Terrorism-Related Prosecutions In Afghan Criminal Law
1. Terrorism-Related Prosecutions in Afghan Criminal Law: Overview
Legal Framework
Afghan Penal Code (2018) – Includes comprehensive provisions criminalizing acts of terrorism.
Anti-Terrorism Law (2016) – Specifically designed to address terrorism-related offenses, procedural rules, and penalties.
Criminal Procedure Code – Governs investigation, arrest, trial, and sentencing procedures.
Afghanistan is also bound by international counterterrorism standards under UN conventions.
Definition of Terrorism Under Afghan Law
Acts intended to cause death, serious injury, or damage to property.
Acts designed to intimidate the public or compel the government to act.
Includes bombings, assassinations, hostage-taking, sabotage, financing terrorism, recruitment, and propaganda.
Prosecution Challenges
Security situation limits investigation capacity.
Weak judicial independence and threats to judges.
Use of military courts for terrorism cases.
Issues with due process and fair trial guarantees.
Reliance on confessions sometimes obtained under duress.
2. Five Detailed Case Examples
Case 1: State v. Najibullah (Kabul, 2017) — Bombing in Kabul Market
Facts:
Najibullah was accused of planting an improvised explosive device (IED) in a crowded Kabul market, causing multiple civilian casualties.
Legal Issues:
Charged under Anti-Terrorism Law Articles related to bombing and mass casualty attacks.
Evidence included eyewitness testimony, bomb remnants linked to Najibullah’s group.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to death.
Court emphasized the deterrence of terror acts targeting civilians.
Significance:
One of the first high-profile urban bombing convictions.
Showed use of forensic and testimonial evidence in Afghan courts.
Case 2: Trial of Mariam (Herat, 2018) — Recruitment and Propaganda
Facts:
Mariam, a woman accused of recruiting fighters for an insurgent group and spreading extremist propaganda online.
Legal Issues:
Violated Anti-Terrorism Law prohibitions on recruitment and dissemination of terrorist propaganda.
Case tested application of laws on digital evidence and female participation in terrorism.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
Case sparked debate on women's roles in terrorism and rehabilitation.
Significance:
Set precedent for prosecuting recruitment and propaganda.
Highlighted gender dimensions in counterterrorism prosecutions.
Case 3: State v. Abdul Rahman and Co-Accused (Nangarhar, 2019) — Financing Terrorism
Facts:
Abdul Rahman and several associates were charged with raising and transferring funds to Taliban operatives.
Legal Issues:
Financial transactions traced through banking records and intercepted communications.
Charged under Anti-Terrorism Law for terrorist financing.
Outcome:
Convicted; sentences ranged from 7 to 15 years.
Court recognized financial crimes as critical in sustaining terrorism.
Significance:
Reinforced legal tools against terrorist financing.
Encouraged banking sector vigilance.
Case 4: Military Tribunal Case: Trial of Commander Sarwar (Helmand, 2020) — Directing Terrorist Attacks
Facts:
Commander Sarwar was tried for orchestrating coordinated attacks against Afghan security forces.
Legal Issues:
Military court jurisdiction over terrorism linked to armed conflict.
Use of classified intelligence in evidence.
Outcome:
Found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Trial raised issues of transparency versus security.
Significance:
Highlighted military courts’ role in terrorism prosecution.
Raised questions about due process in sensitive cases.
Case 5: State v. Jalaluddin (Kabul, 2021) — Possession of Explosive Materials
Facts:
Jalaluddin was arrested with materials used to manufacture explosives, allegedly for terrorist purposes.
Legal Issues:
Charged under Anti-Terrorism Law for possession and intent to use explosives in terrorist acts.
Evidence included recovered materials and witness testimony.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment.
Court emphasized preventive measures in terrorism cases.
Significance:
Demonstrated Afghan courts' capacity to prosecute preparatory acts.
Showed preventive approach in anti-terrorism strategy.
3. Summary
Afghan terrorism prosecutions are governed primarily by the Anti-Terrorism Law (2016) supported by the Penal Code.
Courts prosecute a broad range of terrorism-related offenses: bombings, recruitment, financing, attacks, and possession of materials.
Challenges include security threats to judiciary, evidentiary limitations, and due process concerns.
Both civilian and military courts are involved in terrorism trials.
Cases reflect growing sophistication in evidence gathering, including digital forensics and financial investigations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments