Argentinian Arrest Warrant for Min Aung Hlaing

On Thursday, 13 February 2025, Hon. Maria Romilda Servini de Cubria of a federal criminal court in Buenos Aires, Argentina, took a significant step toward international criminal accountability by issuing arrests warrants for Senior General Min Aung Hlaing and 24 other Myanmar military officials. This marks the first public arrest warrants to be issued against the Myanmar military in a universal jurisdiction case. The Myanmar officials stand accused of genocide and crimes against humanity against the Rohingya population between 2016 and 2017. The group that has endured decades of persecution in Myanmar leading to the forcible displacement of over 700,000 and the death of at least 10,000 people. This legal development represents a rare moment of hope for the roughly one million Rohingya forced to live in refugee camps in Bangladesh and for the many others who remain inside Myanmar under repressive conditions.

Tun Khin, President of the Burmese Rohingya Organisation UK (BROUK), voiced strong support, describing the warrants as a historic step toward justice. He underscored its value as a victory for international justice. The Argentinian judiciary’s decision to engage with a universal jurisdiction case against Myanmar officials adds momentum to ongoing but challenging efforts to secure accountability for mass atrocities against the Rohingya.

Universal jurisdiction and the road to Argentina

The principle of universal jurisdiction enables national courts to prosecute individuals accused of the most serious international crimes, including genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and torture, regardless of where these crimes took place or the nationalities of the parties involved. While applying this principle has often been politically and legally complicated, Argentina has established a reputation for taking universal jurisdiction seriously in cases involving serious human rights violations. The 1998 arrest of General Augusto Pinochet in the United Kingdom following a Spanish indictment popularized universal jurisdiction; Argentina’s approach in the Rohingya case continues to evolve that doctrine for modern atrocity litigation.

In 2019, BROUK and six female Rohingya survivors initiated legal action in Argentina, accusing Myanmar’s civilian and military leaders of genocide and crimes against humanity. The Federal Criminal Court initially dismissed the case, citing parallel efforts at the International Criminal Court (ICC). However, in 2021, an appellate court reversed that ruling after noting the ICC’s constrained jurisdiction over crimes with a cross-border element (i.e.., forced deportation into Bangladesh). In June 2023, Argentinian prosecutors heard in-person, trauma-informed testimonies from Rohingya witnesses alongside the lead plaintiffs BROUK, including survivors of gang rape, forced sterilization, and other forms of sexual violence. On June 28, 2024, Argentine federal prosecutor Guillermo F. Marijuán’s filed a request for the arrest, international capture, and questioning of Min Aung Hlaing and the 24 civilian and military officers who held senior or direct operational roles in Myanmar’s persecution of the Rohingya.

Further, the prosecutor’s 109-page warrant request reveals that these alleged crimes encompass four of the five genocidal acts in Article 6 of the ICC’s Rome Statute. Additionally, this document alleged that intent to destroy the Rohingya may be inferred from the documented acts of persecution.

Min Aung Hlaing remains the most prominent target of the warrant request. He became the de facto leader of Myanmar after orchestrating the February 2021 coup that ousted the country’s civilian government. The critical step that Argentina has taken sends a clear message that alleged perpetrators of genocide and other serious crimes cannot expect to act with impunity indefinitely.

Parallel efforts in international courts

Argentina’s legal action joins a broader global effort to bring perpetrators of crimes against the Rohingya to justice. Several other legal proceedings are already underway. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is hearing a case filed by The Gambia against Myanmar, which centers on whether Myanmar’s actions against the Rohingya violated the Genocide Convention. In January 2020, the ICJ issued provisional measures calling on Myanmar to prevent any acts that could amount to genocide, to preserve evidence, and to submit updates on compliance. While the ICJ has resolved preliminary questions on The Gambia’s legal standing and jurisdiction under the Genocide Convention, it has not yet ruled on the underlying allegations of genocide. It is expected, however, to delve into the merits of the case in the coming months.

In a separate process, the International Criminal Court (ICC) is investigating crimes committed against the Rohingya. Although Myanmar is not a party to the ICC’s Rome Statute, the Court has jurisdiction over the cross-border crimes of deportation and persecution that forced hundreds of thousands of Rohingya into Bangladesh, which is an ICC member state. In November 2024, ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan announced that he had requested an arrest warrant for Min Aung Hlaing for crimes against humanity in connection with these events. The judges at the ICC have yet to rule on that request, but an approved warrant would require member countries to arrest and transfer Min Aung Hlaing to The Hague should he enter their territory.

A third mechanism, the UN Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (IIMM), was established by the UN Human Rights Council in 2018 to collect and preserve evidence of the most serious international crimes committed in Myanmar. The IIMM has shared a significant body of evidence and analysis with judicial authorities, including those in Argentina, thereby enhancing the quality and scope of the universal jurisdiction case. Its work also aids the ICC and other legal forums in building strong evidentiary records on systematic abuses against the Rohingya.

Significance for gender-based violence accountability

The Rohingya’s experiences, especially among women and girls, epitomize how conflict-related sexual violence is often a central tactic of warfare and genocide. Investigations have revealed that Myanmar’s authorities allegedly imposed measures to prevent births among the Rohingya, such as forced sterilization, coerced use of contraceptives, and restrictions on marriage. These measures, which were often reinforced by hateful public rhetoric painting the Rohingya as a demographic threat, fit into a broader pattern of policies and laws aimed at limiting family size and reproductive autonomy. By requesting arrest warrants that may encompass these acts, Argentina is signaling that sexual and reproductive violence is treated as a core component of the genocidal campaign. Such an approach recognizes that attempts to undermine a group’s future generations through controlling or destroying reproductive capacity constitute grave harm under the Genocide Convention. Argentina’s stance could also set an important precedent for prosecuting other genocidal acts that extend beyond mass killing and forced displacement, such as imposing birth-preventing measures, thereby amplifying long-neglected dimensions of justice for the Rohingya and other affected communities in Myanmar.

The impact of an arrest warrant

Should Argentina’s federal court issue Interpol Red Notices based on these warrants, Min Aung Hlaing and others may face arrest if they travel internationally. These Red Notices solicit law enforcement agencies in other countries to locate and provisionally detain the suspects. Successful enforcement would depend on political will since Myanmar is unlikely to cooperate voluntarily, and some governments may be reluctant to arrest high-level foreign officials. Even so, such warrants carry weight. They put accused perpetrators on notice that they risk arrest if they travel outside Myanmar, and they can deter foreign governments and institutions from engaging with the individuals in question.

The effect on victims and survivors is also significant. For Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh and others who watched Myanmar’s military act with impunity for decades, international arrest warrants can serve as a powerful symbol of recognition and acknowledgment of their suffering. While it may be some time before these warrants lead to any trials in Argentina, the act of issuing them underscores the shared belief that the gravest crimes under international law must not go unpunished.

Building international pressure

Argentina’s legal move reflects a wider frustration with the reality that little progress has been made in securing accountability. The Myanmar military, also known as the Tatmadaw, launched a coup in February 2021, leading to the imprisonment of thousands of political opponents and a violent crackdown on dissent across the country. Reports indicate that the military has employed indiscriminate aerial bombardments, extrajudicial killings, and other atrocities in areas inhabited by many different ethnic groups, not just the Rohingya.

Observers in human rights organizations and international institutions note that targeted sanctions, an arms embargo, and a more robust response from the UN Security Council might curb the Tatmadaw’s ability to continue its campaign of repression. Diplomats and legal experts argue that a Security Council referral to the ICC, although currently unlikely due to political dynamics among permanent members, would bring the situation in Myanmar under the Court’s complete jurisdiction and help address a wider range of abuses than those on Bangladeshi territory alone.

Hope for the Rohingya and all Myanmar communities

These arrest warrants issued by Argentina signify a pivotal moment for the Rohingya community, which has endured marginalization, persecution, and acts of extreme violence. While the warrants themselves do not guarantee trial or conviction, they present a serious challenge to the notion that senior military leaders can continue their abuses without legal consequences. They also have implications for other ethnic and religious groups in Myanmar that have experienced similar patterns of systematic violence by the Tatmadaw.

Tun Khin, who has been a leading voice for Rohingya rights, emphasizes that justice is needed for every victim of the Burmese military. Many activists and legal experts share this sentiment, asserting that any meaningful path toward a peaceful future in Myanmar depends on confronting the decades of atrocities that have shaped its political landscape. That process includes holding individuals accountable for crimes against humanity and genocide, no matter where or when they occur.

This tremendous step of transitional justice for the Rohingya people is evident in the power of international support. Argentina is paving an alternative route to accountability by invoking universal jurisdiction. This approach may inspire other jurisdictions to follow suit, and it could complement the proceedings at the ICJ and ICC. Although arrests and trials remain uncertain, a major legal step has been taken. This critical case of universal jurisdiction against Min Aung Hlaing and his circle suggests that the once seemingly unreachable ranks of Myanmar’s ruling elite are starting to feel real legal pressure. In the eyes of the Rohingya, and of all those seeking justice in Myanmar, that development is deeply significant.