Terrorism Law And Afghan Criminal Justice
Terrorism Law in Afghan Criminal Justice System
1. Legal Framework
Afghanistan’s counter-terrorism legal framework is based on a combination of:
The Penal Code of Afghanistan (particularly the 2017 Penal Code)
The Law on Crimes Against Internal and External Security (1987, amended)
Anti-Terrorism Law (2008)
Constitution of Afghanistan (2004)
International Conventions (e.g., the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, which Afghanistan has ratified)
2. Definition of Terrorism under Afghan Law
Under the Anti-Terrorism Law (2008) and later provisions in the 2017 Penal Code, terrorism is defined broadly to include:
Use or threat of violence against civilians, government personnel, or institutions
Aimed at intimidating the population or compelling the government to act or refrain from an act
Includes financing, support, recruitment, and planning of such acts
Punishments include long-term imprisonment or death, depending on the severity and result of the act (e.g., causing mass casualties).
Detailed Case Law on Terrorism in Afghanistan
Here are five detailed terrorism-related cases that were prosecuted or handled by the Afghan criminal justice system:
Case 1: Kabul Serena Hotel Attack (2014)
Background:
Four gunmen infiltrated the Serena Hotel in Kabul on March 20, 2014, and opened fire, killing 9 civilians including foreign nationals.
The attack occurred during the Nowruz (New Year) celebrations and was seen as an attempt to destabilize the upcoming presidential elections.
Judicial Process:
The attackers were killed, but several facilitators were captured, including people suspected of aiding their infiltration and providing weapons.
Charges: Terrorism, aiding and abetting murder, conspiracy against internal security
Outcome:
The facilitators were tried under the Anti-Terrorism Law.
The primary suspect received a 20-year prison sentence, while accomplices received lesser terms based on their roles.
The court cited Article 547 of the 2017 Penal Code and articles related to crimes against state security.
Significance:
Showed the state's approach to indirect participants in terrorism.
Important use of conspiracy charges and aiding under Afghan law.
Case 2: German Aid Worker Kidnapping (2007)
Background:
A German national working for an NGO was kidnapped in Kabul by a criminal-terrorist group demanding ransom and prisoner exchange.
Legal Issues:
The act was a blend of terrorism and criminal kidnapping for ransom.
Afghan prosecutors treated the case as terrorism due to political motivations stated by the kidnappers (release of Taliban prisoners).
Trial Proceedings:
Three suspects were arrested in a raid by Afghan security forces.
Charges: Hostage-taking with political motives, membership in a terrorist organization
Outcome:
The primary defendant was sentenced to death; two others received 15 and 18 years respectively.
The court applied Article 239 (Crimes Against State Security) and Anti-Terrorism Law provisions.
Significance:
Demonstrated judicial tendency to classify politically motivated kidnappings as terrorism.
Set precedent for future hostage-related terrorism trials.
Case 3: Jalalabad Suicide Bombing (2015)
Incident:
A suicide bomber attacked a bank in Jalalabad, killing over 30 people, including civil servants and civilians lining up for salaries.
Investigation & Arrest:
The bomber died, but Afghan intelligence traced the operation to a local ISIS-affiliated cell.
Two suspects were arrested: one planner and one who helped in logistics.
Trial & Charges:
Charges included: Organizing a suicide attack, membership in Daesh (ISIS), crimes against humanity, and financing terrorism.
Prosecuted under Anti-Terrorism Law and Penal Code (Articles on mass murder and terrorism financing).
Outcome:
Both were found guilty.
The planner was sentenced to life imprisonment, and the logistics man received 25 years.
Judicial Reasoning:
The court emphasized intent, the impact on civilian morale, and the use of religious motivation for violent extremism.
Financing through foreign networks was also prosecuted.
Case 4: Mass Prison Break Attempt (2011, Sarposa Prison, Kandahar)
Background:
A major Taliban-led tunneling operation resulted in the escape of over 500 prisoners, many convicted terrorists.
Several prison guards and insiders were suspected of aiding the operation.
Legal Dimensions:
Complex case involving internal security breaches, terrorist facilitation, and aiding enemy combatants.
Trial:
Over a dozen people were tried, including security officers, prison officials, and Taliban associates.
Outcome:
Mixed sentences ranging from 10 to 20 years.
Court invoked both terrorism law and corruption statutes for public employees who assisted.
Significance:
Set precedent for applying terrorism law to state actors who collude with insurgents.
Extended definition of “terrorist facilitation” to include logistical support for escape.
Case 5: Attempted Assassination of President Karzai (2008)
Incident:
Militants attacked a military parade attended by President Hamid Karzai, killing several people, including MPs and civilians.
Karzai escaped unharmed.
Investigation:
The attackers were linked to both the Taliban and Haqqani Network.
Multiple arrests were made, including military insiders who provided information to the attackers.
Charges:
Attempted assassination of the head of state
Terrorist conspiracy
Illegal possession of arms and explosives
Outcome:
3 convicted for conspiracy to assassinate a public figure, sentenced to 25 years to life.
Insider military officer was convicted under Articles on treason and terrorism.
Judicial Commentary:
The Supreme Court later upheld convictions, reinforcing that internal collusion in terrorism is punishable as high treason and terrorism simultaneously.
Conclusion
Afghanistan’s criminal justice system, particularly during the post-2001 democratic era, developed a growing body of counter-terrorism jurisprudence. Despite challenges like weak institutions, corruption, and instability, the courts demonstrated:
Broad interpretation of terrorism-related acts
Willingness to punish support networks, not just direct perpetrators
Use of both domestic and international legal standards
Increasing reliance on intelligence-based evidence in courts
These cases illustrate how Afghan courts have evolved in handling terrorism—from bombings and political assassinations to financing and collusion—under both old and revised legal frameworks.
RELATED Blog
0 comments