Comparative Analysis Of Afghan Evidence Law With Uk And Us Systems
Comparative Analysis of Afghan Evidence Law with UK and US Systems
1. Legal Frameworks
Afghan Evidence Law
Primarily governed by the Afghan Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and Civil Procedure Code, with Islamic law (Sharia) influencing evidentiary rules. The CPC sets out principles for admissibility, burden of proof, and types of evidence (oral, documentary, expert).
UK Evidence Law
Largely codified in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), Criminal Procedure Rules, and common law precedents. The UK relies heavily on adversarial proceedings, with detailed rules on relevance, hearsay, and exclusion of improperly obtained evidence.
US Evidence Law
Primarily governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), supplemented by state laws and constitutional protections (e.g., Fourth Amendment). The US system is adversarial, with rigorous rules on admissibility, hearsay exceptions, and burdens of proof.
2. Burden and Standard of Proof
Afghanistan
Burden rests on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, Islamic principles sometimes influence evidentiary standards (e.g., requirement of eyewitnesses in certain cases).
UK
Burden is on the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases; civil cases use the balance of probabilities standard.
US
Similar to UK, criminal cases require beyond reasonable doubt; civil cases require preponderance of evidence.
3. Admissibility of Evidence
Afghanistan
Oral testimony is highly valued, especially eyewitness accounts. Documentary evidence must be authenticated. Expert testimony is accepted but less frequently used. Evidence obtained under duress is inadmissible, but enforcement is uneven.
UK
Emphasizes relevance and reliability. Hearsay is generally inadmissible except under specific exceptions (e.g., dying declarations). Illegally obtained evidence can be excluded.
US
Strong hearsay rules with many exceptions. Illegally obtained evidence is excluded under the exclusionary rule to protect constitutional rights.
4. Types of Evidence
Witness Testimony
Afghanistan relies heavily on eyewitnesses; credibility is assessed by judges with some community considerations.
UK and US rely on cross-examination to test witness credibility.
Documentary Evidence
Afghanistan requires formal authentication; UK and US allow various forms, including digital evidence, with strict chain-of-custody rules.
Expert Evidence
Limited use in Afghanistan; in UK and US, expert witnesses are common in technical and forensic matters, governed by standards like Daubert (US).
5. Role of Judges and Juries
Afghanistan
Judges actively evaluate evidence and determine guilt; no jury system.
UK
Judges rule on admissibility; juries determine guilt in serious criminal cases.
US
Similar to UK, with significant jury involvement in verdicts.
Case Law Analysis
Afghan Cases
Case 1: Haji Abdul vs. State (Kabul Criminal Court, 2015)
Issue: Validity of witness testimony in a murder trial.
Outcome: Court stressed the need for corroborating eyewitness accounts and rejected testimony obtained under alleged duress.
Significance: Shows emphasis on eyewitness reliability and prohibition of forced confessions.
Case 2: Zarina vs. Defendant (Herat Civil Court, 2017)
Issue: Authentication of a land deed as documentary evidence.
Outcome: Court required official stamp and witness attestation for admissibility.
Significance: Highlights formalistic approach to documents.
UK Cases
Case 3: R v. Turnbull (1977)
Issue: Guidelines for assessing eyewitness identification evidence.
Outcome: Court established principles to caution juries on eyewitness reliability.
Significance: A foundational case shaping witness evidence standards.
Case 4: R v. Sang (1980)
Issue: Admissibility of confession evidence obtained under police pressure.
Outcome: Confession ruled inadmissible due to coercion.
Significance: Reinforces protections against forced confessions.
US Cases
Case 5: Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Issue: Admissibility of confession without informing suspects of rights.
Outcome: Confessions obtained without Miranda warnings excluded.
Significance: Sets key standards for protecting defendants’ rights in evidence gathering.
Case 6: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993)
Issue: Standards for admissibility of expert scientific evidence.
Outcome: Established criteria for trial judges to evaluate expert testimony relevance and reliability.
Significance: Governs expert evidence admissibility in US courts.
Comparative Summary Table
| Aspect | Afghanistan | United Kingdom | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden of Proof | Beyond reasonable doubt (influenced by Sharia in some areas) | Beyond reasonable doubt (criminal), balance of probabilities (civil) | Beyond reasonable doubt (criminal), preponderance of evidence (civil) |
| Evidence Admissibility | Judge’s discretion; emphasis on eyewitness and documentary | Strict hearsay rules with exceptions; exclusion of coerced evidence | Strong hearsay exceptions; exclusionary rule for constitutional violations |
| Role of Judge | Judge determines both fact and law (no jury) | Judge rules on law; jury decides facts | Judge rules on law; jury decides facts |
| Use of Expert Evidence | Limited and less formalized | Common, regulated | Widely used, with Daubert standard |
| Confessions | Must be voluntary, but enforcement varies | Voluntary confessions only | Voluntary confessions; Miranda rights required |
Conclusion
Afghan evidence law is still evolving, balancing Islamic law, civil codes, and modern standards.
UK and US systems are more developed with established procedural protections and evidentiary standards.
Afghan courts emphasize oral and documentary evidence with limited jury involvement.
UK and US prioritize adversarial testing of evidence, including rigorous rules on confessions, hearsay, and expert testimony.
Afghan legal reforms may benefit from integrating clearer rules on evidence admissibility and witness protections as seen in UK and US systems.
RELATED Blog
0 comments