International Humanitarian Law And Its Application In Afghan Courts
1. Overview of International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
IHL, also known as the law of armed conflict, governs the conduct of parties during armed conflict.
Core principles include protection of civilians, humane treatment of prisoners, prohibition of indiscriminate attacks, and accountability for war crimes.
Afghanistan is a party to the Geneva Conventions (1949) and their Additional Protocols, and its domestic laws reference these treaties.
IHL applies to international and non-international armed conflicts, both of which have occurred in Afghanistan.
Afghan courts have the mandate to prosecute war crimes and grave breaches under IHL through its Penal Code and Anti-Terrorism Law.
2. Application of IHL in Afghan Domestic Law
Afghan Penal Code (2017) incorporates provisions criminalizing war crimes and grave breaches, such as:
Willful killing of civilians
Torture and cruel treatment
Attacks on protected persons and objects (hospitals, schools)
Afghan courts have jurisdiction to try these crimes, including those committed by state forces, insurgents, and foreign actors.
⚖️ Case Law Examples
Case 1: The Dasht-e-Leili Massacre (2001)
Facts:
During the US invasion, hundreds of Taliban prisoners were allegedly suffocated or killed in a prison container in Dasht-e-Leili.
Legal Proceedings:
Afghan courts struggled to open investigations due to political pressure and lack of evidence.
International calls for accountability persisted, but no convictions ensued.
IHL Relevance:
Possible war crime: unlawful killing of prisoners of war (POWs).
Illustrates challenges in prosecuting grave breaches domestically.
Case 2: The Kunduz Hospital Airstrike (2015)
Facts:
A US airstrike destroyed a Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) hospital in Kunduz, killing staff and patients.
Afghan Legal Response:
Afghan government condemned the attack.
Courts did not initiate prosecutions, citing jurisdictional issues over foreign military actions.
Compensation was provided to victims’ families through diplomatic channels.
IHL Aspect:
Violation of protection for medical facilities under Geneva Conventions.
Highlights difficulties enforcing IHL against foreign actors in Afghan courts.
Case 3: Trial of Afghan Local Police (ALP) Commander for Torture (2014)
Facts:
An ALP commander was accused of torturing detainees during counter-insurgency operations.
Judicial Outcome:
Tried under Penal Code provisions criminalizing cruel treatment.
Convicted and sentenced to imprisonment.
Court recognized violations of IHL principles protecting detainees.
Significance:
Shows Afghan courts applying IHL norms domestically.
Promoted accountability for state actors.
Case 4: Civilian Casualty Case from Night Raid in Helmand (2017)
Facts:
A night raid by Afghan forces resulted in the deaths of several civilians.
Legal Action:
Families filed complaints in Afghan courts.
Investigation was slow and inconclusive.
No convictions but internal disciplinary actions taken.
IHL Implication:
Issues of proportionality and distinction under IHL.
Reveals enforcement and investigative challenges.
Case 5: Taliban Attack on School in Peshawar (2013)
Facts:
Taliban militants attacked a school, killing students and staff.
Trial:
Perpetrators captured and tried under Afghan Anti-Terrorism Law.
Court condemned the attack as a war crime under Penal Code.
Death sentences imposed.
IHL Relevance:
Violation of protection for civilians and civilian objects.
Shows incorporation of IHL standards in domestic prosecutions.
Case 6: Prosecution of War Crimes in Herat (2016)
Facts:
Local commanders accused of extrajudicial killings and destruction of property.
Judicial Proceedings:
Trials held in Herat provincial court.
Convictions based on Penal Code articles aligned with IHL.
Sentences included long imprisonment terms.
Significance:
Demonstrates local enforcement of international humanitarian norms.
3. Challenges in Applying IHL in Afghan Courts
Security and Political Pressure: Investigations into powerful actors often obstructed.
Limited Judicial Capacity: Lack of specialized training on IHL among judges and prosecutors.
Weak Evidence Collection: War zones and conflict environments hinder evidence gathering.
Jurisdictional Issues: Afghan courts have limited ability to try foreign forces.
Lack of Victim Participation and Witness Protection: Affects fairness and thoroughness of trials.
✅ Summary
| Case | IHL Aspect | Court Action | Challenges & Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dasht-e-Leili Massacre (2001) | Killing of POWs | No prosecution | Political interference, lack of evidence |
| Kunduz Hospital Strike (2015) | Attack on medical facility | No prosecution | Jurisdictional limits |
| ALP Commander Torture (2014) | Torture of detainees | Conviction and sentencing | Positive application of IHL |
| Helmand Night Raid Casualties (2017) | Protection of civilians | Investigation, no conviction | Slow process, weak enforcement |
| Taliban School Attack (2013) | Attack on civilians/school | Conviction, death penalty | Strong enforcement of IHL norms |
| Herat War Crimes Trials (2016) | Extrajudicial killings | Convictions and prison terms | Local enforcement but limited reach |
Conclusion
Afghan courts have increasingly incorporated IHL principles in prosecuting crimes related to armed conflict, especially war crimes and crimes against civilians. While notable successes exist, enforcement is uneven due to political, security, and institutional challenges. Strengthening judicial capacity, witness protection, and international cooperation could improve the application of IHL in Afghanistan’s criminal justice system.
RELATED Blog
0 comments