63rd Session of the Human Rights Council: Towards the Recognition and Criminalisation of Gender Apartheid
The 63rd session of the United Nations Human Rights Council placed the situation of Afghan women and girls at the centre of international debate. Five years after the Taliban regained control of the country in August 2021, the restrictions imposed by the regime are no longer being presented as isolated measures but have come to constitute, according to various States and organisations, an institutionalised system of discrimination and exclusion.
The statements delivered on 7 and 8 September 2026 reflected shared concern about the systematic and institutionalised nature of these restrictions. The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, Richard Bennett, argued that the Taliban’s policies do not constitute isolated incidents, but rather a process that is transforming the country’s social structure. As he explained, restrictions on education, employment, freedom of movement and public participation are combined with the control of expression, culture and other areas of private life, making it possible to characterise the situation as an institutionalised and systematic regime of discrimination, oppression and gender-based domination. He recalled that he had previously used the term “gender apartheid” to describe this situation. In his words, the gender order imposed by the Taliban lies at the centre of their system of governance and has consequences that extend beyond the women directly affected, reaching Afghan society as a whole.
This led to one of the most legally significant aspects of the debate: should these practices be addressed through existing categories of gender-based persecution and other crimes against humanity, or is it necessary to specifically recognise and codify gender apartheid?
The positions expressed by States during the 7 September session show that this is not simply a question of terminology. Although there was broad agreement regarding the systematic and institutionalised nature of the policies imposed by the Taliban, not all States used the term “gender apartheid”.
The European Union stated that systematic violations of the rights of women and girls may constitute gender-based persecution, which is recognised as a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute. Along the same lines, France stated that Afghan women and girls are victims of a policy of segregation that excludes them from public, political and economic life, and recalled that discrimination based on gender may constitute a crime against humanity. Spain stated that the Taliban have institutionalised and systematised human rights violations and declared: “Spain condemns the gender apartheid in Afghanistan”, making it the only State to expressly use the term gender apartheid. Belgium, for its part, stated that the Taliban had shaped the country according to their radical ideological vision and that, with regard to women and girls, they had institutionalised discrimination. In this regard, Malta described the situation as an institutionalised system of gender discrimination leading to the almost total exclusion of women and girls from public life. Other States, including New Zealand, Australia, Japan and Canada, also referred to the institutionalised nature of gender discrimination in Afghanistan. Finally, Switzerland highlighted the dismantling of institutions that had previously protected their rights.
The 8 September session was devoted to statements by civil society organisations, which also emphasised the structural dimension of the violations of the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan. In this regard, Humanists International supported Bennett’s recommendation to codify gender apartheid as a crime against humanity, while a joint statement submitted by human rights organisations argued that the exclusion of women and girls from public life constitutes a form of gender apartheid and called for its recognition in international law.
The distinction is significant. Gender-based persecution already constitutes a crime against humanity in certain circumstances and allows for the prosecution of numerous acts committed against women and girls. The concept of gender apartheid, by contrast, seeks to focus attention on a structural dimension: the existence of an institutionalised regime of oppression and domination designed to maintain a group in a position of subordination.
The question, therefore, is not simply one of finding a new designation for violations that are already recognised, but of determining whether existing legal categories are sufficient to represent a system built around the subordination of women, as is the case with the current regime in Afghanistan.
Bennett’s closing words summarised the approach that ran through both days: “Start naming gender apartheid and codify it.”
By Valentina Belen Cabezas, lawyer, Master’s student in Governance and Human Rights and FIBGAR collaborator.
REFERENCES
United Nations, Second Meeting – 63rd Session of the Human Rights Council: Item 2, Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Afghanistan, 7 September 2026. Available at: https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k16/k16dc79jea
United Nations, Third Meeting – 63rd Session of the Human Rights Council: Item 2, Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Afghanistan (continued), 8 September 2026. Available at: https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1y/k1yzhh1jl2
