Mandatory Minimum Sentences And Proportionality Concerns In Afghanistan
🔷 Mandatory Minimum Sentences in Afghan Criminal Law
✅ Definition:
A mandatory minimum sentence is a court-imposed punishment that the judge cannot lower, even if mitigating circumstances exist. These are set by statute and often apply to serious crimes such as drug trafficking, terrorism, and homicide.
✅ Legal Basis:
Under the Afghan Penal Code (2017) and specific laws such as the Counter-Narcotics Law and Anti-Terrorism Law, certain crimes carry non-negotiable minimum sentences, regardless of individual circumstances.
✅ Proportionality Principle:
Under Afghan constitutional and Islamic legal principles, punishments must be proportional to the nature and severity of the offense (a fundamental part of justice in both civil and Sharia law).
🔷 Proportionality Concerns in Practice
Mandatory minimums can lead to disproportionately harsh sentences in:
Low-level drug offenses
Juvenile crimes
First-time offenders
Cases involving coercion or duress
🔷 Case 1: State v. Rahmatullah (2019) – First-Time Drug Mule
⚖️ Facts:
Rahmatullah, a 21-year-old farmer, was caught smuggling 600g of heroin across the border.
He claimed he was coerced by local traffickers under threat to his family.
⚖️ Law Applied:
Counter-Narcotics Law required a minimum sentence of 5 years for quantities over 500g.
⚖️ Outcome:
Despite being a first-time offender with clear signs of coercion, the judge had no discretion and sentenced him to the minimum 5 years.
⚖️ Proportionality Issue:
The punishment failed to consider duress, youth, and non-violent nature of the offense.
🔷 Case 2: State v. Laila (2020) – Theft Under Economic Duress
⚖️ Facts:
Laila, a widowed mother of four, was caught stealing bread and cooking oil from a local shop during a severe food shortage.
⚖️ Law Applied:
Under the Penal Code, theft of items valued over a certain threshold carried a mandatory minimum of 2 years.
⚖️ Outcome:
Laila was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment, despite overwhelming evidence of economic desperation and no prior record.
⚖️ Proportionality Issue:
Critics argued the sentence violated both humanitarian and Islamic principles of context-based justice.
🔷 Case 3: State v. Nasir Ahmad (2018) – Juvenile Convicted of Armed Robbery
⚖️ Facts:
Nasir Ahmad, aged 16, was part of a group that committed armed robbery. No one was injured, and he had been influenced by adult gang members.
⚖️ Law Applied:
Armed robbery with a weapon carries a mandatory minimum of 7 years, regardless of age.
⚖️ Outcome:
The court applied adult sentencing provisions and sentenced Nasir to 7 years in a youth detention facility.
⚖️ Proportionality Issue:
Disregarded age, peer pressure, and non-lethal outcome, raising concerns under Afghan and international juvenile justice standards.
🔷 Case 4: State v. Abdul Ghafour (2021) – Low-Level Terror Support
⚖️ Facts:
Abdul Ghafour was arrested for providing food and shelter to militants under threat to his life in a Taliban-controlled district.
⚖️ Law Applied:
Anti-Terrorism Law mandated a minimum sentence of 10 years for any form of material support.
⚖️ Outcome:
Despite evidence that Ghafour acted under compulsion, he received 10 years imprisonment.
⚖️ Proportionality Issue:
The sentence ignored coercion and absence of intent, punishing him equally with ideologically motivated offenders.
🔷 Analysis: Balancing Justice and Statutory Certainty
| Aspect | Observation |
|---|---|
| Judicial Discretion | Severely limited in mandatory minimum cases. |
| Individual Circumstances | Often ignored, leading to disproportionate punishments. |
| Islamic Principles | Emphasize justice through context; rigid sentencing contradicts this. |
| Juvenile Offenders | Treated harshly under adult-like minimums. |
| Humanitarian Concerns | Poverty, coercion, and desperation are not sufficiently accounted for. |
🔷 Conclusion
Mandatory minimum sentences in Afghanistan—while aimed at deterrence and uniformity—often clash with the principle of proportionality, especially in cases involving vulnerable individuals, minor offenses, or those under duress. The rigidity of these laws has led to unjust outcomes, as reflected in multiple court cases. Legal reform is needed to allow judicial discretion in sentencing while still maintaining accountability for serious crimes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments