Thus far, the attacks have been carried out with impunity, and many witnesses have said it was Myanmar government soldiers, in uniform, who raped and killed civilians. Human rights groups say the lack of accountability is particularly jarring, arguing that the attacks on the Rohingya involve exactly the kind of mass atrocities this court was created for. Its mandate is to judge crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide.

An obvious obstacle is that Myanmar, where the violence was meted out, is not a signatory to the court. That means the court cannot address crimes committed in Myanmar, by Myanmar citizens, unless the United Nations Security Council authorizes it, which most observers say is unlikely.

And Myanmar has shown little interest in punishing those responsible or pursuing the evidence, which has been documented by rights groups and journalists and corroborated by satellite imagery.

So prosecutors and human rights lawyers are trying a novel approach: They argue that since hundreds of thousands of Rohingya have been deported to Bangladesh, and since this can be construed as continuing crimes against humanity taking place in Bangladesh, a member of the court, the prosecutor can have jurisdiction to act. Bangladesh is not suspected of crimes, but would provide the route to jurisdiction.

The request submitted on Wednesday by the group Shanti Mohila, or Peace Women, goes further: Its lawyers say that as long as Myanmar refuses the return of the Rohingya and forces them to live in terrible conditions, its “crimes of apartheid, persecution and genocide continue” even outside its territory. If the court goes along with the request, it would mark a radical departure in international law.