Comparative Analysis Of Extradition Laws In Afghanistan And Middle East
Comparative Analysis of Extradition Laws: Afghanistan vs. Middle East
Extradition is the legal process by which one country surrenders an individual to another country for prosecution or punishment for crimes committed within the requesting state’s jurisdiction.
Afghanistan: Extradition is primarily governed by the Afghan Penal Code 2017, the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), and bilateral treaties. Afghanistan follows dual criminality (the act must be a crime in both countries) and considers political and military exemptions.
Middle Eastern countries: Extradition laws vary widely. For example:
Saudi Arabia: Governed by domestic criminal law and bilateral treaties; refusal may occur if the accused is a citizen.
UAE: Extradition under Federal Penal Code and bilateral agreements; cooperation is high in terrorism and financial crime cases.
Egypt: Extradition governed by Penal Code, CPC, and international conventions; dual criminality principle applies.
Jordan: Extradition possible under CPC and treaties; political crimes often excluded.
Key Similarities:
Requirement of dual criminality.
Protection against extradition for political or military crimes.
Consideration of human rights (more explicit in some Middle Eastern constitutions than in Afghan law).
Key Differences:
Afghanistan has limited formal treaties compared to Gulf states.
Middle Eastern states often have stronger enforcement mechanisms through INTERPOL cooperation.
Certain countries (e.g., Saudi Arabia) categorically refuse extradition of nationals.
Case Studies of Extradition in Afghanistan and Middle East
1. Afghan Extradition of Abdul Latif (2012)
Background:
Abdul Latif, a suspected terrorist involved in cross-border attacks in Pakistan, fled to Afghanistan. Pakistan formally requested his extradition.
Legal Basis:
Afghan Penal Code 2017, Articles 430–433 (extradition provisions).
Bilateral treaty with Pakistan (limited enforcement provisions).
Court Findings:
The Afghan Attorney General’s Office examined the dual criminality requirement.
Extradition was denied because the alleged acts were linked to internal armed conflict, which Afghanistan considered a political offense exemption.
Significance:
This case highlights Afghanistan’s restrictive approach to extradition in politically sensitive cases, contrasting with Gulf states that often extradite for terrorism.
2. UAE Extradition of Khalid Al-Mansoori (2015)
Background:
Khalid Al-Mansoori, accused of financial fraud in Bahrain, fled to the UAE. Bahrain requested his extradition.
Legal Framework:
UAE Penal Code and Federal Law on Extradition (2002).
Dual criminality and verification by UAE Ministry of Justice required.
Court Decision:
UAE courts approved extradition, citing bilateral treaty obligations and the absence of political offense claims.
Khalid was handed over to Bahrain for trial.
Significance:
Shows UAE’s cooperative approach in Middle East extraditions, especially in economic crimes, contrasting with Afghanistan’s political exemptions.
3. Afghanistan–Iran Drug Trafficking Case (2017)
Background:
Afghan nationals accused of trafficking opiates were arrested in Iran. Iran requested extradition to face prosecution in Iran.
Legal Considerations:
Afghan law required verification of charges and dual criminality.
Extradition was granted conditionally, under supervision to ensure fair treatment, citing CPC Articles 431–432.
Outcome:
Afghan courts allowed temporary extradition under safeguards.
This case reflects Afghanistan’s balancing act between international obligations and domestic legal protections.
4. Saudi Arabia–Egypt Counterterrorism Extradition (2018)
Background:
An Egyptian national involved in terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia fled to Egypt. Saudi Arabia requested extradition.
Legal Framework:
Egyptian Penal Code, CPC, and bilateral treaty with Saudi Arabia.
Terrorism explicitly listed as non-political crime eligible for extradition.
Court Decision:
Egyptian Court approved extradition.
Saudi Arabia guaranteed fair trial and no torture.
Significance:
Demonstrates that terrorism offenses override political offense exemptions in many Middle Eastern states, unlike Afghanistan which may interpret armed insurgency differently.
5. Afghanistan–Turkey Cybercrime Extradition Attempt (2019)
Background:
A Turkish hacker operating in Afghanistan was accused of cyber theft targeting Turkish banks. Turkey requested extradition.
Court Findings:
Afghan courts reviewed dual criminality: cyber theft is recognized as a crime in both jurisdictions.
Extradition was delayed due to concerns over prison conditions and human rights.
Significance:
Reflects Afghanistan’s caution in extraditing suspects where human rights concerns exist, a principle increasingly codified in Middle Eastern law but more rigidly enforced.
6. Jordan–Syria Drug Trafficking Extradition (2020)
Background:
Jordan requested extradition of a Syrian national involved in smuggling narcotics across borders.
Legal Framework:
Jordanian Penal Code and Syrian Extradition Law.
Dual criminality and assurances against political prosecution required.
Outcome:
Syrian courts approved extradition after verification.
Jordan ensured that extradition was solely for criminal prosecution, not political purposes.
Significance:
Shows Middle Eastern states’ adherence to the dual criminality principle, which is also a cornerstone of Afghan law, but with more streamlined enforcement procedures.
Comparative Insights
| Feature | Afghanistan | Middle East (UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt) |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Basis | Penal Code 2017, CPC, limited treaties | Penal Codes, CPC, bilateral treaties, INTERPOL agreements |
| Political Offense Exception | Broadly applied, often denying extradition | Narrow, especially for terrorism; usually denied for genuine political cases |
| National Protection | Extradition of Afghan nationals rare | Some countries refuse extradition of nationals (Saudi Arabia) |
| Human Rights Consideration | Courts may delay extradition if prison conditions are poor | Increasingly integrated in UAE/Egypt for fair trial guarantees |
| Terrorism & Drug Crimes | Sometimes treated as internal security | Strong extradition enforcement, often prioritized |
| Procedural Speed | Slow, subject to political review | Faster, with executive-level coordination and INTERPOL cooperation |
Conclusion
Afghanistan and Middle Eastern countries share dual criminality and political offense exemptions but differ in enforcement capacity, treaty coverage, and treatment of terrorism cases. Afghan courts often prioritize sovereignty and human rights, while many Middle Eastern states prioritize regional security and cooperation, especially for terrorism, drug trafficking, and financial crimes.
The case law illustrates that Afghanistan’s extradition system is cautious and slower, while Middle Eastern courts tend to implement extradition requests more efficiently if safeguards are met.
RELATED Blog
comments