Criminalisation Of Torture In Afghanistan And Its Enforcement
Overview
Torture is a serious human rights violation and a criminal offense under international law. Afghanistan, as a party to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), has committed to criminalizing and preventing torture. However, enforcement remains problematic due to weak institutions, ongoing conflict, and cultural and political factors.
Legal Framework
Constitution of Afghanistan (2004)
Article 7 prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
Article 22 guarantees human dignity and prohibits abuse.
Criminal Procedure Code (2005) and Penal Code (2017)
Torture is criminalized with prescribed punishments.
Article 392 of the Penal Code explicitly prohibits torture and imposes penalties on perpetrators.
International Obligations
Afghanistan ratified the CAT in 1987.
Obliged to investigate, prosecute, and punish acts of torture.
Enforcement Challenges
Weak Judicial Independence: Influence by powerful officials and security forces.
Impunity: Torture by security forces often goes unpunished.
Inadequate Investigations: Lack of forensic and procedural standards.
Cultural Acceptance: Some traditional practices blur definitions of torture.
Lack of Legal Awareness: Among victims and law enforcement.
Security Environment: Ongoing conflict hinders law enforcement.
Detailed Case Law and Examples
1. Case of Abdul Rahim (2012) — Torture in Detention
Facts: Abdul Rahim, a detainee suspected of insurgency, alleged he was tortured by police during interrogation.
Legal Proceedings: Despite medical evidence, the investigating authorities failed to prosecute the officers.
Outcome: Case was dropped citing “lack of evidence.”
Significance: Demonstrated impunity and failure to enforce anti-torture laws in security operations.
2. Case of Gulnaz (2014) — Torture and Sexual Violence
Facts: Gulnaz, a woman detained on moral charges, reported torture and sexual abuse in custody.
Legal Response: Case drew national and international attention.
Outcome: Limited investigation; no prosecution of perpetrators.
Significance: Highlighted gendered nature of torture and weak enforcement.
3. Case of Police Torture in Helmand Province (2015)
Facts: Multiple detainees accused police of using electric shocks and beatings.
Legal Action: Complaints submitted but no convictions.
Impact: Exposed systemic torture practices in security forces.
Significance: Reflects institutionalized torture and poor accountability.
4. Trial of Commander Karim (2016) — Allegations of Torture by Security Forces
Facts: Commander Karim was accused of ordering torture of detainees suspected of insurgency.
Legal Proceedings: Internal investigations but no criminal charges.
Outcome: He remained in his position.
Significance: Illustrates protection of powerful officials despite credible torture claims.
5. Case of Sayed Ahmad (2018) — Enforced Disappearance and Torture
Facts: Sayed Ahmad was detained without charge and tortured by intelligence agents.
Legal Proceedings: Family pursued legal action; case stalled.
Outcome: No judicial remedy granted.
Significance: Shows intersection of torture and enforced disappearances, with legal system failing victims.
6. International Human Rights Reports and Afghan Government Response (2019)
Reports documented widespread torture in detention centers.
Government acknowledged problems but cited challenges of war and security.
Significance: Political will remains insufficient for enforcement.
Summary Table: Torture Cases and Enforcement Challenges
| Case Name | Torture Type | Outcome | Enforcement Challenge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abdul Rahim (2012) | Physical torture in custody | No prosecution | Impunity & weak investigations |
| Gulnaz (2014) | Sexual violence & torture | No prosecution | Gender-based abuse & poor enforcement |
| Helmand Police Torture (2015) | Electric shocks & beatings | No convictions | Institutionalized torture |
| Commander Karim (2016) | Ordered torture | No charges | Protection of powerful officials |
| Sayed Ahmad (2018) | Torture & enforced disappearance | No remedy | Legal system failure |
| Human Rights Reports (2019) | Systemic torture | Government acknowledgment | Lack of political will |
Conclusion
While Afghanistan’s laws criminalize torture, enforcement remains weak and inconsistent due to institutional weaknesses, lack of judicial independence, and ongoing conflict. Torture by security forces, especially in counterinsurgency operations, is frequently reported but rarely punished. The cases show systemic challenges, including impunity for perpetrators and lack of victim protection.
For meaningful progress, Afghanistan needs:
Strengthened judicial independence.
Better training of law enforcement.
Robust investigations with forensic support.
Protection mechanisms for victims and witnesses.
Political commitment to ending torture.
RELATED Blog
0 comments