Publications

Link to original letter with list of signatories We, the undersigned feminist, human rights and social justice organizations committed to gender equality and social justice, express deep concern regarding the framing of the call for a thematic report by the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls (SRVAW), which adopts a “sex-based” rather than a “gender-based” approach. This framing undermines decades of progress in advancing human rights and gender equality and risks confining cisgender women to patriarchal, protectionist policies by interpreting violence as rooted in biology. It further marginalizes vulnerable groups, including trans and gender-diverse persons, increasing the risk of violence and hatred. The Strategic Shift of the Focus from Real Perpetrators to an Oppressed Group The current mandate holder has unfortunately dedicated her tenure to attacking trans and gender-diverse people. Many of her calls and statements have indirectly framed trans people as an obstacle for cis women in achieving safety and equality. This dangerous narrative shifts focus away from patriarchal systems and cis-normative gender roles as the primary sources of violence, discrimination, and inequality. Instead, it positions trans people as scapegoats, enabling the very systems responsible for violence and oppression to avoid accountability. This approach undermines the broader fight for gender equality and harms cis women by reinforcing paternalistic and protectionist policies that uphold patriarchal power structures. Such policies, presented as “women’s protection,” constrain women within patriarchal systems rather than breaking away from patriarchal power dynamics altogether and empowering them, inter alia, through autonomy and equitable redistribution of power and resources. It is telling that anti-gender actors123 have often welcomed the current mandate holder’s reports and positions and have used her framing and recommendations to push for retrogressive language and to argue against the inclusion of gender-related language in resolutions. This alignment reveals how such framing serves regressive agendas, patriarchal systems, and anti-rights actors rather than advancing human rights for all.4 The current mandate holder has a history of efforts that have caused tangible harm, including: Undermining National and Regional Reforms: unsolicited interventions on rights-affirming reforms, such as the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill and the Council of Europe resolution on sex workers’ rights. Opposing UN Evidence-Based Policies: Ignoring and attacking established UN positions supporting trans and gender-diverse persons5 and sex workers,6 attempting to insert her mandate into resolutions at the Human Rights Council in violation of the mandate’s independent nature. Manipulating data: Erasing and ignoring contributions from rights holders and affected communities including sex workers, trans persons, and allied organizations in her thematic reports.7 Why Framing Violence as “Sex-Based” is a Problematic Lens The Special Rapporteur’s call framing violence as “sex-based” imposes a limited lens for understanding systemic violence, overlooks the structural root causes of such violence, thereby undermining access to an effective remedy and seeks to erase the well-established understanding of gender-based violence (GBV) within the UN system and international law. As defined by the World Health Organization: “Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time.”8 Gender has been the subject of decades of feminist scholarship and organizing, as well as the work of human rights mechanisms. It captures both biological elements and the social interpretations of those elements, as well as the systems of regulation surrounding them. Feminists have long argued that sex is always gender because power imbalances stem not from sexual (biological) elements themselves but from societal interpretations and regulations of those elements. Consequently, discussions about sex are inherently discussions about gender. The “sex-based” approach reduces the complex social and structural dynamics of violence to a rigid, biological understanding of sex, ignoring lived realities. By promoting a Western colonial patriarchal worldview that insists on the binary nature of sex, it disregards the lived experiences of millions of people. The notion of binary sex stems from Western colonial patriarchy, which historically used strict sex distinctions to assert white supremacy. Under this framework, Black and other racialized women were labeled as inherently gender non-conforming with catastrophic consequences on their health and rights. The category of “woman” has always been racialized, with white women expected to enforce binary gender norms violently upon anyone deemed non-conforming. This legacy underpins the harmful positions now advanced by the current mandate holder. In the real world, neither sex nor gender is binary. Sex comprises many elements, manifesting differently in individuals.9 The Special Rapporteur’s positions oversimplify these realities and perpetuate an alternative worldview rooted in exclusion and erasure. Even though Special Procedures have a crucial role in upholding the universality and indivisibility of human rights, the current mandate holder’s stance undermines progress on gender equality and reinforces harmful narratives that perpetuate violence and discrimination. Established Norms In the call for input, the mandate holder directly contradicts her position by justifying her use of “sex-based” violence with the following statement: “While the term ‘sex’ has not been defined in international law, Article 31 of the Vienna Declaration on the Law of Treaties (1969) mandates that treaties be interpreted ‘in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.’ The same article also specifies that States shall take into account—together with the context in which a treaty was concluded—‘any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between parties’ and any subsequent practice. Based on the aforementioned, sex is to be understood as a ‘biological category’ and a distinction between women and men as well as boys and girls. This is the understanding that the Special Rapporteur has for the purposes of the report.” Human rights mechanisms have clarified as early as 1989 that the prohibition of sex-based discrimination, as enshrined in core international human rights treaties, includes gender-based discrimination.10 In its General Recommendation 35, CEDAW reaffirmed this interpretation as including gender-based violence, which it defines as “violence which is directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately”. This definition has been accepted and recognised by over 30 years of State practice and now forms a principle of customary international law.11 Furthermore, the term “gender-based violence” is recognised by CEDAW as a more precise and preferred term to “violence against women” as it makes explicit “the gendered causes and impacts of the violence”, and emphasizes the social structures and causes of the violence. This is a position that previous mandate holders have always endorsed.12 These standards cover all women, including trans and intersex women and gender-diverse people,13 who are disproportionately targeted for social control based on their perceived transgressions of established gender roles and sexuality.14 UN agencies, Treaty Bodies, and past Special Procedures mandate holders have long promoted a gender-based lens to address violence, rooted in the principles of non-discrimination, universality, and interdependence of rights. Gender as a concept was not developed at the time when human rights law was created. Feminist scholarship and human rights mechanisms have redefined the concept of “sex.” Unfortunately, the current mandate holder misinterprets “sex” in bad faith by ignoring decades of feminist scholarship and the work of human rights mechanisms in defining the concept of sex and gender, undermining decades of coherent UN agency, Treaty Body, and Special Procedures’ analysis of gender. Call to Action We urge all human rights mechanisms and bodies, including UN Treaty Bodies, Special Procedures Mandate Holders, and UN Agencies to: Adopt an inclusive, evidence-based gender lens, recognizing that violence is rooted in structural inequalities and social norms, expectations and stereotypes, not biology alone. Refrain from divisive and biologically deterministic narratives that undermine the rights of cis women and trans and gender-diverse persons. Center the autonomy, agency, and voices of all rights-holders, especially those directly impacted by patriarchal violence. Our Position on Participation We respectfully call on civil society organizations, academics, and other stakeholders not to validate the problematic “sex-based” framing, but instead to engage through advocacy and submissions to this call for inputs which challenge the flawed premise and reaffirms the indivisibility and universality of human rights. Violence against women and girls cannot be addressed without an intersectional and inclusive gender-based framework. Rights belong to all humans; there are no separate or special categories of rights beyond those grounded in universal principles. Let us collectively uphold this vision.

Link to original letter with list of signatories We come together as international civil society organizations spanning a range of sectors and geographies to oppose the global gag rule (also known as the Mexico City Policy) and call for a permanent end to this harmful policy. This policy prohibits U.S. assistance for critical global challenges to certain organizations if they provide, counsel, refer, or advocate for legal abortion services in their own country, even if these activities are protected by local law, despite being supported solely with non-U.S. funds. Since 1984, the policy has come and gone with changes in the U.S. presidency, leaving the health and lives of millions of people vulnerable to political whims. As a result of this policy, lifesaving health services have been dismantled in communities around the world, many of which already face systematic barriers to care. Clinics have been forced to close, outreach efforts to underserved populations have been eliminated, and people have lost access to contraception and many other essential health services, resulting in more unintended pregnancies, more unsafe abortions, and more deaths. Implementing organizations who comply with the global gag rule face costly, risky, intensive administrative burdens that limit efficient program implementation and partner cooperation. When in effect, the global gag rule restricts the medical information that health care providers can offer, limits free speech, and stifles local advocacy efforts by prohibiting people from participating in public policy debates. Numerous research studies over the course of decades and the direct experiences of organizations working in diverse settings demonstrate that the global gag rule impedes access to a range of health services – including reproductive, maternal and child health care, HIV prevention and treatment, tuberculosis, malaria and even some nutrition programs – by cutting off funding for experienced providers. Even when the global gag rule is rescinded, the policy’s chilling effect persists due to fear that it will be reinstated by a future U.S. president. Even when presidents lift the global gag rule immediately upon taking office, high-quality health partners face long delays in resuming participation in U.S. global health programs. Permanent repeal of the policy is urgently needed to promote sustainable progress in global health and to build and maintain long-term partnerships between the U.S. government, local organizations, and the communities that they serve. We must end this destructive cycle of widespread fear and confusion that disrupts local advocacy efforts and long-standing partnerships, and undercuts the vital work of organizations on the ground. Ending the global gag rule for good would lift the threat of reinstatement and allow U.S.-funded programs to reach their full potential, thus ensuring that the needs and rights of people around the world are fulfilled. We are in solidarity with those opposing the global gag rule and those harmed by it. Together, we call for urgent action to end this policy once and for all and to advance health, human rights, and gender equality across the globe.

Link to original letter with list of signatories To Members of the 119th Congress and the incoming Presidential Administration of Donald J. Trump: The undersigned organizations write to express grave concerns and to unequivocally oppose the use of the sanctions authority of the United States to attack the International Criminal Court (ICC), an independent judicial institution dedicated to combating impunity for the gravest crimes known to humanity. The ICC performs a vital role in international affairs by investigating the worst international crimes that shock the collective conscience of humanity and investigating those accused of committing those crimes. It does so in a manner that protects the due process rights of the accused, the sovereignty of states, including the United States, and the rights of victims. As has been widely observed, supporting the work of the Court is in the interest of the United States, and sanctioning it, conversely, undermines important US interests. The positive role of the ICC has been recognized through previous bipartisan support for investigations into war crimes allegedly perpetrated by Russian officials in the Ukraine conflict (S.Res.531 and H.Res.963), attempts to bring justice for the victims of gross human rights violations in Myanmar, and as a pathway to accountability for perpetrators of atrocities in Sudan. Many of the undersigned spoke out when the previous Trump administration subjected two senior ICC officials to sanctions and travel restrictions. At that time, we cautioned that it was “uniquely dangerous, extreme, and unprecedented to utilize a mechanism designed to penalize criminals, their aiders, and abettors, against an independent judicial institution.” The previous sanctions against the Prosecutor and a member of her team raised serious concerns about the ICC’s ability to fulfill its mandate, including the Prosecutor’s obligation to report to the UN Security Council on the situations in Darfur and Libya, and to participate in the annual meetings of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP), the ICC’s oversight management and legislative body, where the US participates as an Observer. In 2024, the House of Representatives passed the so-called “Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act.” Although the bill’s full scope was ambiguous, the legislative intent was to punish foreign persons who aid, materially assist, or provide financial support for efforts by the ICC to undertake certain investigations and prosecutions. The Biden administration strongly opposed the bill and the previous Senate did not vote on the legislation. As human rights, legal, and faith-based organizations, the foundations of civil society, as well as individuals who have dedicated their careers to these causes, we decry attempts to attack an independent judicial institution and urge the 119th Congress and incoming administration to reconsider this misguided position. Asset freezes and entry restrictions are tools intended to combat individuals and entities constituting a threat to US national security, such as kleptocrats committing grand corruption, gross human rights offenders, and perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity. By applying these measures to a court that 125 countries – and on two occasions, the United Nations Security Council – have entrusted with providing accountability for atrocity crimes, the United States has brought upon itself the stigma of siding with impunity over justice. In fact, Russia sanctioned some of the court’s judges last year, and the United States should not similarly adopt such vindictive tools. Such actions jeopardize the ability of desperate victims across all the court’s investigations to access justice, weaken the credibility of sanction tools in other contexts, and place the United States at odds with its closest allies. The ICC represents and constitutes part of a global system of international justice of which the United States was a chief architect at Nuremberg and beyond. Today, the ICC, alongside other tribunals, regional mechanisms, and national courts, is carrying forward these efforts through investigations and prosecutions that could help realize justice for atrocity victims from Sudan to Myanmar to Ukraine. As a court of last resort, the ICC only can intervene when and where a State has demonstrated unwillingness or inability to hold its nationals to account for crimes within the Court’s jurisdiction. The ICC therefore provides an essential backstop for victims who have no other recourse to justice. The use of sanctions has the potential for wide-reaching impact against this institution dedicated to advancing justice for victims. The proposed sanctions were prompted by the arrest warrants issued on November 21, 2024, for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. Practically, sanctioning the court or its officials would halt its work across all situations that are under its purview, including those critically important to the United States, such as the situation in Ukraine and in Sudan. US citizens who represent victims and survivors also could be implicated for their work to help achieve justice for perpetrators of atrocity crimes. The idea that justice can be selectively used to advance geopolitical concerns is a moral affront to all those who are in peril and an abrogation of the universality of human rights. An attack on the ICC in one situation is an attack on the rule of law itself. At an historical moment when the global rule of law is under attack from multiple fronts, institutions like the International Criminal Court are needed more than ever to advance human rights protections and the universal goal of preventing future atrocities and advancing justice for victims. Instead, sanctions send a signal that could embolden authoritarian regimes and others with reason to fear accountability who seek to evade justice. It is essential that the United States answer any allegation of wrongdoing in a manner that does not betray the cause of global justice, abandon international cooperation, or compromise support for human dignity and rights. It would be a terrible irony if a tool designed to penalize gross violators of human rights could instead contribute to their continued impunity. We urge other governments, Members of Congress, and advocates for victims everywhere to raise their voices to oppose attacks on the independence and autonomy of international judicial institutions like the ICC. We invite allies of justice to join us in standing against these destructive measures. 

Idaho’s “Defense of Life Act” (“Act” or “Idaho’s Law”), a near-total abortion ban, restricts access to necessary emergency reproductive healthcare, exacerbating preventable maternal mortality and morbidity and otherwise negatively impacting pregnant people. The law’s narrow exception for life-saving care will not prevent or mitigate these harms and will leave patients without access to emergency reproductive healthcare. The United States has ratified several human rights treaties that require it to guarantee access to safe and legal reproductive health services, in particular in emergencies or acute medical crises governed by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”). Under these treaties, the U.S. is required to respect, protect and fulfil the rights to life; freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; non-discrimination; and privacy. Idaho’s draconian abortion law fails to respect these rights and violates the U.S.’s treaty obligations. This violation of the U.S.’s treaty obligations militates in favor of affirming the preliminary injunction issued by the District Court. Causing the U.S. to violate its international obligations will result in irreparable harm and is not in the public interest.

Download paper Reproductive violence is a distinct form of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) targeting reproductive autonomy, a right protected under international law. The impacts of reproductive violence can be as profound, damaging, and long-lasting as those accompanying other forms of violence and can compound the pain of other forms of SGBV. Yet recognition of reproductive violence as a distinct harm has been overlooked historically, including in international investigations of atrocities, conflict, humanitarian crises, or other instability. International investigations often play a key role in guiding international responses to crises, and the omission of reproductive violence can thus have significant ripple effects: victims may go un- or under-recognized; vital reproductive services may be absent from humanitarian responses; prevention efforts may fail to address the risks and inflammatory impacts of this violence; and justice, accountability, and reparations efforts may omit reproductive harms from consideration. This paper analyses the documentation of reproductive violence to date by UN-mandated fact-finding and other investigative mechanisms. To enhance documentation going forward, the paper also provides guidance on the international law governing reproductive harms. The guidance explains how international criminal, humanitarian, and human rights laws prohibit reproductive violence—including forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, forced abortion, forced contraceptive use, restricting access to reproductive care, destroying essential reproductive healthcare infrastructure, and other forms of reproductive violence. Powered By EmbedPress

Download letter Dear Excellencies, We, the undersigned Afghanistan and international human rights and civil society organisations, write to you once again to share our concerns regarding the grave human rights and humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan and to reiterate the urgent need for accountability for gross, widespread and systematic human rights violations and abuses that continue to be committed across Afghanistan, including crimes under international law, some of which may amount to crimes against humanity. We call on the UN Human Rights Council, at its upcoming 57th regular session to: renew and strengthen with the necessary resources, the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan; establish a parallel and complementary independent mechanism to investigate, collect, consolidate, preserve and analyse evidence of human rights violations and abuses and crimes under international law; and ensure continuation of a dedicated space for enhanced interactive dialogue on the situation of women and girls in Afghanistan with meaningful follow-up to the report of the Special Rapporteur on Taliban’s repression against women and girls. We further urge you to seriously consider the calls for the recognition and codification of gender apartheid as a crime under international law. This letter, just as in our previous letter shared ahead of the 54th session of the Council in September 2023, is an outcome of consultations with Afghanistan’s civil society and human rights defenders located inside and outside of the country and enjoys broad support from Afghanistan’s civil society. In the past three years, the Taliban have completely reversed measures previously adopted to enhance the promotion and protection of human rights in Afghanistan. The Taliban, as the de facto authority, have spurned Afghanistan’s international obligations and have continued to introduce arbitrary, unlawful and wide-ranging restrictions on human rights. With bans on secondary and higher education, employment, freedom of movement, women’s faces and voices in public, and other rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as access to essential services, women and girls are being erased from society According to the report of the Special Rapporteur on Afghanistan, in the months between June 2023 and March 2024 alone, the de facto authorities issued over 52 new edicts that impose further restrictions the rights of women and girls, effectively consolidating an institutionalised system of gender persecution, which is a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. According to the Special Rapporteur’s report and the Working Group on discrimination against women and girls, the situation of human rights in Afghanistan with respect to women and girls is tantamount to “an institutionalized framework of gender apartheid”. The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) has documented 1033 instances of use of  force by the Ministry for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (MPVPV) , with a view to implementing arbitrary and unlawful restrictions on the human rights of women and girls. Moreover, women and girls belonging to minority communities and LGBTQI+ people continue to experience multiple layers of discrimination. Marginalisation and exclusion of religious and ethnic minorities in Afghanistan has been compounded under the Taliban. Religious communities, including Shias, Ismailis, Sikhs and Hindus, are banned from organising or participating in their religious and cultural ceremonies. Amid the deepening humanitarian and economic crises, the Taliban’s restrictions on women’s right to work have obstructed the monitoring of aid deliveries, notably to women-headed households and groups in vulnerable situations. Additionally, threats against minorities, in particular ethnic minorities like Hazaras, are further exacerbated by targeted attacks by armed groups, such as Islamic State of Khurasan Province (ISKP) operating in the country. LGBTQI+ people face compounded exclusion as well, and face unlawful detention, extortion, torture and killing. All forms of dissent and criticism of the Taliban result in harsh, arbitrary punishment and violent reprisals. Peaceful protestors, in particular women who protest the Taliban’s policies, human rights defenders, civil society activists, journalists, artists, musicians, judges, lawyers, educators, critics, and others continue to be targeted. They have been threatened, arrested, and subjected to arbitrary detention and as well as torture and other ill-treatment. Former government and security officials have been subjected to extrajudicial, arbitrary, and summary killings as well as mass executions and enforced disappearances. The Taliban have also carried out cruel and inhumane punishments including public executions, flogging and other forms of corporal punishment. Afghanistan’s formerly independent legal and judicial systems have been replaced by a system that is based on the Taliban’s own arbitrary interpretation of religious edicts and rulings, and no longer function in a way that could protect the rights of the people of Afghanistan. As a joint statement by over 28 UN Special Procedure mandates on 14 August 2024 makes clear “avenues for justice within Taliban-controlled Afghanistan [are] virtually non-existent.” This situation is worsened by the fact that the Taliban have prohibited the Special Rapporteur on Afghanistan from accessing the country. The vast majority of crimes under international law and other serious human rights violations from the past, including summary killings and executions, tens of thousands of enforced disappearances, arbitrary detentions, torture and other ill-treatment by the former government, international forces, and armed groups who held power in parts of the country, remain unpunished. All of these violations have been committed with complete impunity, fuelling further cycles of violations and abuses. In this context, establishing a robust independent international investigative and accountability mechanism, with a mandate commensurate with the gravity and scale of the systematic and widespread violations and abuses of human rights, is necessary to advance justice and accountability in Afghanistan. The mechanism should have a mandate and sufficient financial and technical resources to adequately investigate, collect, consolidate, preserve and analyse evidence, with a view to facilitating future criminal proceedings in national and international courts. Such a mechanism should be designed to advance accountability for past and ongoing violations and abuses of human rights and crimes under international law, including those faced by women and girls and LGBTQI+ people across Afghanistan. Therefore, we call upon Member and Observer States of the U.N. Human Rights Council, in addition to renewing the crucial mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, to establish an independent international mechanism for Afghanistan with a mandate to: Investigate all allegations of past and ongoing violations and abuses of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, and international crimes, including the crimes against humanity of gender persecution; Collect, consolidate, and analyse evidence, and prepare files on past and ongoing violations and abuses of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, including crimes under international law, with due consideration of the gender, child and minority dimensions surrounding such violations and abuses; and systematically record and preserve all information, documentation and evidence, including specific crimes against women and girls, in a manner consistent with international law standards and in view of future legal proceedings and accountability efforts; Identify, where possible, the individuals and entities responsible with a view to ensuring they are held accountable; Be provided with sufficient financial and technical resources. The mechanism should be staffed with independent international experts, including those with expertise on: international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international criminal law; experts in armed conflict dynamics, with specific knowledge of command structures of armed forces and armed groups; sexual and other gender-based violence; children’s rights; the rights of people with disabilities; video and image verification; and forensic analysis; Cooperate with existing international judicial mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), that have a mandate over the situation in Afghanistan, as well as national courts; and, Make recommendations to UN entities and bodies, such as the UN Security Council and UN General Assembly, and to UN member states with a view to ending impunity and ensuring accountability, including on access to justice for victims. Such a mechanism would complement the mandate of the Special Rapporteur and complement and support the ongoing investigation by the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor into the situation in Afghanistan. We believe that the establishment of an independent international accountability mechanism for Afghanistan would: Strengthen pathways to victim- and survivor-centred justice and accountability in Afghanistan; Ensure that serious human rights violations and abuses across the country, including sexual and gender-based crimes, are investigated; and Contribute to preventing the recurrence of human rights violations and abuses, and ending the vicious cycles of violence in the country. We, therefore, urge Member and Observer States of the Council to stand in solidarity with the people of Afghanistan, and ensure all victims, survivors, and their families have credible and realistic prospects of justice and accountability.

2023 was a landmark year for GJC. The organization produced path-breaking work on access to abortion in the United States in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and championed a global treaty on crimes against humanity that can fully capture harms on the basis of gender.

Download full statement House Foreign Affairs Committee Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission Hearing on Liberia: Next Steps Towards Accountability for War & Economic Crimes June 13, 2024 – 10:30 a.m.  2360 Rayburn House Office Building STATEMENT Submitted by The Advocates for Human RightsCenter for Justice and AccountabilityCivil Society Human Rights Advocacy Platform of Liberia (CSO Platform)CIVITAS MAXIMACoalition for the Establishment of a War and Economic Crimes Court in LiberiaGlobal Justice and Research ProjectGlobal Justice CenterHuman Rights WatchSecretariat for the Establishment of War Crimes Court in Liberia Delivered by Liz EvensonInternational Justice DirectorHuman Rights Watch Many thanks for the opportunity to brief the commission. I am Liz Evenson, and I direct the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch. Human Rights Watch investigates and reports on abuses in some 100 countries around the world. We direct our advocacy towards governments, armed groups and businesses, pushing them to change or enforce their laws, policies and practices. And we work globally to champion meaningful and fair justice for victims and survivors of atrocity crimes, before national and international courts. My statement today is presented on behalf of Human Rights Watch, together with The Advocates for Human Rights; Center for Justice and Accountability; Civil Society Human Rights Advocacy Platform of Liberia (CSO Platform); CIVITAS MAXIMA; Coalition for the Establishment of a War and Economic Crimes Court in Liberia; Global Justice and Research Project; Global Justice Center; and the Secretariat for the Establishment of War Crimes Court in Liberia. This group represents American, Liberian, and international organizations all working together to bring justice to Liberian citizens. Together our groups have been advocating for the establishment of a Liberian-led war crimes court in Liberia to address the legacy of impunity for the widespread and systematic violations of international human rights and humanitarian law[1] that characterized the country’s two brutal armed conflicts, which took place between 1989 and 2003. Liberian men, women, and children were gunned down in their homes, marketplaces, and places of worship. In a few cases hundreds of civilians[2] were massacred in a matter of hours. Girls and women were subjected to horrific sexual violence[3] including gang-rape, sexual slavery, and torture. Children were abducted from their homes and schools and pressed into service, often after witnessing the murder of their parents. The violence blighted the lives of tens of thousands of civilians and displaced almost half the population. While there have been a number of important criminal and civil cases outside of Liberia—and these cases have contributed to momentum within the country for justice[4]—to date not a single person has faced criminal investigation or prosecution in Liberia for serious crimes committed during the civil wars.In its 2009 final report, the Liberian Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommended the creation of an extraordinary criminal court[5] which would be a hybrid court composed of Liberian and international judges, prosecutors and other staff with a mandate to try those allegedly responsible for committing serious crimes. A legislative conference to talk about accountability was organized in Monrovia in 2019 with the legislature of Liberia, a Liberian coalition of NGOs, and international partners.[6] There is now renewed momentum after nearly two decades for the establishment of a court. Most recently, in March and April of 2024, the Liberian Senate and House of Representatives passed a resolution supporting the creation of a war and economic crimes court. On May 2, 2024, President Joseph Boakai signed an executive order[7] establishing an Office of the War and Economic Crimes Court for Liberia. The US government has played a critical role in advancing progress. US Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice Beth Van Schaack has repeatedly voiced the US government’s partnership with Liberia in its journey to justice. Her commitments on behalf of the US government to support this process have been widely welcomed within Liberia. Members of Congress have also expressed their support for this court and justice for the Liberian people.[8] These developments are promising, and yet there is much work ahead that will need the support of the United States and others in the international community. Making Liberian-led justice a reality in Liberia requires sustained attention from justice champions in and outside of Liberia. What is needed now is for President Boakai’s administration to translate its stated commitment to a war crimes court into concrete steps for the court’s creation. We have made the following recommendations to the government of Liberia: Establish the Office proposed by President Boakai to be responsible for developing and implementing a concrete plan to establish a war and economic crimes court to hold perpetrators of grave crimes committed during Liberia’s armed conflicts to account, consistent with international standards and practice and ensure this plan is consistent with a victim-centered approach, including consultation with affected communities on the design of the court; Establish an independent committee comprised of government officials, a member of the Independent National Commission of Human Rights, international legal experts, and Liberian and international civil society actors from various sectors that is mandated to advise the government on the court’s creation. The committee should help establish a roadmap on the way forward for ensuring justice for war crimes and for strengthening the rule of law; Request assistance from the United Nations, African Union, Economic Community of West African States, and other international and regional partners as needed; Ensure a war crimes court for Liberia includes key elements in order to achieve trials that would be fair, meaningful, and credible:Composition of judicial benches that will have sufficient independence and expertise by including a majority of international judges on each trial and appeals bench;No bars on prosecution of individuals on the basis of their cooperation with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission;Inclusion of crimes and modes of liability in line with international standards;Fair trial protections;Witness protection and support;Involvement of victims of abuses in proceedings; and Outreach and communications that inform the victims and public. Work with the legislature to ensure the war crimes court established to hold perpetrators of grave crimes committed during Liberia’s armed conflicts to account is consistent with international standards and practice; Request from international partners adequate support and funding, for programs designed to improve Liberia’s judiciary and criminal justice system, to ensure an effective war crimes court and victims’ access to justice and the right of the accused to a fair trial; Continue to support efforts by third countries to bring universal jurisdiction cases for civil war-era crimes, including by continuing to fully cooperate with foreign authorities who request authorization to come to Liberia to investigate international crimes; Develop and implement a comprehensive reparations scheme for all victims of gross human rights violations and war crimes; Ensure protection for human rights defenders inside Liberia against attacks and intimidation, and bring to justice those who intimidate or attack human rights defenders. The process and the work of the court itself must be Liberian-led. This means primarily that Liberians who were impacted by the civil wars and have long advocated for accountability have a leading voice in determining the court’s trajectory. Liberian experts should also fill key positions in the judiciary, prosecution, defense, and registry. Liberian ownership of the court is crucial to build and maintain local support for accountability processes. Ensuring the court benefits from Liberian experts will also ensure that investing in the court strengthens the domestic justice system, leading to long-term benefits across Liberian institutions. The first step towards ensuring that the court is Liberian-led is making sure that Liberians and regional experts play critical roles in the creation of the court. Liberian civil society has been advocating for accountability in Liberia at great personal risk. Powerful actors opposed to accountability for wartime atrocities and former warlords hold positions of power in Liberia, and international actors have also at times worked to undermine their efforts. As a result, members of civil society have received threats to their security and their work over the years. These threats continue to this day. It is imperative that international partners, including the United States government, continue to support Liberian civil society organizations and the crucial work they are doing to see accountability in Liberia for civil war-era atrocities. High-level messages from Liberia’s international and regional partners in support of a court are also needed to maintain positive momentum. Liberia should request international and regional support to help it to determine the best legal and structural modalities for the court’s creation in a manner that will enable fair, credible functioning and partners should pledge international support and expertise based on accumulated experience. We recommend that the US Congress: Make clear its support to a Liberian-led process to achieve justice in the country through the creation of a credible war crimes court, and support to Liberian civil society organizations engaged in this effort; Provide the requested support to the Liberian government and civil society organizations working on behalf of justice, including assistance in developing the necessary legislation and systems for the protection of victims and witnesses, support in the legal representation of victims, and processes to engage meaningfully with the public and victims and survivors to create awareness of the objectives of a war crimes court and to allow Liberian voices to inform the design of the court; Offer financial support for the court, as the US has done in several other contexts, including, for example, the annual contributions to the Special Criminal Court in the Central African Republic. [1] Human Rights Watch, Q&A: Justice for Civil Wars-Era Crimes in Liberia (April 1, 2019), https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/04/01/qa-justice-civil-wars-era-crimes-liberia. [2] Jane W, John X, John Y, John Z v. Moses Thomas, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case number 2:18-cv-00569-PBT, https://cja.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Jane-W-v.-Moses-Thomas-18-cv-00569.pdf. [3] Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Liberia, Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Liberia, https://www.trcofliberia.org/resources/reports/final/trc-final-report-volume-1-full.pdf. [4] Civitas Maxima press release, US Court finds Liberian Rebel Commander “Jungle Jabbah” Guilty of Crimes Linked to Atrocities in Liberia’s First Civil War (October 18, 2017), https://civitas-maxima.org/us-court-finds-liberian-rebel-commander-jungle-jabbah-guilty-of-crimes-linked-to-atrocities-in-liberias-first-civil-war/; Civitas Maxima press release, Liberian Plaintiffs Make Swiss and Liberian Legal History (June 18, 2021), https://civitas-maxima.org/liberian-plaintiffs-make-swiss-and-liberian-legal-history/; Center for Justice and Accountability press release, U.S. Court Finds Former Liberian Military Commander Liable for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity (September 16, 2021), https://cja.org/u-s-court-finds-former-liberian-military-commander-liable-for-war-crimes-and-crimes-against-humanity/. [5] Human Rights Watch news release, Justice for Liberia, (December 10, 2009), https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/12/10/justice-liberia. [6] University of Nottingham, SEWACCOL, Legislature of Liberia, Civitas Maxima and the GJRP press release, Legislative Conference Brings Liberia Closer to the Establishment of a War Crimes Court (July 20, 2019), https://civitas-maxima.org/legislative-conference-brings-liberia-closer-to-the-establishment-of-a-war-crimes-court/. [7] Dounard Bondo and Ruth Maclean, The New York Times, Liberia Moves to Create War Crimes Court, Decades After Civil Wars Ended (May 3, 2024), https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/03/world/africa/liberia-court-war-crimes.html. [8] United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations press release, Risch Applauds Establishment of War and Economic Crimes Court in Liberia (April 10, 2024), https://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/rep/release/risch-applauds-establishment-of-war-and-economic-crimes-court-in-liberia.

Dear Excellencies, We write to you ahead of the third UN-convened meeting of Special Envoys and Special Representatives on Afghanistan on 30 June–1 July 2024 in Doha, Qatar (“Doha III”), to continue to discuss the international community’s approach to Afghanistan. More than one year since the first Doha meeting, there is growing concern that the international community lacks the necessary resolve to defend and advocate for the human rights of Afghan women and girls. Many Afghan women civil society have even called for a boycott of continued negotiations with the Taliban until women’s rights are restored. Doha III therefore offers a decisive opportunity to demonstrate to all Afghans that their human rights are not a bargaining chip, but the foundation on which the future of their country depends. Since the last Doha meeting in February 2024, the Taliban’s abuses against Afghan women and girls, already unparalleled globally and condemned by international experts as gender apartheid, have continued to deepen. The Taliban are not only continuing to impose new restrictions violating the rights of women and girls, now numbering 97, but steadily intensifying their enforcement of existing decrees. The space for women and girls to make their own decisions and live their lives gets smaller every day. This is a clear signal that the international community’s approach to Afghanistan has thus far failed to deter the Taliban from its systematic repression of women’s rights. The upcoming meeting in Doha is a critical moment for the UN, Security Council and international community to coordinate around one key message: the rights of Afghan women and girls are not negotiable.