Victims Of Terrorism And Compensation Frameworks
Part 1: Understanding Victim Compensation in Terrorism Contexts
1. Who Is a "Victim of Terrorism"?
A victim of terrorism is generally:
A person injured, killed, or traumatized as a result of a terrorist act.
This includes direct victims (e.g., those physically harmed), and indirect victims (e.g., family members or dependents).
2. Why Compensation Is Necessary
Victims often suffer:
Physical injuries or permanent disability.
Psychological trauma (PTSD, depression).
Loss of family breadwinners.
Damage to property and livelihoods.
In many countries, victims of terrorism are civilian non-combatants, not parties to any conflict.
Part 2: Legal and Policy Frameworks for Compensation
1. Domestic Frameworks (e.g., Afghanistan)
Afghan laws and Presidential decrees historically provided for "Martyrs and Disabled" Funds, including:
Compensation to families of those killed in terrorist attacks.
Medical and financial support to injured victims.
The Ministry of Martyrs and Disabled Affairs handled such cases.
2. International Human Rights Law
UN General Assembly Resolutions recognize the right of victims of terrorism to support and compensation.
Victims' rights to justice, truth, and reparations are protected under:
The Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation (2005).
International humanitarian law (in conflict settings).
3. Types of Compensation
Financial compensation (fixed payments or pensions).
Medical support (hospital care, prosthetics).
Psychological rehabilitation.
Educational support for children of victims.
Symbolic reparations (memorials, state recognition).
Part 3: Challenges to Compensation
State collapse or weak governance (e.g., post-2021 Afghanistan).
Lack of documentation or bureaucratic barriers.
Unequal treatment based on ethnicity, gender, or political status.
Corruption and favoritism in compensation disbursement.
No access to judicial remedies in many cases.
Part 4: Case Law Examples: Victims of Terrorism and Compensation Outcomes
Case 1: Kabul Ambulance Bombing (2018)
Incident:
A massive car bomb hidden in an ambulance exploded in central Kabul, killing over 100 people and injuring 200+.
Victims:
Mostly civilians—shopkeepers, pedestrians, students.
Compensation:
Afghan government announced immediate payments:
AFN 100,000 (~USD 1,300) to families of the deceased.
AFN 50,000 (~USD 650) for injured.
Payments were delivered through the President’s Office and Martyrs Fund.
Challenges:
Some families reported not receiving compensation.
Claims of lack of transparency and delay in disbursement.
Case 2: Nangarhar Mosque Bombing (2019)
Incident:
A mosque in Nangarhar province was bombed during Friday prayers, killing over 60 people.
Legal Outcome:
Government condemned the attack as a terrorist act.
Compensation Framework:
Families received death compensation under the National Disaster Management Authority guidelines.
Special fund created for rebuilding the mosque and assisting orphans.
Note:
No judicial case filed; compensation was administrative.
Case 3: Attack on Educational Center in Dasht-e-Barchi (2020)
Incident:
A suicide bomber targeted students preparing for university entrance exams in a Shia-majority neighborhood of Kabul.
Victims:
Most were young Hazara students.
Compensation Mechanism:
Afghan government provided AFN 100,000 to families of deceased and AFN 50,000 to injured.
NGOs also stepped in to provide scholarships and trauma therapy.
Controversy:
Victims alleged ethnic discrimination in delivery of support.
No judicial investigation into negligence by security forces.
Case 4: Intercontinental Hotel Attack (2018)
Incident:
Taliban gunmen attacked Kabul’s Intercontinental Hotel, killing 40+ people, including foreign nationals.
Victims:
Both Afghan and foreign civilians.
Legal Action:
Families of foreign victims filed civil cases abroad (e.g., in U.S. courts) against the Taliban and state sponsors of terrorism.
Afghan victims were compensated under victim assistance programs and the Ministry of Interior’s emergency funds.
Key Outcome:
Dual-track compensation: Domestic victims received symbolic compensation, while international victims pursued legal claims in other jurisdictions.
Case 5: Ashura Bombing in Kabul (2011)
Incident:
A suicide bombing during Ashura religious commemorations killed 70+ people, mostly Shia Hazaras.
Response:
Then-President Karzai ordered state funerals and compensation.
Victim families received public recognition, financial support, and free burial services.
Legal Measures:
No prosecution in Afghan courts, but government labeled it a crime against humanity.
International human rights groups called for independent investigation.
Case 6: Ghazni Girls' School Bombing (2022) (Under Taliban Rule)
Incident:
Bombing near a girls’ school in Ghazni province killed and injured multiple students.
New Taliban Policy:
Taliban authorities announced symbolic assistance but did not follow previous government’s compensation model.
Families received food parcels and small cash aid.
Issues:
Lack of structured compensation law under Taliban.
No access to courts for victims to claim legal reparations.
Part 5: Summary Table of Key Cases
| Case Name / Event | Compensation Provided | Legal Remedy / Issues |
|---|---|---|
| Kabul Ambulance Bombing (2018) | Yes – Monetary aid | Delays and unequal distribution reported |
| Nangarhar Mosque Bombing (2019) | Yes – Cash and aid | Administrative, not judicial remedy |
| Dasht-e-Barchi Education Center (2020) | Yes – Compensation + NGO support | Ethnic discrimination concerns |
| Intercontinental Hotel Attack (2018) | Yes (domestic victims); civil suits abroad (foreign victims) | Dual legal routes |
| Ashura Bombing (2011) | Yes – State funeral, compensation | No prosecution |
| Ghazni Girls' School Bombing (2022) | Minimal symbolic aid | Taliban governance lacks formal compensation laws |
Part 6: Conclusions
Afghanistan historically maintained compensation systems for terrorism victims under the Republic, but these have been weakened or dismantled under Taliban rule.
While some financial support was given after major attacks, lack of judicial access, ethnic bias, and bureaucratic inefficiency limited their effectiveness.
Under Taliban rule, victims have no access to formal remedies, and compensation is minimal, symbolic, or inconsistent.
International norms support a right to reparation for terror victims, but these are often not implemented in fragile or authoritarian regimes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments