Chain Of Custody Issues In Afghan Prosecutions
🔹 What Is Chain of Custody?
Chain of custody refers to the documented process of collecting, preserving, transferring, and presenting physical evidence in court. It ensures:
Integrity: Evidence hasn’t been altered.
Authenticity: Evidence comes from the crime scene or the accused.
Admissibility: Judges can trust the evidence in court.
If the chain of custody is broken — for example, no proper labeling, missing records, or unauthorized access — evidence can be excluded, or the case can collapse.
🔹 Challenges in Afghanistan
In Afghan prosecutions, chain of custody problems often arise due to:
Lack of standardized procedures.
Weak documentation and record-keeping.
Limited forensic training for police and prosecutors.
In some areas, interference by powerful figures or tribal elders.
Institutional breakdowns (especially during regime transitions).
🔹 Key Afghan Case Examples (Post-2004 Constitution Era)
1. State v. Zubair (2013) – Narcotics Case Dismissed
Crime: Accused of heroin smuggling in Nangarhar.
Issue: The heroin was seized but not sealed, and there were no logs showing who had access.
Court’s Ruling: Evidence was deemed inadmissible, and the case was dismissed.
Impact: Emphasized the need for proper evidence handling in narcotics cases.
2. State v. Latifa (2015) – Assault with Weapon
Crime: Accused of stabbing another woman during a dispute.
Issue: The weapon was collected but stored in an unsealed bag, later found missing.
Court’s Ruling: Case weakened by lost weapon; conviction downgraded to lesser offense.
Impact: Highlighted how mishandling physical evidence weakens prosecution.
3. State v. Ahmad (2016) – Armed Robbery in Kabul
Crime: Accused of robbing a jewelry shop.
Issue: Fingerprints were collected but no proper documentation about lab transfer or analysis.
Court’s Ruling: Fingerprint evidence rejected; case relied solely on witness statements.
Impact: Showed limits of forensic use without proper chain of custody.
4. State v. Nasir (2018) – Sexual Assault Case in Herat
Crime: Accused of raping a minor.
Issue: DNA samples were collected but no chain of documentation, and the lab technician was unavailable to testify.
Court’s Ruling: DNA evidence excluded; case relied on victim testimony.
Impact: Serious case impacted by lack of forensic protocol.
5. State v. Bashir (2019) – Explosives Possession
Crime: Found with explosives in vehicle.
Issue: Explosives were stored for two weeks in a local police office without inventory or photos.
Court’s Ruling: Defense argued possibility of evidence tampering; court dismissed explosives-related charges.
Impact: Critical in terrorism-related trials where evidence handling must be airtight.
6. State v. Sahar (2020) – Domestic Violence Case in Bamyan
Crime: Physical assault on spouse.
Issue: Medical evidence (X-rays and photos) were taken but not properly labeled or signed by doctors.
Court’s Ruling: Court accepted evidence but noted weakness in documentation, lowering sentence.
Impact: Partial evidence admissibility affected sentencing.
🔹 Summary Table
| Case | Crime | Chain of Custody Issue | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zubair (2013) | Drug smuggling | No seal/log on heroin sample | Case dismissed |
| Latifa (2015) | Assault with knife | Weapon lost | Lesser offense |
| Ahmad (2016) | Armed robbery | No fingerprint chain | Evidence excluded |
| Nasir (2018) | Sexual assault | DNA undocumented, technician absent | DNA excluded |
| Bashir (2019) | Explosives possession | No inventory; stored informally | Charges dropped |
| Sahar (2020) | Domestic violence | Medical files poorly documented | Sentence reduced |
RELATED Blog
0 comments