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.
The People’s Tribunal for Women of Afghanistan:
Prosecutorial Team’s reflections on Legal Framing of Gender-Based Persecution and Gender Apartheid, Witness Selection, and Evidence Collection
- Introduction
The People’s Tribunal for Women of Afghanistan was convened under the auspices of the Rome-based Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal (PPT) in October and December of 2025 at the request of Afghan civil society organizations to address extreme restrictions imposed on women and girls under Taliban rule since August 2021. Unlike formal international courts, the Tribunal was a civil society–led, independent, moral, and normative forum designed to provide a platform for the women of Afghanistan to document, evaluate, and publicly articulate human rights violations. The aim of the Tribunal was to fill a gap where formal mechanisms are often slow, inaccessible, or politically constrained. It sought to amplify survivors’ voices, build a factual record, and catalyse global accountability efforts.
The historic, citizen-led People’s Tribunal for Women of Afghanistan (PTWA) was an initiative comparable to the People’s Tribunal on Myanmar and the ongoing Gaza Tribunal. It functioned as a symbolic, quasi-legal forum that heard testimonies, collected evidence, and delivered findings concerning the alleged ongoing atrocities committed by the Taliban. By characterising the Taliban’s conduct as crimes against humanity in the form of gender-based persecution and other inhumane acts of gender apartheid, the Tribunal pursued two primary objectives: first, to draw international attention to the unprecedented system of gender-based oppression imposed under Taliban rule and to document these violations; and second, to provide the women of Afghanistan with a platform to share their experiences of both persecution and resistance.
For the first time in Afghanistan’s protracted conflicts, the Tribunal served as a powerful platform through which victim-survivors were given a dedicated hearing to speak publicly about the atrocities committed against them. It created a space where their voices could be acknowledged, recorded, and validated at an international level.
In this piece, the prosecutorial team of the Tribunal reflects, for the first time, on the processes involved in legally framing gender-based persecution and the other inhumane acts constituting gender apartheid, as well as on the selection of witnesses and evidence collection. It examines the methodological, legal, and ethical considerations that shaped the Tribunal’s approach, including the challenges of evidence collection, ensuring survivor-centred procedures, and developing a coherent legal framework for gender-based persecution and gender apartheid.
- Legal Framing: Gender-based Persecution and other Inhumane Acts of Gender Apartheid and Sharia Law Analysis
This section examines the legal framework underpinning the Indictment issued by the PTWA in August 2025, focusing on three principal parts: (A) Gender-Based Persecution under Article 7(1)(h) of the Rome Statute; (B) Gender Apartheid as “Other Inhumane Acts” under Article 7(1)(k); and (C) Violations of International Human Rights Law, namely breaches of the international treaties and conventions to which Afghanistan remains a party. Moreover, while the characterisation of gender apartheid as an “other inhumane act” constituted a central innovation, the Indictment also identified additional acts by the Taliban that independently satisfied the criteria for crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute. It explores how the prosecutorial team conceptualised the Taliban’s policies not as isolated restrictions, but as elements of a widespread and systematic attack directed against women, girls, and gender-diverse persons on the basis of gender. By situating these measures within the framework of international criminal law and international human rights law, the prosecutors advanced the argument that the institutionalised exclusion, segregation, and subordination of women amounted to both gender-based persecution and gender apartheid. The prosecutorial team further highlighted that the Taliban’s actions constituted a gross violation of human rights, in breach of the core international human rights treaties to which Afghanistan is a party. Therefore, beyond the criminal law characterisation, the Indictment comprehensively addressed the Taliban’s conduct within the framework of international human rights law. It examined breaches not only of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), but of the full range of core international human rights treaties to which Afghanistan is a party, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and Convention against Torture (CAT). The analysis emphasised that many Taliban policies simultaneously violated multiple treaty obligations, demonstrating the interconnected and cumulative nature of these breaches.
With the assistance of experts in Sharia law, the Tribunal also undertook a rigorous legal analysis of the religious justifications invoked by the Taliban, assessing their doctrinal foundations and interpretative legitimacy. In the following section, we will assess the framing of gender-based persecution and other inhumane acts of gender apartheid.
B.1- Gender-based Persecution and Gross Violations of Human Rights
In section III. Charges of the indictment, the prosecutorial team framed gender-based persecution as a crime against humanity, under international criminal law, asserting that the Taliban’s decrees and policies did not constitute isolated sufferings but formed part of a widespread and systematic attack against women and girls. The prosecutors argued that restrictive measures such as bans on education, prohibitions on employment, limitations on freedom of movement, and exclusion from public and political life, were not discrete violations but rather integrated elements of an organised regime of oppression deliberately designed to deprive a targeted population of fundamental rights.
Hence, the indictment structured this argument around the core elements of persecution as recognised under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 7(1)(h).
- Severe deprivation of fundamental rights: the prosecutorial team demonstrated how the cumulative impact of Taliban policies resulted in grave denials of internationally recognised rights, including education, work, healthcare, mobility, and access to justice.
- Discriminatory intent: prosecutors established that these deprivations were imposed on the basis of gender, reflecting a deliberate intent to target and marginalise a clearly defined group.
- Context of a widespread or systematic attack: the indictment documented how these measures were institutionalised through official decrees, enforcement mechanisms, and socio‑legal structures, meeting the contextual threshold required for crimes against humanity.
Additionally, the prosecutorial team attempted to link its criminal law framing to violations of international human rights obligations binding on the Taliban as a de facto authority in Afghanistan. Framing it under C. Count 3: the State of Afghanistan, under the Taliban’s De Facto Control, Has Violated the Core Human Rights of Women and Girls in Afghanistan, the indictment referenced the ICCPR, which guarantees equality before the law and non-discrimination; the CEDAW, which requires comprehensive protection and elimination of discrimination against women; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which secures rights to education, work, health and living standards; and the Convention against Torture (CAT), which forbids cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment. By emphasising both the discriminatory intent behind the policies, their structural and intersectional impact, and the long‑term generational consequences, the indictment positioned gender‑based persecution not as mere discrimination but as an international crime, underscoring the need for individual criminal responsibility, systemic accountability, and sustained global action to address violations of both criminal and human‑rights law. Therefore, the prosecutorial team also maintained that many of the Taliban’s decrees and policies were not isolated violations of single legal instruments; rather, they constituted overlapping and mutually reinforcing breaches of numerous international conventions. Restrictions on education, employment, movement, and participation in public life engaged obligations under several treaties simultaneously, illustrating the systemic nature of the violations.
Therefore, the prosecutors tried to establish that the Taliban’s systematic oppression of women meets and exceeds the thresholds of crimes against humanity of gender-based persecutions as defined under Article 7(1)(h) of the Rome Statute of International Criminal Court (ICC).
B.2- Other Inhumane Act of Gender Apartheid
Under Count 2: The Taliban’s Actions Amount to “other inhumane acts” under the Rome Statute, the prosecutorial team framed that gender apartheid satisfying the criteria for “other inhumane acts” under Article 7(1)(k) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
In framing gender apartheid as other inhumane acts, the prosecutorial team deliberated for two main reasons. First, the scale and gravity of the Taliban’s gender-based persecution extends beyond the elements of crimes against humanity as traditionally defined, making the oppression of women and girls in Afghanistan unparalleled in severity and affecting nearly all aspects of their lives. The prosecutorial team therefore faced the challenge of capturing the full scope of violations under the framework of gender-based persecution. We concluded that framing the institutionalised nature of the Taliban’s oppression within the concept of gender apartheid was necessary to capture the full scope of harms and to advance a conceptual innovation in international criminal law that addresses the existing accountability gap. Second, during the Taliban’s first period in power in the late 1990s, women in Afghanistan described their lived experiences under Taliban rule as gender apartheid, calling for its recognition under international law. With the Taliban’s return to power in August 2021, there has been a unified and stronger call from Afghan women and their international allies for the codification of gender apartheid under international law. The prosecutorial team therefore framed gender apartheid not only to encompass the full spectrum of harm caused but also to respond to the expressed demands of women of Afghanistan for its international legal recognition.
Cognisant that gender apartheid is not yet codified under international law, gender apartheid was therefore framed as satisfying the criteria for “other inhumane acts” under Article 7(1)(k) of the Rome Statute defined as the systematic and institutionalised deprivation of women’s and girls’ fundamental rights solely on the basis of gender. The prosecutorial team has therefore argued that gender apartheid violates cogens norms prohibiting gender discrimination and meets the threshold for crimes against humanity. By causing severe physical and mental suffering through widespread exclusion from education, employment, public life, and freedom of movement, it aligns with ICC precedent recognising non-violent yet grave gender-based harms as prosecutable, including guidance from the ICC Office of the Prosecutor Gender-Based Crimes Policy (2023). This policy clarifies that “other inhumane acts” include acts beyond conventional violence, such as public humiliation, forced abortion, and prohibitions on girls’ education, that cause serious mental or physical harm. Because the Rome Statute criminalises both enumerated and non-enumerated acts of similar gravity, the prosecutors maintained that the Taliban’s systematic deprivation of women’s rights qualifies as “other inhumane acts … intentionally causing great suffering or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.”
Therefore, the prosecutorial team upheld that, where a de facto authority such as the Taliban enacts a comprehensive regime of gender-based oppression as part of a widespread or systematic attack on civilians, such conduct is indictable under the Rome Statute, and recognising it as an international crime reflects the severity of the harm and supports accountability.
- Witness Selection: Balancing Safety, Credibility and Representativity
A core strength of the PTWA lay in its careful and deliberate witness selection process, which was designed both to protect participants and to ensure credible, impactful testimonies.
The four civil society organisations involved in organising the Tribunal compiled an extensive list of witnesses affected by the Taliban’s rule and conducted initial interviews to document their experiences. They then shared this information, including brief statements from women both inside Afghanistan and in exile, with the prosecutorial team, which greatly assisted the process of witness selection.
Since many potential witnesses resided inside Afghanistan under threat from the Taliban, and those in exile continued to face security risks and intimidation, the prosecutorial team adopted a specific methodology to carefully mitigate these risks and ensure a diverse range of testimonies from the women of Afghanistan. However, the prosecutorial team deliberately refrained from including certain individuals residing inside Afghanistan whose participation could have endangered them or their families. Similarly, some potential witnesses in neighboring countries were excluded due to the risk of deportation or insecure legal status. These difficult decisions underscore not only the Tribunal’s commitment to do no harm but also highlight how restrictive asylum and migration policies in neighboring states can further silence victims of serious human rights violations. Considering these issues, the prosecutors’ methodology included the following:
- Preparation and vetting: Prosecutors conducted multiple interviews with prospective witnesses before hearing sessions, not only to verify the substance of their accounts but also to ensure they were prepared for the emotional and procedural realities of public testimony.
- Diversity of testimony: Witnesses reflected a range of experiences, from those who endured direct physical violence, arbitrary detention, or torture, to those who recounted the psychological and socio-political consequences of bans on employment, education, movement, access to justice and health care, and the unique experiences of women with disabilities. This diversity was deliberate, aiming to demonstrate that repression under the Taliban wasn’t limited to isolated incidents but formed part of a systemic pattern of oppression. The diversity of testimonies also considered the intersectional harms experienced under the Taliban, represented women from all over Afghanistan with distinct ethnic and lingual backgrounds.
- Security and anonymity: Witnesses were often identified by number rather than by full name to protect their identities and those of family members still in the country. Some witnesses appeared in person, while others provided voice recordings or written testimonies transmitted securely and read aloud during hearings by a volunteer in the audience.
This approach balanced protecting participants from retaliation with capturing the full scope of harms across Afghanistan’s society, placing survivors’ lived experiences at the centre of the Tribunal’s evidentiary records.
- Standards of Evidence and Proof
While the People’s Tribunal does not operate under rigid procedural rules like formal judicial institutions, the prosecutorial team made sure that the evidence collected both blended legal standards with principles of moral and normative legitimacy.
The prosecutors’ approach to evidence was a careful balance between moral authority and legal rigor. Unlike a criminal court, which requires proof “beyond reasonable doubt”, the Tribunal adopted a fact-finding methodology to assess whether there were reasonable and credible grounds to conclude that international crimes had occurred. This approach assisted the prosecutors to maintain legal seriousness while acknowledging its role as a people-centred forum rather than formal judicial body.
Therefore, a central methodological challenge in terms of evidence collection involved balancing normative advocacy with evidentiary neutrality. While the Tribunal was explicitly victim-centred and normatively engaged, the prosecutorial team sought to ensure that conclusions were grounded in corroborated evidence and consistent legal standards. This required careful vetting of testimonies, cross-referencing documentary sources, and excluding accounts that could not be sufficiently substantiated. However, not all collected testimonies were ultimately presented during hearings. In certain instances, accounts were excluded due to security concerns, insufficient corroboration, or the risk of retraumatisation. These exclusions were guided by both evidentiary prudence and survivor-centred ethical considerations. Additionally, the prosecutorial team adopted a trauma-informed approach in its engagement with witnesses. Questioning was structured to minimise retraumatisation, allow witnesses agency over the scope of their testimony, and prioritise psychological safety. This approach necessarily shaped both the format and content of evidentiary presentation.
Therefore, the evidence before the Tribunal consisted of several interlocking components. First, and most powerfully aligned with the Tribunal’s objective, it relied on direct survivor testimonies. The women of Afghanistan provided firsthand experiences of exclusion, repression, detention and fear. These testimonies were not treated as isolated narratives but were examined for internal consistency and cross-corroboration. This was supported by expert testimonies.
Secondly, the prosecutors relied heavily on documentary materials, including official Taliban decrees restricting women’s access to education, employment, public life, and movement. The Taliban decrees which targeted women as a group, were especially significant because they demonstrated their policy intent. Additionally, reports from international human rights organisations, different bodies within the United Nations, further corroborated patterns of systematic repression. Therefore, through this layered evidentiary record combining survivor accounts, expert analysis, and documentary proof, the prosecutors constructed a coherent picture of the Taliban’s widespread and institutionalised discrimination against women and girls of Afghanistan that meets the threshold of crimes against humanity of gender-based persecution and gender apartheid.
Nevertheless, there were also significant challenges in verifying evidentiary links. For instance, with respect to violations of the right to life, including arbitrary and extrajudicial killings of women and girls across Afghanistan, although we received credible information indicating that members of the Taliban were involved in several incidents, we lacked the means to independently verify the evidence and establish clear lines of liability attributable to specific Taliban members. Another constraint was the lack of access to certain regions of Afghanistan, limiting our witness representativity, as mentioned above, these limitations were shaped by significant security, logistical, and resource constraints.
- Conclusion
The People’s Tribunal for Women of Afghanistan represents both a legal intervention and a moral imperative in response to the systematic oppression of women and girls under Taliban rule. By framing gender-based persecution and gender apartheid within the architecture of international criminal law, the prosecutorial team sought to capture the full scope, structural nature, and generational impact of the harms inflicted. In doing so, the Tribunal not only documented grave violations but also advanced an important normative argument that evolving forms of institutionalised gender oppression must be met with corresponding legal evolution. It also brought sustained international attention to the suffering and resilience of women and girls in Afghanistan, ensuring that their voices remain central to global accountability efforts. While major evidentiary and accountability challenges remain, the Tribunal’s judgement will hopefully contribute towards closing impunity gaps, centring survivor voices, preventing the normalization of the Taliban’s repressive policies and strengthening the call for the recognition and codification of gender apartheid under international law.
In a broader sense, the People’s Tribunals play an important role in the development of international norms. As such people-centric approaches to international law could contribute to legal evolution, informal justice processes, and agenda-setting alongside formal judicial mechanisms. Therefore, the most significant contribution of the People’s Tribunal lies in advancing the concept of gender apartheid as a legal category, strengthening accountability discourse, or demonstrating the complementary function of informal justice mechanisms.
Azadah Raz Mohammad
Azadah Raz Mohammad is one of the four prosecutors of the People’s Tribunal for Women of Afghanistan and currently serves as a Legal Advisor at the End Gender Apartheid Campaign. Her previous work has focused on the role of law and justice reform in Afghanistan, where she worked closely with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, the Ministry of Justice, the Administrative Office of the President, and other national justice institutions. She has also served as an adjunct lecturer in law at the American University of Afghanistan.
Ms. Raz Mohammad holds an LLB from the University of Westminster, an LLM in International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights from the University of Essex, and a second LLM in International Criminal Law from Ohio State University, where she was a Fulbright Scholar. She is currently pursuing a PhD at Melbourne Law School.
In 2021, she co-founded the Ham Diley Campaign, a collective of human rights lawyers committed to pursuing accountability for international crimes committed in Afghanistan. As part of this work, she co-directs legal and policy research at the Afghanistan Support Clinic within Monash Law Clinics, where she also serves as a Teaching Associate.
Her academic and professional work focuses on international criminal law and international humanitarian law, with particular emphasis ongender justice, legal reform, and victim-centred approaches to accountability for international crimes. She also writes frequently on international criminal law and accountability through decolonial and gender-sensitive perspectives.
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.