The ICC stands for the International Criminal Court and is where war criminals will go on trial for international crimes. However, Afghanistan’s courts are trying to appeal a hearing to have them prosecute their war criminals instead of the ICC doing so; they believe that justice will be served better if they are prosecuted with their courts. This dates back to earlier this year in April, when the ICC was on their second day of a hearing for the appeal for Afghanistan to prosecute on their grounds. In the court, Afghanistan has a strong international power on their side, the United States. We refuse to cooperate with the ICC because of “US law and bilateral treaties Washington had signed with Afghanistan and was not going to change.” (Aljazeera) The United States believes that Americans should go on trial in their home country and never ratified the Rome Treaty which established the ICC in 2002. Afghanistan has not ratified the Rome Treaty granting privileges and immunities of the ICC, so therefore, they should be able to prosecute their war criminals in their courts. If they were part of the ICC, the complexity of the situation would be enhanced, but since it is clear that they did not agree to the treaty, that they have a right to retain and control their war criminals. However, what comes into account is how Afghans reputation of treating criminals and rumours about it. It is known that they torture their war criminals in many ways, which is against human rights and morality. If the ICC took hold of these criminals, it is almost certain that a fair and law binding trial would take place. My question is what would happen if Afghanistan does get granted this request or application? Would their war criminals be sent to them and never heard of again? Or would there be some guidelines that they would have to abide by in order to be allowed to prosecute their war criminals in their territory.
