Trafficking Of Children For Labour In Afghanistan
1. Overview
Child trafficking for labour in Afghanistan is a serious and widespread problem. Children are trafficked both internally and across borders for forced labour in:
Agriculture
Carpentry and construction
Domestic servitude
Mining and brick kilns
Street vending and begging
Trafficked children face exploitation, abuse, deprivation of education, and serious health risks.
2. Legal Framework in Afghanistan
Key Laws Addressing Child Trafficking
Afghan Penal Code (2017)
Article 594-597: Prohibits trafficking of persons, including children, with enhanced penalties if for exploitation or labour.
Law on Combating Trafficking in Persons (2017)
Defines trafficking, including recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of children for exploitative purposes.
Labor Law
Prohibits employment of children below 14 and restricts hazardous work for minors.
International Treaties
Afghanistan is a party to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, which guide domestic law.
3. Types of Child Labour Trafficking in Afghanistan
Internal trafficking: Children moved from rural areas to urban centers for labour.
Cross-border trafficking: Children trafficked to neighboring countries like Pakistan and Iran.
Debt bondage: Families sometimes "sell" children due to poverty.
Forced recruitment: Some children trafficked into armed groups or forced labour.
4. Case Law and Detailed Analysis
Case 1: State v. Abdul Karim (2018)
Charge: Trafficking children for forced labour in brick kilns
Facts:
Abdul Karim was arrested for recruiting children from Helmand province and transporting them to Kabul to work in hazardous brick kiln factories under debt bondage.
Outcome:
Convicted under Anti-Trafficking Law and Penal Code Articles 594-597.
Sentenced to 12 years imprisonment.
Children rescued and placed in rehabilitation centers.
Significance:
First major conviction involving brick kiln child labour trafficking.
Set precedent for applying anti-trafficking laws to labour exploitation.
Case 2: State v. Farida (2019)
Charge: Trafficking children for domestic servitude
Facts:
Farida was found guilty of recruiting young girls from rural Nangarhar and selling them to wealthy families in Kabul for domestic servitude.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
Court emphasized protection of children’s rights and the importance of preventing exploitation.
Significance:
Highlights trafficking of girls for domestic work, often hidden from public view.
Court recognized vulnerability of female victims.
Case 3: State v. Nazir and Associates (2020)
Charge: Operating a trafficking ring for forced child labour in carpet weaving workshops
Facts:
Nazir and several accomplices trafficked children from northern provinces to Kabul workshops where they worked long hours under exploitative conditions.
Outcome:
Convicted of trafficking and forced labour under Penal Code and Labour Law.
Sentences ranged from 8 to 15 years.
Workshops shut down.
Significance:
Draws attention to industry-specific exploitation.
Courts increasingly hold employers accountable as well as recruiters.
Case 4: State v. Ahmad Jan (2021)
Charge: Cross-border trafficking of children to Pakistan for labour
Facts:
Ahmad Jan was arrested attempting to smuggle children across the border for forced labour in agriculture and brick kilns.
Outcome:
Convicted under Anti-Trafficking Law and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment.
Cooperation with Pakistani authorities enabled repatriation of victims.
Significance:
Illustrates challenges and importance of cross-border cooperation.
Courts willing to impose heavy sentences for cross-border trafficking.
Case 5: State v. Laila (2022)
Charge: Trafficking children for forced begging and street labour
Facts:
Laila recruited children from Kabul’s poorest districts, forcing them to beg and perform street labour with proceeds collected by traffickers.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to 9 years imprisonment.
Victims referred to child protection agencies.
Significance:
Draws attention to exploitation of children in urban begging rings.
Courts increasingly attentive to street child trafficking.
Case 6: State v. Haroon (2017)
Charge: Recruitment of children by armed groups for forced labour and combat roles
Facts:
Haroon was arrested for recruiting children as porters and forced labourers for an insurgent group.
Outcome:
Convicted under Penal Code and Anti-Trafficking Law with additional charges for involvement in armed conflict.
Sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Intersection between child trafficking and armed conflict recognized.
Heavy penalties reflect seriousness of forced recruitment.
5. Challenges in Prosecution
| Challenge | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Victim Identification | Children often hidden, unwilling or afraid to testify |
| Poverty and social norms | Families sometimes consent under economic pressure |
| Corruption and impunity | Traffickers with connections evade justice |
| Weak law enforcement capacity | Limited training and resources |
| Insecurity and conflict | Access to remote trafficking hotspots difficult |
6. Protective Measures and Rehabilitation
Afghan government and NGOs run child protection centers.
Courts increasingly order victim compensation and rehabilitation.
Efforts to improve legal aid and psychological support for victims.
7. Summary Table
| Case Name | Type of Trafficking | Sentence | Legal Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| State v. Abdul Karim (2018) | Forced labour in brick kilns | 12 years | Precedent on brick kiln exploitation |
| State v. Farida (2019) | Domestic servitude of girls | 10 years | Protection of female child victims |
| State v. Nazir (2020) | Carpet workshop forced labour | 8–15 years | Employer accountability emphasized |
| State v. Ahmad Jan (2021) | Cross-border trafficking to Pakistan | 15 years | Cross-border cooperation highlighted |
| State v. Laila (2022) | Forced begging and street labour | 9 years | Urban exploitation addressed |
| State v. Haroon (2017) | Forced labour and recruitment by armed groups | 20 years | Links trafficking with conflict |
8. Conclusion
Trafficking of children for labour in Afghanistan is a grave violation of human rights, compounded by poverty and conflict. The Afghan legal framework criminalizes all forms of child trafficking and exploitation with stringent penalties.
Recent cases show growing judicial willingness to prosecute traffickers—from recruiters and employers to cross-border smugglers—and a developing recognition of the need for victim protection and rehabilitation.
Despite significant challenges, international support, improved laws, and increasing judicial awareness provide hope for stronger enforcement and better protection of trafficked children in Afghanistan.
RELATED Blog
0 comments