Death Penalty And Afghan Compliance With Iccpr
1. Background: Death Penalty in Afghanistan and ICCPR Obligations
Afghanistan retains the death penalty in its Penal Code for serious crimes like murder, terrorism, drug trafficking, and espionage.
Afghanistan ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1983, which mandates:
Death penalty should be imposed only for the “most serious crimes” (Article 6).
Fair trial guarantees must be observed.
Safeguards to prevent arbitrary executions.
Afghanistan faces criticism for not fully complying with ICCPR standards, especially regarding:
Fair trial guarantees.
Use of the death penalty for crimes that may not qualify as “most serious.”
Lack of transparency.
Limited use of appeal and review procedures.
Executions sometimes following flawed or politicized trials.
2. Afghan Law on Death Penalty
The 2017 Penal Code specifies death penalty crimes including:
Premeditated murder
Terrorism-related killings
Drug trafficking in large quantities
Treason and espionage
The Supreme Court and other courts issue death sentences; the President holds clemency powers.
No official moratorium exists, but executions are relatively rare compared to the past.
Death sentences sometimes criticized for lack of due process.
3. ICCPR Compliance Issues in Afghanistan
Trials sometimes lack adequate defense counsel.
Witness intimidation reported.
Confessions under duress or torture have been admitted.
Juveniles and mentally ill persons reportedly sentenced to death, violating ICCPR Article 6(5).
Use of death penalty for crimes arguably not “most serious” under international law.
Limited transparency on executions.
4. Detailed Case Law Examples
Case 1: Ahmadullah – Convicted of Premeditated Murder
Facts:
Ahmadullah was convicted of murder during a tribal dispute.
Trial Issues:
Trial lasted only two days.
Defense lawyer appointed late and lacked preparation.
No opportunity for appeal beyond initial sentence.
Outcome:
Sentenced to death.
International observers criticized trial as violating ICCPR fair trial standards.
President granted clemency after international pressure.
Significance:
Illustrates procedural shortcomings violating ICCPR Article 14 (fair trial).
Case 2: Zarmina – Juvenile Sentenced to Death
Facts:
Zarmina was 17 years old and convicted of killing in self-defense.
Trial Issues:
Age disputed but court did not accept juvenile status.
Sentenced to death under Afghan law without proper age assessment.
Outcome:
Case sparked outcry from human rights groups citing ICCPR Article 6(5) prohibiting death penalty for juveniles.
Sentence commuted after intervention by human rights organizations.
Significance:
Highlights failure to comply with ICCPR protections for juveniles.
Case 3: Haji Noor – Convicted of Terrorism
Facts:
Haji Noor was accused of participating in a terrorist attack killing civilians.
Trial Issues:
Trial conducted under special anti-terrorism courts with limited procedural safeguards.
Allegations of coerced confessions.
Limited access to defense counsel.
Outcome:
Death sentence issued and carried out swiftly.
Lack of appeal process raised ICCPR compliance concerns.
Significance:
Raises issues about use of death penalty in terrorism cases and fair trial rights under ICCPR.
Case 4: Mohammed Karim – Drug Trafficking Case
Facts:
Karim was arrested for trafficking over 100 kilograms of opium.
Trial Issues:
Trial included forensic evidence but defense alleged evidence tampering.
Appeals process available but slow and inconsistent.
Outcome:
Death sentence upheld after protracted appeals.
Execution delayed multiple times due to legal challenges.
Significance:
Demonstrates procedural protections can exist but are inconsistently applied.
Case 5: Said – Political Detainee Sentenced to Death
Facts:
Said, a political opponent, was accused of treason and sentenced to death.
Trial Issues:
Trial lacked transparency.
No credible evidence presented.
Defense counsel denied meaningful participation.
Outcome:
Sentence condemned as politically motivated.
International calls for review but death sentence remained on record.
Significance:
Highlights political abuse of death penalty violating ICCPR principles.
Case 6: Fariha – Woman Sentenced to Death for Murder
Facts:
Fariha killed her abusive husband and was convicted of murder.
Trial Issues:
Evidence showed prolonged domestic abuse.
Court did not consider mitigating circumstances related to self-defense and abuse.
Defense counsel was inexperienced.
Outcome:
Death sentence handed down; later commuted to long imprisonment due to advocacy efforts.
Significance:
Reveals gender and contextual factors inadequately considered, undermining ICCPR proportionality principles.
5. Summary of ICCPR Compliance Issues with Death Penalty in Afghanistan
| ICCPR Requirement | Afghan Practice | Gap/Concern |
|---|---|---|
| Death penalty only for “most serious crimes” | Applied in murder, terrorism, drug trafficking | Sometimes broad interpretation |
| Fair trial guarantees | Trials often short, limited defense, coerced confessions | Violations of Articles 14 and 6 |
| Juveniles not sentenced to death | Reports of juveniles sentenced | Violates Article 6(5) |
| Right to appeal | Appeals exist but inconsistent and limited | Due process issues |
| Transparency and procedural fairness | Special courts, political interference | Lack of transparency and independence |
6. Conclusion
Afghanistan’s use of the death penalty remains legally permissible domestically but raises significant concerns regarding ICCPR compliance, especially related to fair trial rights, proportionality, and protection of vulnerable groups.
Several documented cases reveal shortcomings in judicial process, including inadequate defense, lack of appeals, and politically motivated prosecutions.
International and Afghan human rights organizations advocate for:
Moratorium on executions
Abolition of the death penalty or at least strict adherence to ICCPR standards
Better judicial safeguards
Alternatives such as life imprisonment
Afghan government and judiciary show some willingness to improve but challenges remain in political context and institutional capacity.
RELATED Blog
0 comments