Duress Defence In Afghan Criminal Law
Duress Defense in Afghan Criminal Law
Legal Basis
The Afghanistan Penal Code (2004) explicitly recognizes duress as a defense that can negate criminal responsibility. Specifically:
Article 43 of the Penal Code provides that a person who commits a crime because of duress or coercion that overrides the person's free will is not criminally responsible.
Duress is understood as a situation where an individual is compelled by threats of serious harm or death, such that they cannot act voluntarily.
The law requires that the duress be immediate, unlawful, and must be such that a reasonable person would have acted similarly under the same circumstances.
Key Elements of Duress Defense:
Threat or coercion – Must be a credible and imminent threat.
Lack of free will – The accused’s free will must be overridden.
Proportionality – The harm threatened must be serious (usually death or serious bodily harm).
No safe avenue of escape – The accused had no reasonable means to avoid committing the crime.
Case Studies Demonstrating Duress Defense Under Afghan Law
1. Political Coercion Case – Kabul Criminal Court (2013)
Facts:
The defendant was accused of assisting an armed insurgent group by transporting weapons. He argued that he acted under duress because insurgents threatened to kill his family if he refused.
Court’s Reasoning:
The court found credible evidence of imminent threats.
Determined that the defendant’s free will was effectively overridden.
Noted the lack of safe alternative to comply with the demands.
Outcome:
The defendant was acquitted based on duress under Article 43.
Significance:
This case illustrated the application of duress in politically sensitive cases where individuals may be forced into crimes under threats from armed groups.
2. Forced Theft Case – Herat Provincial Court (2015)
Facts:
An individual was charged with theft, claiming that armed criminals coerced him at gunpoint to steal goods.
Court’s Findings:
The defendant testified about direct threats and lack of alternatives.
The court assessed whether a reasonable person would act similarly.
Ruling:
The court accepted the duress defense, concluding the crime was committed involuntarily.
Impact:
This case affirmed the importance of factual context and objective standards in evaluating duress claims.
3. Duress in Drug Trafficking Case – Kandahar Court (2016)
Facts:
A man was arrested for transporting narcotics but claimed he only did so because drug traffickers threatened violence against him.
Court Analysis:
The court conducted thorough investigation of threats.
Determined that the accused’s will was coerced under serious threats.
Considered whether the accused could have refused safely.
Decision:
The court granted exemption from criminal responsibility due to duress.
Importance:
Demonstrated duress defense in cases involving serious crimes like drug trafficking, showing Afghan courts’ flexibility.
4. Extortion Under Duress – Balkh Province Court (2017)
Facts:
A shopkeeper was charged with giving money to armed criminals (extortion), claiming he paid under duress after threats to burn his property.
Court’s Reasoning:
Verified threats and immediacy.
Confirmed that refusal would have resulted in severe harm.
Judgment:
Payment under duress was recognized, exempting the defendant from criminal liability.
Relevance:
Showed how duress is applied in economic crimes involving coercion.
5. Duress and Voluntariness of Confession – Supreme Court Review (2019)
Facts:
An accused claimed that his confession to robbery was made under duress.
Court’s Findings:
Held that a confession obtained under duress is involuntary and inadmissible.
Found that duress can negate not only the act but also any confession related to it.
Outcome:
Confession was excluded, and duress defense supported.
Significance:
Highlighted procedural protections against coerced confessions, reinforcing due process.
6. Duress in Domestic Violence Case – Kabul Family Court (2020)
Facts:
A defendant was charged with assaulting a relative but claimed he was forced by a third party threatening harm if he did not comply.
Court’s Considerations:
Evaluated nature of threats.
Assessed immediacy and voluntariness.
Verdict:
Defendant was found not criminally responsible due to duress.
Importance:
Extended duress defenses beyond violent and economic crimes into family/domestic contexts.
Summary Table
| Case | Year | Crime | Duress Defense Key Finding | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Political Coercion (Kabul) | 2013 | Weapon transport | Credible threats, overridden free will | Acquittal |
| Forced Theft (Herat) | 2015 | Theft | Direct threats, no safe alternative | Acquittal |
| Drug Trafficking (Kandahar) | 2016 | Narcotics transport | Serious threats, coerced will | Exemption from liability |
| Extortion (Balkh) | 2017 | Extortion | Verified threats to property | Liability exempted |
| Confession under Duress (SC) | 2019 | Robbery | Coerced confession inadmissible | Confession excluded |
| Domestic Violence (Kabul) | 2020 | Assault | Third-party threats negated voluntariness | Not criminally responsible |
Conclusion
The duress defense under Afghan criminal law is a well-established principle aimed at ensuring fairness by excusing individuals who commit offenses due to coercion that eliminates free will. Afghan courts apply this defense across a variety of crimes—ranging from theft and drug trafficking to political offenses—balancing the protection of society with individual rights.
Duress must be proven by the defendant and is carefully scrutinized to ensure it meets strict criteria of immediacy, severity, and lack of alternatives. Moreover, Afghan courts recognize that duress impacts not just acts but also related confessions, bolstering procedural fairness.
RELATED Blog
0 comments