Application Of Geneva Conventions In Afghan Courts
📘 Background on Legal Framework
Before the cases, it's important to note:
Afghanistan ratified the Geneva Conventions in 1956.
The 2004 Constitution of Afghanistan (under Article 7) recognizes adherence to international treaties including IHL.
Afghan Penal Code (especially the 2017 code) includes provisions related to war crimes and crimes against humanity, many derived from the Geneva Conventions.
🧑⚖️ Case 1: Gul Rahman Case (2002)
Context:
Gul Rahman, an Afghan national, was detained by the CIA and died in custody at a CIA black site in Kabul (Salt Pit) in 2002.
Geneva Conventions Application:
His death raised major concerns under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits cruel treatment and torture.
Though tried outside the Afghan court system, the Afghan Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) called for accountability under Afghan and international law.
Legal Impact in Afghanistan:
Sparked debate within Afghan legal circles about the application of IHL protections for detainees.
Contributed to increased scrutiny of foreign military and intelligence operations on Afghan soil under international law.
🧑⚖️ Case 2: Bagram Detention Cases (2005–2010)
Context:
Hundreds of detainees were held by U.S. forces at Bagram Airfield. Many claimed unlawful detention, torture, and no access to judicial process.
Geneva Conventions Application:
Violations of Article 3 and Articles 13–16 of GC III (treatment of prisoners of war).
Afghan courts were hesitant to directly confront foreign forces but AIHRC and Afghan attorneys argued these detentions breached Afghan law and IHL.
Legal Developments:
Afghan government increasingly pushed for transfer of detainees to Afghan custody.
A landmark case in 2009 in the Afghan National Security Court led to an Afghan judge ordering the release of several detainees, citing a lack of due process and Geneva violations.
🧑⚖️ Case 3: Farkhunda Malikzada Case (2015)
Context:
Farkhunda, a 27-year-old woman, was falsely accused of burning the Quran and was lynched by a mob in Kabul. Though not a war crime per se, the failure of protection during a conflict environment made it relevant.
Geneva Conventions Connection:
AIHRC and legal advocates argued under Geneva Convention IV (Protection of Civilians) that the state has a duty to protect civilians, even during internal disturbances.
Judicial Proceedings:
Afghan courts convicted several individuals.
The case led to reforms in police accountability, linking domestic protections with Geneva standards.
🧑⚖️ Case 4: Massacre in Mirza Olang, Sar-e Pul (2017)
Context:
Armed groups (Taliban and ISIS) attacked the village, killing dozens of civilians, mostly Hazara Shias, including women and children.
Geneva Conventions Application:
Clear violation of Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II regarding protection of civilians in non-international armed conflicts.
Afghan National Security Court (and provincial courts) initiated investigations.
Outcome:
Several captured Taliban members were tried in absentia or under anti-terrorism laws.
AIHRC called for application of Geneva norms, not just anti-terror laws, demanding war crimes charges.
🧑⚖️ Case 5: Dasht-e-Leili Massacre (2001)
Context:
Up to 2,000 Taliban prisoners were allegedly suffocated in containers and buried in a mass grave by forces allied with the Northern Alliance, under General Dostum.
Geneva Conventions Application:
If proven, the events would constitute grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions (GC III).
Afghan prosecutors were under pressure to investigate, but political interference blocked accountability.
Judicial Response:
Afghan courts never prosecuted the case formally.
However, it remains one of the most cited failures of the Afghan judiciary to uphold IHL, despite pressure from the UN and human rights groups.
🧑⚖️ Case 6: Trial of Taliban Fighter under 2017 Penal Code (2019)
Context:
A Taliban member was prosecuted for planting IEDs that killed civilians in Helmand.
Use of Geneva Conventions:
The 2017 Penal Code incorporates war crimes provisions directly from IHL and the Geneva Conventions.
Prosecutors charged the accused under articles dealing with murder of civilians and perfidy.
Outcome:
He was sentenced to 20 years.
Judges referenced Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II, indicating a growing trend of Afghan courts applying IHL principles directly.
✍️ Summary of Key Legal Themes
| Legal Principle | Geneva Convention Reference | Application in Afghan Courts |
|---|---|---|
| Protection of Civilians | GC IV, Common Article 3 | Applied in mob lynching and mass killing cases |
| Treatment of Prisoners | GC III, Common Article 3 | Bagram and CIA black site cases |
| Prosecution of War Crimes | GC I–IV, 2017 Penal Code | Cases post-2017 showing increased prosecution |
| Internal Conflict Rules | Additional Protocol II | Applied in Taliban and ISIS trials |
| State Responsibility | GC Obligations under Article 1 | Recognized in AIHRC reports and judicial interpretations |
📌 Conclusion
While the application of the Geneva Conventions in Afghan courts has often been limited by institutional weaknesses, there has been a gradual recognition and application, especially after the 2017 Penal Code reforms. The AIHRC and some Afghan judges have increasingly referenced IHL norms in judicial decisions, though political instability and conflict have hindered full enforcement.
RELATED Blog
0 comments