Omid Rehabilitation and Treatment Center, a Kabul facility for drug users and recovering addicts, was reduced to rubble on March 16, 2026, after an air strike by the Pakistan military. The attack left at least 269 people dead, most of them civilians who had sought refuge or treatment at the center. The building had operated for over a decade as a health facility, yet Pakistan claimed it was being used to store weapons and ammunition.
Amnesty International has now published a detailed report stating there is no credible evidence to support this military claim. In fact, the organization found the opposite: the Omid Center remained a functioning medical facility up to the moment it was attacked.
The report concludes that the strike violated the principles of distinction, precaution, and proportionality under international humanitarian law. These rules aim to protect civilians during armed conflict. The air strike, Amnesty says, likely constitutes a serious breach of international humanitarian law — and may even amount to a war crime.
Isabelle Lassee, acting regional director for South Asia at Amnesty International, called the attack a “lethal failure” by Pakistan to comply with its legal obligations. She stressed the need for a “transparent, thorough, independent, and impartial investigation” into what caused the strike and who made the decision to target the center. Lassee also urged authorities to prosecute any person found responsible — including those in command positions under the doctrine of command responsibility.
Cross-Border Conflict and a Pattern of Casualties
Since then, the conflict has led to hundreds of civilian deaths.
The attack on the Omid Center was not the only one to draw international attention. Earlier in June, airstrikes in Paktya, Paktika, and Kunar provinces reportedly killed at least 28 civilians. Meanwhile, reports from media in Pakistan suggest that at least seven civilians have been killed there from cross-border mortar fire.
Amnesty’s findings add to growing concern about the lack of adherence to international humanitarian law by parties to the conflict. Lassee warned that failing to investigate such attacks risks normalizing unlawful behavior and allowing more civilian deaths in the future.
To build its case, Amnesty analyzed over 60 photos and videos from the aftermath of the strike, including material released by the Pakistan military itself. The organization also reviewed more than 30 satellite images and videos of the Omid Center’s operations before the attack. Eleven interviews were conducted, with staff, former staff, and victims’ families providing first-hand accounts.
Despite multiple appeals for transparency, the Pakistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs has not responded to Amnesty’s inquiries about what, if anything, it has done to investigate the incident. Nor has it provided evidence backing its claim that the Omid Center was a weapons site.
Instead, the military has attempted to justify the strike by citing secondary detonations as proof of a large ammunition depot being hit. Pakistan’s Federal Minister for Information and Broadcasting, Attaulah Tarar, said on X that the military targeted “technical support infrastructure and ammunition storage facilities” in two locations in Kabul, one being the Omid Center.
Under international humanitarian law, parties to a conflict must distinguish between civilians and combatants, and between civilian and military objectives. Deliberate attacks on medical facilities are prohibited unless those facilities are being used for harmful purposes against the enemy. Even then, the burden of proof lies with the attacking party.
Amnesty’s research shows no such evidence. In fact, the medical nature of the Omid Center, including its use in conjunction with the nearby Ibn-e-Sina Hospital, remains well documented. Its destruction not only killed hundreds of civilians but also erased a critical medical service from a region with limited access to addiction treatment and mental health care.
The question now is whether Pakistan — or any authority — will hold those responsible to account. For now, the government has not responded to Amnesty’s inquiry, nor has it issued any public statement about the attack’s legality or the civilian deaths it caused.