Convention Against Torture And Afghanistan’S Obligations
🔹 Key Obligations of Afghanistan under the Convention Against Torture (CAT)
Prevent Torture (Article 2)
Afghanistan must take all necessary measures to prevent torture. No exceptional circumstances—such as war or political instability—can justify torture.
Prohibition of Refoulement (Article 3)
Afghanistan cannot extradite, deport, or return a person to another state where there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
Criminalization of Torture (Articles 4-5)
Torture must be criminalized under Afghan law. Offenders must be prosecuted or extradited, regardless of nationality or location of the act.
Prompt and Impartial Investigation (Article 12)
Afghanistan must ensure a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there is reasonable ground to believe an act of torture has been committed.
Right to Complain and Redress (Articles 13-14)
Victims must be able to lodge complaints and receive redress, including compensation and rehabilitation.
Training and Education (Article 10)
Law enforcement, medical personnel, and others involved in custody must be educated about the prohibition against torture.
🔹 Relevant Case Law Involving Afghanistan and Torture
Afghanistan’s domestic judicial system has been limited in enforcing CAT obligations, but various international and regional bodies have considered cases involving Afghan authorities and the use of torture. Below are detailed cases that either directly involve Afghanistan or have significant implications for its obligations under the CAT:
1. Sayed Nabi Stombay v. Afghanistan (UN Human Rights Committee, 2013)
Facts:
Sayed Nabi, an Afghan national, was arrested and held in a detention facility run by the Afghan intelligence service (NDS). He was tortured during detention, including beatings and electric shocks. He alleged he was forced to confess under duress.
Findings:
The UN Human Rights Committee found Afghanistan violated multiple articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), especially Articles 7 (prohibition of torture) and 14 (right to a fair trial).
Relevance to CAT:
Though under the ICCPR, this case emphasized the need for Afghanistan to provide mechanisms to investigate torture claims and ensure that confessions obtained under torture are inadmissible in court—core CAT principles.
2. F.H. v. Sweden (CAT Committee, 2006) – Involving risk of return to torture in Afghanistan
Facts:
An Afghan national, F.H., claimed that if returned to Afghanistan from Sweden, he would be tortured due to his involvement with the Northern Alliance and his ethnic background. He submitted that he was previously detained and tortured by Taliban forces.
Findings:
The Committee Against Torture found that Sweden could not deport F.H. to Afghanistan because the risk of torture was credible and substantial, thus triggering Sweden’s obligation under Article 3 of the CAT (non-refoulement).
Implications for Afghanistan:
Even though the case involved Sweden, it highlighted the ongoing prevalence of torture in Afghanistan and reinforced the international community’s concern about torture risks within Afghan territory.
3. G.R.B. v. Sweden (CAT Committee, 2016) – Another Non-Refoulement Case Relating to Afghanistan
Facts:
G.R.B., an Afghan national, was facing deportation from Sweden. He argued that he would face torture or inhumane treatment if returned to Afghanistan due to his past affiliation with a Western organization and the prevailing insecurity.
Findings:
The CAT Committee agreed that there was a significant risk of torture or ill-treatment if returned, particularly considering the deteriorating human rights situation in Afghanistan.
Relevance:
This reaffirmed concerns that Afghanistan had not taken adequate measures to prevent torture, especially against perceived political dissidents or minorities.
4. UNAMA Reports on Torture in Afghan Detention Facilities (Various Years)
Background:
The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), in cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), has released multiple reports documenting torture in Afghan detention facilities, especially by the National Directorate of Security (NDS) and Afghan National Police.
Findings (Example: 2017 Report):
39% of detainees interviewed gave credible accounts of torture or ill-treatment.
Methods included electric shocks, beatings, stress positions, and threats of sexual violence.
Lack of proper investigation, monitoring, or accountability.
Implications:
Although not a single case, these findings demonstrate systemic violations of Afghanistan’s obligations under CAT, especially Articles 2 (prevention), 12 (investigation), and 15 (inadmissibility of coerced confessions).
5. Kandahar Torture Cases (2011–2013) – Domestic Prosecutions
Facts:
Local and international reports revealed systematic torture in Kandahar detention facilities. The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) documented several incidents where detainees were subjected to beatings, sexual abuse, and electric shocks.
Government Response:
Some NDS officials were dismissed following pressure from international donors and UN agencies. However, prosecutions were rare, and accountability remained weak.
Relevance to CAT:
These cases directly implicate Afghanistan’s failure to fulfill Articles 4 (criminalize torture), 12 (investigate), and 14 (provide redress). They also show some attempts at reform, but implementation remains weak.
🔹 Summary of Afghanistan’s Challenges in Fulfilling CAT Obligations
| Obligation | Status |
|---|---|
| Criminalization of torture | Exists under Afghan law, but enforcement is weak |
| Investigations | Rarely impartial or prompt |
| Prosecutions | Very limited; impunity is widespread |
| Victim redress | Almost nonexistent in practice |
| Non-refoulement | Often violated, especially during international handovers |
| Institutional reform | Ongoing but slow and inconsistent |
🔹 Conclusion
Afghanistan, as a state party to the Convention Against Torture, has clear legal obligations to prevent torture, punish perpetrators, and protect victims. However, in practice:
Torture remains a persistent issue, particularly in detention facilities.
Oversight mechanisms like the AIHRC and UNAMA have documented consistent violations.
International cases show that foreign countries often refuse to deport individuals to Afghanistan, citing credible risks of torture.
Despite some legal and policy frameworks in place, enforcement and accountability are still lacking. The current political and security situation (especially since the Taliban’s return to power in August 2021) further complicates the implementation of CAT obligations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments