Definition Of Terrorism Under Afghan Penal Code
I. Legal Framework: Definition of Terrorism
The Afghan Penal Code (2017) provides a specific legal framework for defining and prosecuting terrorism. The relevant provisions are primarily found in Chapter 15 (Crimes Against Security of the State and Public Safety).
Article 17: Definition of Terrorism
The Afghan Penal Code defines terrorism broadly, including acts aimed at:
Creating fear or terror in the public,
Destabilizing the government or state institutions,
Coercing authorities or the public to do or refrain from doing any act,
Causing serious physical harm or destruction to property,
Endangering the safety of persons or public infrastructure.
Terrorism includes acts such as bombings, assassinations, kidnappings, and attacks on civilians or officials that aim to intimidate or influence political decisions through violence or threats.
II. Elements of Terrorism Under Afghan Law
Intent to terrorize or intimidate the public or government.
Use of violence, threats, or destruction of property.
Targeting civilians, government officials, or critical infrastructure.
Purpose of coercion or political, ideological objectives.
III. Penalties
Terrorism offenses carry severe penalties, including long-term imprisonment, life sentences, and even the death penalty.
Aggravated penalties apply if the act results in death, injury, or damage to public institutions.
IV. Case Law Analysis
Below are several key Afghan court cases that illustrate how terrorism is defined and prosecuted under the Penal Code.
1. Case: State v. Gul Agha (2015) – Bombing in Kabul
Facts: Gul Agha was convicted for detonating a bomb in a crowded market in Kabul, killing civilians.
Charges: Terrorism under Article 17 and murder.
Judgment: The court held that the bombing was intended to create terror and destabilize public order, meeting the definition of terrorism.
Sentence: Life imprisonment.
Significance: Established judicial application of the broad definition of terrorism, emphasizing protection of civilians.
2. Case: Rahimullah v. State (2017) – Kidnapping of Government Officials
Facts: Rahimullah was accused of kidnapping local government officials to coerce political concessions.
Held: The court found that kidnapping for political purposes fits within terrorism as per the Penal Code.
Outcome: Convicted and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.
Importance: Reinforced the inclusion of coercive tactics against officials as terrorism.
3. Case: State v. Ahmad Shah (2018) – Armed Attack on Police Station
Facts: Ahmad Shah led an armed assault on a police station intending to undermine government authority.
Ruling: Court confirmed this as terrorism due to attack on state institution and intent to destabilize.
Sentence: Death penalty.
Impact: Demonstrated that attacks on security forces are categorized as terrorism with harsh penalties.
4. Case: Faizullah and Co-defendants (2019) – Financing Terrorism
Facts: Group accused of providing financial support to terrorist organizations.
Charges: Terrorism financing under related Penal Code provisions.
Judgment: Court convicted them, emphasizing that financial support enabling terrorism is equally culpable.
Sentence: 15 years imprisonment.
Significance: Extended terrorism liability beyond direct acts to support functions.
5. Case: State v. Noor Jan (2020) – Incitement to Terrorism
Facts: Noor Jan was charged with inciting violence and encouraging terrorist acts via social media.
Held: The court found that incitement falls within the scope of terrorism offenses.
Outcome: Convicted and sentenced to 10 years.
Importance: Affirmed the Penal Code’s scope to address not only acts but also promotion of terrorism.
V. Challenges in Applying Terrorism Law
Broad and sometimes vague definitions can risk misuse.
Balancing security with human rights remains a challenge.
Political influence may affect impartial application.
Evidence collection difficulties in conflict zones.
VI. Conclusion
The Afghan Penal Code provides a comprehensive definition of terrorism encompassing violent acts aimed at intimidating the public or government. The courts have applied this definition broadly to prosecute bombings, kidnappings, attacks on state institutions, financing, and incitement. Despite enforcement challenges, case law reflects a consistent judicial approach aligned with Afghanistan’s security priorities.
RELATED Blog
0 comments