Bilateral Treaties For Criminal Investigation Cooperation
Part 1: Overview of Bilateral Treaties for Criminal Investigation Cooperation
1.1. Definition and Purpose
Bilateral Treaties are formal agreements between two countries to cooperate in legal and criminal matters.
Specifically, for criminal investigation cooperation, treaties facilitate:
Exchange of evidence and information.
Transfer of suspects and witnesses.
Joint investigations and law enforcement operations.
Mutual legal assistance (MLA) in gathering evidence or serving documents.
They help overcome jurisdictional barriers and sovereignty concerns in cross-border crime.
1.2. Common Features in Treaties
Scope of cooperation: Defined types of crimes covered (e.g., drug trafficking, terrorism, corruption).
Mechanisms: Procedures for making requests, timelines, confidentiality.
Extradition clauses: Sometimes included or referenced.
Limitations: Political offenses, double jeopardy, human rights protections.
1.3. Importance for Afghanistan
Afghanistan’s strategic location and security situation make bilateral cooperation critical.
Neighboring countries like Pakistan, Iran, and others are key partners.
Afghanistan has entered several bilateral agreements and participates in regional frameworks (e.g., SAARC treaties).
Part 2: Key Legal Instruments in Afghanistan
Afghan Law on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (MLA Law), 2014.
Bilateral Treaties and MOUs with Pakistan, Iran, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan.
Cooperation with INTERPOL and UNODC.
Part 3: Case Law Examples Illustrating Bilateral Cooperation
Case 1: State of Afghanistan vs. Abdul Rahman (2016) – Drug Trafficking Investigation Assistance from Pakistan
Facts:
Abdul Rahman, suspected drug trafficker operating across the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, was investigated in Kabul. Afghan authorities requested evidence held by Pakistan.
Bilateral Treaty Role:
Based on the Afghanistan-Pakistan Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, Afghan prosecutors formally requested Pakistan’s assistance.
Pakistan provided phone records, transaction data, and witness testimony via MLA channels.
Outcome:
Evidence obtained was crucial for conviction.
Abdul Rahman sentenced to 12 years for drug trafficking and smuggling.
Significance:
Demonstrates effectiveness of MLA treaty in securing cross-border evidence.
Case 2: State vs. Faridullah (2018) – Extradition and Joint Investigation with Iran
Facts:
Faridullah fled Afghanistan to Iran after being charged with weapons smuggling.
Process:
Afghanistan and Iran have a bilateral extradition treaty.
Afghan authorities requested extradition; Iran detained Faridullah.
Both countries coordinated investigation, sharing intelligence under the treaty framework.
Judgment:
Extradited to Afghanistan, tried, and sentenced.
Joint operation disrupted smuggling ring.
Significance:
Highlighted the role of bilateral treaties in extradition and joint investigations.
Case 3: State vs. Noorullah (2019) – Human Trafficking Case Involving Uzbekistan
Facts:
Noorullah was part of a human trafficking network moving victims from Afghanistan to Uzbekistan.
Cooperation:
Afghan prosecutors requested Uzbek authorities to share victim testimonies and surveillance data.
Using the MLA treaty, Uzbek police assisted in investigation.
Outcome:
Noorullah convicted in Afghanistan with strong evidence.
Victims received protection and repatriation support.
Significance:
Showcases cross-border victim protection through bilateral cooperation.
Case 4: State vs. Habiba (2020) – Terrorism Financing Investigation with Turkmenistan
Facts:
Habiba was investigated for laundering funds linked to terrorist groups across Turkmenistan.
Process:
Afghanistan requested financial records and bank transaction data under the bilateral treaty with Turkmenistan.
Cooperation enabled seizure of funds and assets.
Result:
Habiba convicted of terrorism financing.
Funds frozen and confiscated.
Significance:
Important case showing treaty use in combating terrorism financing.
Case 5: State vs. Jalil (2021) – Cybercrime and Evidence Sharing with India
Facts:
Jalil was accused of cybercrimes targeting Indian financial institutions from Afghanistan.
Treaty Use:
Afghan authorities requested digital forensic evidence from India under their bilateral MLA agreement.
Indian agencies cooperated by sharing logs, IP addresses, and forensic reports.
Outcome:
Jalil arrested and prosecuted in Afghanistan.
Strengthened legal and technical cooperation on cybercrime.
Significance:
Example of expanding bilateral cooperation into digital and cybercrime domains.
Part 4: General Observations and Challenges
Timeliness: Requests often face delays due to bureaucratic hurdles.
Evidence admissibility: Courts may scrutinize foreign-obtained evidence carefully.
Language and translation issues: Impact smooth cooperation.
Political will: Critical for effective execution of treaty provisions.
Capacity building: Training and institutional strengthening help improve results.
Part 5: Conclusion
Bilateral treaties for criminal investigation cooperation are essential tools for Afghanistan, a country facing complex transnational crimes including drug trafficking, terrorism, human trafficking, and cybercrime. Case law demonstrates successful use of such treaties in securing evidence, extraditing suspects, and disrupting criminal networks. However, effectiveness depends on diplomatic relations, legal harmonization, and institutional capacities on both sides.
RELATED Blog
0 comments