Trafficking Of Women And Children Under Afghan Law
🔹 Trafficking of Women and Children Under Afghan Law – Overview
Legal Framework:
Afghanistan has criminalized human trafficking — especially of women and children — under:
2017 Afghan Penal Code, particularly:
Articles 510–519 (Trafficking in Persons)
Articles 627–632 (Crimes against children)
Law on Combatting Abduction and Human Trafficking (2008) — supplementing criminal law.
Sharia Law — considers exploitation, abduction, and forced prostitution serious moral and legal offenses.
Definitions:
Human trafficking includes: recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of persons through threats, force, fraud, or abuse of power for the purpose of exploitation.
Exploitation includes: sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, or removal of organs.
🔹 Key Elements in Afghan Trafficking Cases:
Use of force, deception, or coercion
Exploitation (especially sexual or labor-related)
Involvement of minors increases penalties
Consent of the victim is irrelevant when force or deceit is used
🔹 Case Studies: Trafficking of Women and Children in Afghanistan
1. State v. Abdul Rashid (2018)
Facts: Abdul Rashid operated a network smuggling young girls from rural provinces to Kabul under false promises of employment, later forcing them into sex work.
Issue: Could the court convict without direct testimony from all victims?
Ruling: Yes. The court relied on partial victim testimony, physical evidence (transport logs), and Rashid’s confession. Convicted under Article 511.
Significance:
Showed how courts can convict trafficking offenders even with partial witness cooperation — highlighting the role of circumstantial and forensic evidence.
2. State v. Shukria (2020)
Facts: Shukria, a woman, was arrested for trafficking underage girls for illegal domestic work in urban homes, where they were also physically abused.
Issue: Was this trafficking or just illegal child labor?
Ruling: The court found that deception and abuse classified it as trafficking, not just labor exploitation. She was convicted under Articles 510 and 629.
Significance:
Emphasized that forced labor through deception of minors qualifies as trafficking — even without crossing borders.
3. State v. Azizullah and Co-defendants (2019)
Facts: A group was charged with kidnapping children from refugee camps and selling them to families under the guise of “adoption.”
Issue: Is illegal adoption a form of trafficking?
Ruling: Yes. The court ruled that transferring children without legal guardianship and consent, for exploitation or financial gain, is human trafficking.
Significance:
Helped Afghan courts define “adoption scams” as trafficking when motivated by profit and lacking due legal process.
4. State v. Fatima (2017)
Facts: Fatima was lured from a village with a fake marriage proposal, then sold into a forced marriage in another province.
Issue: Was this a marriage issue or trafficking?
Ruling: It was trafficking, since the intent was exploitation and deception was used. Conviction under Articles 510 and 512.
Significance:
Showed how fake marriage can be used as a trafficking method — leading to forced sexual or domestic exploitation.
5. State v. Bashir (2021)
Facts: Bashir was caught smuggling boys across the border, claiming he was helping them find jobs in Iran. Several boys ended up in forced labor.
Issue: Did economic motive and cross-border nature strengthen the trafficking charge?
Ruling: Yes. Convicted under anti-trafficking laws and sentenced to 15 years. Use of minors, deception, and international element increased penalty.
Significance:
Demonstrated harsh penalties for trafficking minors — especially when it crosses borders.
6. State v. Nasima (2022)
Facts: Nasima ran a shelter that secretly funneled runaway girls into exploitative marriages in exchange for dowry money.
Issue: Could a shelter worker be guilty of trafficking?
Ruling: Yes. Court held she abused her position of trust and facilitated trafficking through fraudulent marriage arrangements.
Significance:
Warned institutions meant to protect women not to become fronts for exploitation.
🔹 Summary Table
| Case | Type of Crime | Key Legal Focus | Court Ruling | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abdul Rashid (2018) | Sexual exploitation of girls | Trafficking via false employment | Convicted | Circumstantial evidence + victim protection emphasized |
| Shukria (2020) | Domestic child labor | Deception + forced labor | Convicted | Illegal labor framed as trafficking |
| Azizullah (2019) | Child selling disguised as adoption | Financial gain + no legal process | Convicted | Adoption scam as trafficking |
| Fatima (2017) | Fake marriage → forced marriage | Deception for sexual/domestic exploitation | Convicted | Marriage abuse treated as trafficking |
| Bashir (2021) | Child labor smuggling to Iran | Cross-border + economic exploitation | Convicted | High penalty due to minors + border element |
| Nasima (2022) | Shelter used for forced marriages | Institutional abuse + profit motive | Convicted | Holding trusted actors accountable |
RELATED Blog
0 comments