for denunciation but also a space for political, symbolic, and legal recognition of their claims.
The PPT Sessions: An Overview
In line with its role as an interlocutor and a mechanism for responding to the demands for justice of peoples — who, as victims of serious, ignored, or unpunished violations, seek recognition as rights-holders — the PPT has played an active role in the most significant phases of the evolution of human rights and peoples’ rights protection at the international level. The cases it has examined, along with the corresponding judgments[2] — more than fifty to date —attest to this function. It should be noted that only in 1998, two decades after the establishment of the PPT, and effectively in the early years of the new century, did the international community formally establish the International Criminal Court (ICC).
It is worth emphasizing the significance of an institution such as the PPT by briefly recalling its first case, that of the people of Western Sahara — an atypical remnant of the colonial era, lacking both identity and visibility even within the African community. The Sahrawi people were represented by a liberation movement spanning multiple territories and actors, from the Maghreb (Morocco and Algeria) to Spain, France, and the United Nations. The text of the judgment, pronounced and publicly presented in Brussels in 1979, became the first “identity card” of the Sahrawi people at the international level and served as a reference framework for the protection measures adopted by the United Nations, which remain in effect to this day. It should be noted, however, that the guidelines and recommendations issued by the PPT to recognize the right to self-determination — the central focus of the judgment — have still not been implemented within the international community of states.
While cases directly or indirectly related to post-colonial contexts entered the Tribunal’s agenda —Timor East (1981) being perhaps the most representative, with significant visibility even within the United Nations — the evolution of international scenarios required the Tribunal, on one hand, to adopt a broader interpretation of the guiding principle expressed in the Algiers Declaration, and on the other, to address responsibilities for violations of peoples’ right to self-determination. Through sessions and hearings on various forms of dictatorship, both civilian and military—and with an innovative and provocative intervention on the right to memory and the recognition of the Armenian genocide (1984), beginning with the session on the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank (1988; 1994)—the PPT responded to a demand for justice emanating from an extensive network of social movements operating at the international level. These movements represented, across state boundaries, emerging peoples in a society in which global powers exert an absolute dominance — independent of international human rights law — through economic and financial actors.
It is not possible to recount, through references that would inevitably be overly concise, the Tribunal’s history, which engages with highly diverse scenarios: from the operational strategies of multinational corporations across continents, to crimes against humanity, up to the genocides of the Tamil, Rohingya, and Colombian peoples, as well as the series of sessions dedicated, from 2017 and still ongoing, to the phenomenon of international migration. This latter case exemplifies the growing disconnection between state-based international law and its role as a universal guarantor of human rights. The 2018 update of the PPT Statute represents a normative synthesis of the competencies developed by the Tribunal throughout its jurisprudence and through its engagement with contexts of violations affecting individuals and communities, each defined by specific temporal and spatial characteristics[3]. These competencies extend from the so-called core crimes to economic, environmental, and systemic crimes, encapsulating over fifty years of activity and normative evolution.
In the context of this article, which aims to frame the Session on Afghan women, two distinct yet complementary moments in the trajectory of the PPT are particularly useful. The first concerns the Tribunal’s long-term engagement with Afghanistan, evidenced by two significant sessions held in Stockholm (1981) and Paris (1982), which addressed the Soviet occupation and included not only public hearings but also a fact-finding mission in the border area with Pakistan. Within a highly polarized political and cultural context, the most contentious aspect of these proceedings involved ensuring credible autonomy and comprehensive documentation, both in terms of the testimonies collected and the expertise mobilized throughout the preparation and conduct of the public hearings. The need to convene a second session, following the already extensive one in Stockholm, exemplifies most clearly the work’s exposure — more than any other session — to state political pressures and public opinion alignments. The texts of the Tribunal’s judgments constitute one of the few contributions produced in real time that combine the clarity of a public exercise in transparency with the courage to address the most rigorous categories of human and peoples’ rights in light of the inevitable ambiguities of historical reality.
The second moment also refers to two sessions, atypical in certain respects but essential for a broader understanding of the PPT’s core identity within a contemporary context marked by the structural impotence of international law. Both sessions were self-convened by the Tribunal to underscore, on the one hand, the urgency of public debate and, on the other, to highlight the TPP’s role not primarily as a formal-legal adjudicatory body, but as a platform of right to speak, capable of delivering justice at least by naming the perpetrators of heinous crimes against humanity, which undermine the very identity of human beings. The two sessions, separated by a decade, “name the crimes” and attempt to deliver justice with respect to two historical events. The first concerns what in 1992 was celebrated as the discovery — and in fact constituted the conquest — of America, considered the largest and best-documented genocide in known history. The second event pertains to the reintroduction of war as a legally recognized instrument to promote democracy and peace (2002).
The first event concerns the conquest of America coincides chronologically with the first formulation of the principles of international law. In this context, the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal (PPT) advances a duty of justice, highlighting how the use of law by those who declare themselves masters of history — politically, culturally, and militarily — to subordinate or suppress “the different” effectively constitutes a radically criminal project, whose memory is indispensable. The legalization of war — also notorious for the explicit manipulation of evidence regarding the risk of mass destruction — represents, in an era no longer of discoveries and conquests but of economic and military powers, the notion that human beings can be considered disposable. In this framework, weapons — whether economic, military, environmental, or legal —, can once again play a central and prioritized role in international society.
A final note may be relevant for contextualizing, at the regional level as well, the acceptance of and priority given to the request for a session on Afghan women. The PPT had already dedicated a session to the repressive policies of Erdoğan’s government against the Kurdish population in Turkey (2018), and more recently held a session on the situation in Rojava, Syria (2025). In the latter, the Tribunal emphasized the originality of women’s role, both in the resistance and victory against ISIS, and in creating and sustaining a model of democracy based on gender equality. This model, particularly within the framework of Öcalan’s recent policies, represents a unique opportunity to propose an alternative to the restructuring of a patriarchal and neocolonial order in a region that, over the past two decades, has been the stage of a tragic neocolonial geopolitics, characterized by the denial of any form of autonomy for peoples, ethnicities, and minorities.
Foundation and Rationale for the Session on Afghan Women
The request to initiate an investigative procedure on gender-based persecution in Afghanistan dates back to December 2024 and was submitted by four organizations engaged in human rights work at both national and international levels: Rawadari, Afghanistan Human Rights and Democracy Organization (AHRDO), Organization for Policy Research and Development Studies (DROPS), and Human Rights Defenders Plus (HRD+). The distinctive and composite identity of these requesting organizations — involved in monitoring and documentation activities, with particular attention to the situation of women and girls, as well as in advocacy and institutional reporting efforts, following a community-centered approach that prioritizes the victims — was clearly reflected in the request sent to the PPT. This request not only shaped the content of the session but also specified the reasons for the Tribunal’s intervention, considered consistent with its mandate.
The request to initiate proceedings was grounded in documented evidence attesting to the severity of the situation in the country. The Tribunal’s intervention was conceived as a response to the numerous decrees, measures, statements, and actions implemented by the de facto Taliban government, which assumed control of Afghanistan from 15 August 2021. In particular, the Tribunal was asked to open an investigative procedure to rule on crimes against humanity consisting of gender-based persecution, a charge formalized in the indictment preliminarily submitted in July 2025 and later in its final version in September 2025[4], one month prior to the public hearings held in Madrid on 8–9 October. The systematic nature of the persecution, invoked as the basis for the PPT’s intervention, was further situated within a context of “ongoing impunity,” understood not only as the lack of access to justice at the national level but also as a “lack of meaningful global reaction,”[5] with the consequent risk of normalizing a form of persecution capable of eroding the status of women not only in Afghanistan but also in other parts of the world.
The Tribunal’s adjudicatory action was also conceived, though distinct, in continuity with other ongoing international initiatives, which helped clarify the historical — both national and global — context in which the Tribunal was called to act, as well as the priorities expressed by the requesting organizations regarding the dynamics at the international level. Specifically, reference was made to the International Criminal Court initiative, materialized in July 2025 with the issuance of two arrest warrants against the Supreme Leader and the Chief Justice of the Taliban Supreme Court for crimes against humanity consisting of gender-based persecution. Similarly, attention was drawn to the intention expressed by certain States — including Germany, Canada, Australia, and the Netherlands — to bring a case before the International Court of Justice to establish Afghanistan’s responsibility for violating the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), representing an additional step toward international accountability. Alongside these two initiatives, considered particularly significant by the requesters, the recognition of gender apartheid as a potential new normative frontier for the protection of women’s rights was also highlighted. This, however, required careful and comprehensive assessment of responsibilities to prevent its use as merely symbolic or a diminishment of its legal significance.
These three perspectives for action simultaneously contained elements of concern and the need for change, justifying both the relevance and urgency of a PPT intervention, while guiding the configuration of the session in terms of content, methods, and objectives. In particular, the Tribunal’s action assumed significance given the uncertain horizon of international justice and the consequences that ongoing persecution and impunity could produce in the medium and long term for women’s lives and the social body. On this basis, the designation of the PPT as an “accountability forum”[6] acquired the significance of both a jurisprudential and normative urgency, grounded in the need expressed by women and survivors to be heard and seen, in response to the “silence”[7] of the international community, understood as the absence of coordinated action by the involved parties. For the PPT, this need acted as a counterbalance both to the international context of a crisis in the effectiveness of the human rights system and to the imperative to reverse the historical trajectory of a country that, in multiple phases, has experienced the normalization of fundamental rights violations in the name of regional security, economic interests and manipulation of religious ideologies.
Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal
[1] The Universal Declaration of the Rights of People, available at: https://permanentpeoplestribunal.org/algiers-charter/?lang=en (27 February 2026).
[2] The judgments of the PPT are available at: https://permanentpeoplestribunal.org/all-judgments/?lang=en
[3] The New Statute of the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal, 27 December 2018, available at: https://permanentpeoplestribunal.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Statute-of-the-PPT_ENG_FINAL.pdf, (26 February 2026).
[4] The Indictment submitted for the 55° PPT session on Women of Afghanistan, available at: https://permanentpeoplestribunal.org/indictment-submitted-to-the-ppt-session-on-women-of-afghanistan/?lang=en (2 March 2026). For the judgment and the documentation of the session see: https://permanentpeoplestribunal.org/women-of-afghanistan-madrid-october-8-10-2025/?lang=en, and https://afghanistantribunal.com/ (2 March 2026).
[5] Request for a People’s Tribunal on Gender Persecution in Afghanistan, December 2024, p. 2.
[6] Ibid., p. 2.
[7] Ibid., p. 4.
All articles published in the International Review of Contemporary Law reflect only the position of their author and not the position of the journal, nor of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers.