A Mass Killing in Kabul Tests Whether the Laws of War Still Matter

Only independent mechanisms can preserve evidence, protect victims, and confront impunity

By Omar SAMAD and Mushtaq RAHIM

March 28, 2026

As wars erupt worldwide, civilian protections are collapsing. Few incidents illustrate this breakdown more starkly than the March 16 Kabul strike by Pakistan’s air force that killed patients at a drug rehabilitation center—an attack still under verification by international observers and human rights practitioners. It was in this context that Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued its stark assessment as part of a report on March 27:     

“A Pakistani airstrike on a drug treatment center in Afghanistan on March 16, 2026, was an unlawful attack and a possible war crime, Human Rights Watch said today. International agencies reported that at least 143 people were killed and more than 250 injured, most of them patients… Three buildings were hit: a large building used as a dining area, a building that accommodates 450 patients, and a guard room where eight men were working. On March 17, Pakistan’s federal minister of information and broadcasting, Attaullah Tarar, posted on X that Pakistan had carried out “precision airstrikes” on “technical support infrastructure and ammunition storage facilities,” but did not mention the Omid facility.

‘The available evidence indicates that the Pakistani airstrike against a well-known Kabul medical facility killing dozens of patients was unlawful,’ said Patricia Gossman, senior associate Asia director at Human Rights Watch. ‘Pakistani authorities need to carry out an impartial investigation to determine why it hit a drug treatment center filled with civilians and who should be held to account.’

The center employee said that over 1,000 patients were at the facility at the time of the attack, but the actual number is uncertain. An official with an international agency said that many patients were in the dining area to break the Ramadan fast. The United Nations described the ‘complete destruction of one block that housed adolescents receiving drug treatment...’”

The attack that struck the Omid (hope in Farsi-Dari) center in Kabul, killing and injuring hundreds of patients, medical staff, and support workers (estimates range between 140-400+), stands as a stark reminder of the accelerating collapse of accountability in the 21st. century. Under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), facilities dedicated to the care of the sick and wounded enjoy the highest level of protection; striking them is not just a tragedy but a clear violation of mandatory principles and norms designed to preserve a minimum of humanity in the midst of war. Yet in the aftermath of the Kabul hospital attack, the world has witnessed a now-familiar pattern: deceptive narratives or expressions of “regret” unaccompanied by any credible, impartial inquiry capable of establishing facts, attributing responsibility, or ensuring redress for victims and their families.

This vacuum reflects a broader geopolitical and systemic paralysis in which the institutions traditionally tasked with upholding the laws of war through the UN Security Council are increasingly immobilized by competing interests. When the very bodies entrusted with safeguarding international peace and security cannot or do not act, the burden shifts to independent mechanisms with the legal authority and morality dilemma to confront impunity. If the IHL is to retain its credibility and legal status, the Kabul strike (and many other such incidents around the world) cannot be allowed to fade into the background noise of war. Such occurrences warrant a rigorous investigation grounded in laws, insulated from political interference and pressures, and responsive to the rights of victims whose suffering has too often been treated as collateral to a variety of rivalries.

Legal Violations Under International Law

The strike on the Omid treatment center represents a direct breach of some of the most debated prohibitions in international law. Under the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I (Arts. 12–15, 48, 51), medical facilities and their patients enjoy absolute protection; attacking them, or failing to distinguish civilians from combatants, is expressly forbidden. The scale of civilian death also violates the principle of proportionality codified in AP I, Art. 51(5)(b). These prohibitions are reinforced by Customary International Humanitarian Law, which protects medical units (ICRC Rules 28, 25) and bans direct or indiscriminate attacks on civilians (Rules 1, 11, 14). The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court classifies such acts as war crimes, including intentionally attacking hospitals (Art. 8(2)(b)(ix)) and launching disproportionate strikes (Art. 8(2)(b)(iv)). Finally, by conducting an unconsented cross‑border strike, Pakistan risks violating Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force on another state’s territory absent self‑defense or Security Council authorization. Together, these violations underscore not just a tragic error, but a collapse of the most basic legal restraints meant to shield civilians from the brutality of war.

Pathways for Accountability

Ensuring accountability and preventing future violations of international law requires a credible legal process. Multiple mechanisms exist to support an impartial investigation capable of identifying perpetrators and pursuing justice. Yet these avenues face structural and political constraints. In the Omid facility attack, Pakistan’s non‑party status to key treaties and its ability to lobby and mobilize allies further limit scrutiny.

→ The International Criminal Court (ICC)

Although a target of political bias in recent times, the ICC can exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed on Afghan territory, as Kabul remains a State Party despite the Taliban’s unrecognized status. Attacks on medical facilities fall squarely within the Rome Statute’s definition of war crimes. However, cooperation from implicated states is unlikely, and a UN Security Council referral is improbable given geopolitical alignments. Consensus (especially among the permanent five) would allow the ICC to pursue with vigor. Regardless of the limitation, given the mandate of the court, its international credibility, and capacity to act impartially, makes the institution an ideal avenue for taking up the case of the Omid health facility. However, reaching such a consensus is an uphill battle.

→ Universal Jurisdiction

Many countries’ “national” courts can prosecute grave international crimes regardless of where they occurred. While politically sensitive, even preliminary investigations or arrest warrants can impose meaningful constraints. Yet many states limit universal jurisdiction, and Pakistan’s diplomatic leverage can discourage action if supported by influential countries. However, this would require filing of a petition by a legitimate body or individuals. Again, this may not produce an immediate result, yet, it could set a precedent while creating a pathway for any future legal proceedings.   

→ UN‑Mandated Investigative Mechanisms

When judicial avenues are blocked, independent UN bodies can document violations, preserve evidence, and prepare case files for future prosecutions. They cannot issue indictments but can shape later accountability efforts. Given UNAMA’s (the UN mission in Afghanistan) presence and the population’s reliance on it in a de facto governance setting, impartial fact‑finding is crucial before evidence disappears. Pakistan may resist broad mandates, but narrower thematic mechanisms are more feasible. Failure to act would further erode the UN’s credibility in conflict management, peacebuilding, and human rights protection.

→ Hybrid or Internationalized Tribunals

There have been hybrid courts offering instructive precedents in the past:

• -Sierra Leone’s Special Court secured high‑level convictions but relied heavily on political cooperation and voluntary funding.

• -Cambodia’s Extraordinary Chambers delivered landmark judgments but were constrained by host‑state interference.

• -Kosovo’s Specialist Chambers, seated abroad, show the value of institutional distance from local politics.

Such models, however, require host‑state consent—unlikely under the Taliban de facto government that remains predominantly unrecoginzed—and may face regional pushback from some countries. Whether competent international organizations can pursue and fulfill part of the responsibilities remains an open question for now.

→ Regional or Ad Hoc Mechanisms

South and Central Asia lack a regional human rights court, but ad hoc coalitions could conduct inquiries or endorse investigative findings if possible. Their authority is limited, yet they can reinforce norms and support evidence‑gathering. The Kabul mass killing could spur regional bodies to advocate for stronger human rights and humanitarian protections. Afghanistan’s isolation and the population’s vulnerability make regional action urgent.

A Realistic Accountability Strategy

Given the constraints faced by an unrecognized Taliban administration, Pakistan’s treaty posture, and geopolitical fragmentation, accountability must be incremental, layered, and victim‑centered. Here are a few elements for a strategy to assure accountability:

1. Ground the case in Afghanistan’s territorial jurisdiction Afghanistan’s treaty obligations remain legally relevant. Framing the strike as a clear violation of IHL protections for medical facilities keeps the case within established legal norms and avoids politicized narratives that could derail an inquiry.

2. Prioritize independent evidence preservation A UN‑mandated investigative mechanism focused on attacks against medical infrastructure would help secure testimony, satellite imagery, and forensic data. Where UN action is blocked, coordinated NGO documentation becomes essential to building an evidentiary record.

3. Use selective criminal avenues strategically The ICC’s Afghanistan situation provides a long‑term entry point, even if cooperation is limited. Universal‑jurisdiction complaints in a few willing national courts can generate investigations or arrest warrants for individuals who are considered as prime suspects or instigators, signaling that impunity is not guaranteed.

4. Explore politically feasible internationalized models A full hybrid tribunal is unrealistic under current conditions. More modest internationalized mechanisms like issue‑specific chambers, expert commissions, or regional investigative bodies could still establish facts and attribute responsibility without requiring Taliban consent.

5. Center victims and reparative measures Victim participation and public hearings can provide recognition where formal justice is stalled. Collective reparations that include several avenues can acknowledge harm even when prosecutions are not imminent.

6. Leverage political tools as accountability multipliers Targeted sanctions, travel bans, and public attribution can impose real costs on responsible actors. These measures reinforce the norm that attacks on medical facilities are not “regrettable accidents” but violations of binding international law.

Integrated Recommendations

• * The United Nations should establish a focused investigative mechanism, strengthen no‑strike lists, and use sanctions committees to target individuals or institutions credibly linked to unlawful strikes.

• * The ICC should incorporate the Kabul attack into its Afghanistan dossier, maintaining long‑term inquiry even without cooperation.

• * National Governments should use universal‑jurisdiction statutes to open preliminary inquiries and coordinate targeted sanctions and public attribution.

• * Afghan Civil Society and International NGOs must continue collecting evidence to support victims’ safe participation in international processes.

• * Donor States should fund investigative work and support symbolic or collective reparations when formal justice is blocked. Since most of the victims were destitutes and poor, reparations can alleviate part of the pain incurred by their families.

Conclusion

The strike on the Kabul rehabilitation center during Ramadan was not only a profound human tragedy but another test of the international laws meant to shield civilians. How the world responds to the Omid center killings will shape the credibility of those laws. Inaction would deepen growing skepticism: when medical facilities are attacked and no credible authority investigates, international humanitarian law risks becoming hollow. The collapse of these norms carries the danger of further mass atrocities.

Given Afghanistan’s half‑century of war, the March 16 attack is neither the first nor the only grave violation. All parties—Afghan and foreign—have been accused of abuses since 1978, yet none have faced full investigation or justice. While a broader transitional justice process remains distant, now is the moment to begin repairing the system.

Accountability does not hinge on a single tribunal or geopolitical alignment. It depends on steady documentation, sustained pressure through every legal and political channel, and ensuring victims are not forgotten even when states refuse to act. If the international community uses these tools consistently, the Kabul attack need not become another unpunished atrocity. It can instead signal renewed commitment to the principle that even in war, some lines cannot be crossed with impunity—and that accountability, sooner or later, remains possible./

Mushtaq RAHIM is a conflict management, peacebuilding, and international development expert focusing on post-conflict recovery, state-building, and conflict transformation. He has over two decades of experience in peace processes, social cohesion, and development programming with the UN, peacemaking institutions, and international organizations. He closely monitors the South-Central Asian geopolitical landscape and provides expert analysis on regional peace, security, and stability.

Omar SAMAD is a former Afghan Ambassador to France and Canada, Government spokesperson and Senior Advisor. He has think-tank experience as a Senior Fellow, South-Central Asia (Atlantic Council, USIP and New America). He is a facilitator and convener of dialogue processes. He has extensive experience as a speaker and international media commentator. His academic writings include Springer’s academic series “The Great Power Competition” Vol. 4 (Lessons Learned in Afghanistan: America’s Longest War) and Vol. 6 (The Rise of China).

Sources and references

Pakistan: Airstrike on Afghan Medical Facility Unlawful https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/27/pakistan-airstrike-on-afghan-medical-facility-unlawful

Geneva Conventions & Additional Protocol I Reference: ICRC — Protocol I (Arts. 12–15, 48, 51) https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977

Customary International Humanitarian Law (ICRC Rules) Rules 1, 6, 14, 25, 28: protection of civilians and medical facilities; precautions in attack. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Art. 8(2)(b)(ix): attacking hospitals; Art. 8(2)(b)(i) & (iv): attacks on civilians and disproportionate attacks. https://www.icc-cpi.int/resource-library/documents/rs-eng.pdf

UN Charter, Article 2(4) Prohibition on the use of force against another state’s territory without consent or Security Council authorization. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text

Afghanistan/Pakistan: Strike on Kabul rehabilitation centre raises ... https://reliefweb.int/report/afghanistan/afghanistanpakistan-strike-kabul-rehabilitation-centre-raises-serious-concerns-under-international-humanitarian-law

Afghanistan: Establishment of accountability mechanism a landmark ... https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/10/afghanistan-establishment-of-accountability-mechanism-a-landmark-moment-in-pursuit-of-justice/

Afghanistan/Pakistan: Strike on Kabul rehabilitation centre raises ... https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/03/afghanistan-pakistan-strike-on-kabul-rehabilitation-centre-raises-serious-concerns-under-international-humanitarian-law/

Afghanistan/Pakistan: Strike on Kabul Rehabilitation Center Raises ... https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/afghanistan-pakistan-strike-on-kabul-rehabilitation-center-raises-serious-concerns-under-international-humanitarian-law/

Accountability for Human Rights Violations and Violations of ... https://rwi.lu.se/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Accountability-for-Human-Rights-Violations-and-Violations-of-International-Humanitarian-Law2.pdf

Afghanistan: UN condemns deadly attack on rehab centre in Kabul https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/03/1167148

Pakistan bombed a Kabul rehab centre. Where's the outrage? https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/preview-link/node/264377/577e7102-533b-4932-b4d7-d156688c7df5