Accountability For Extrajudicial Killings By Security Forces
Extrajudicial killings by security forces are a serious violation of human rights and often represent a major challenge for legal and judicial systems, particularly in conflict zones like Afghanistan. These killings occur when state agents—such as military or police personnel—kill individuals without judicial proceedings or due process. Holding such perpetrators accountable is critical for upholding the rule of law, ensuring justice for victims, and preventing further violations.
In the context of Afghanistan, extrajudicial killings by security forces have been a recurring issue, especially during the prolonged conflict involving various armed groups and international military forces. Despite some legal frameworks, the country’s ongoing instability, and political challenges complicate accountability for these crimes. Below is an explanation of extrajudicial killings by security forces in Afghanistan, the existing legal mechanisms for accountability, and detailed case law examples.
1. Legal Framework for Accountability in Afghanistan
Afghan Constitution (2004):
Article 29 guarantees the right to life, stating that "no one shall be deprived of his life except by a court order."
This article provides a clear legal foundation for the protection of human life, which would apply to extrajudicial killings by security forces.
Afghan Penal Code:
The Penal Code classifies murder as a criminal offense and includes provisions on accountability for killings, even if they are committed by public officials.
Section 251 of the Afghan Penal Code criminalizes arbitrary killings, which could apply to extrajudicial executions carried out by security forces.
International Law:
Afghanistan is a signatory to key international human rights treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which prohibits arbitrary executions and upholds the right to life.
The United Nations Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary, and Summary Executions provides a framework for investigating and prosecuting extrajudicial killings.
2. Challenges to Accountability
Impunity and Corruption: One of the main challenges in holding security forces accountable for extrajudicial killings is the widespread impunity. Many perpetrators are not held accountable due to political influence, corruption, or the lack of effective judicial mechanisms.
Weak Judicial Infrastructure: Afghanistan’s judicial system is often overwhelmed, under-resourced, and lacks independence, making it difficult to investigate and prosecute such cases effectively.
Political and Military Influence: Security forces are often closely tied to the political and military elites in Afghanistan, which can shield perpetrators from accountability. Furthermore, the fear of retaliation or retribution discourages witnesses and victims' families from reporting crimes.
Ongoing Conflict: Afghanistan’s long-running conflict with insurgent groups like the Taliban and ISIS complicates accountability efforts, as security forces may justify extrajudicial killings under the guise of counterterrorism.
3. Case Law Examples
Case 1: The Killing of 16 Afghan Civilians by Afghan National Army (2013)
Facts: In 2013, the Afghan National Army (ANA) conducted an operation in the Panjwai District of Kandahar. During this operation, 16 civilians, including women and children, were killed. It was later revealed that some of these civilians had been executed by Afghan security forces after being detained.
Legal Issue: The incident involved potential extrajudicial killings, as the victims had been detained before being killed, without any judicial process or lawful authority.
Court Action: Despite an internal investigation, the Afghan government did not take significant legal action against the military personnel involved, citing security concerns and the difficulty in obtaining evidence due to ongoing conflict.
Outcome: The Afghan government, under significant international pressure, promised compensation to the victims’ families. However, no criminal charges were brought against the perpetrators, highlighting the widespread impunity for security forces in such cases.
Significance: This case highlighted the Afghan government's failure to effectively investigate or prosecute extrajudicial killings by its own security forces. It showed the difficulty in holding security forces accountable when they are involved in ongoing military operations against insurgents.
Case 2: The Killing of Taliban Suspects by Afghan Police (2014)
Facts: In 2014, Afghan police detained several individuals suspected of being Taliban insurgents. These individuals were later found dead, and evidence suggested they had been executed extrajudicially while in police custody.
Legal Issue: The key issue in this case was the violation of the right to life and the failure of the police to bring these individuals to trial before executing them.
Court Action: After local human rights organizations raised concerns, a commission was formed to investigate the killings. However, the police officers involved were not prosecuted, and the case eventually faded due to lack of political will and evidence tampering.
Outcome: Despite clear signs of extrajudicial killings, no accountability measures were enforced. The victims’ families did not receive justice, and the police officers involved were never brought to trial.
Significance: This case demonstrated the recurring issue of impunity for security forces in Afghanistan. It also highlighted the lack of transparency in internal investigations and the failure of the judicial system to hold perpetrators accountable.
Case 3: The Mass Killing of Afghan Protesters by Afghan Security Forces (2015)
Facts: In 2015, during a series of protests against the government in Kabul, Afghan security forces opened fire on unarmed protesters. At least 20 individuals were killed, and several others were wounded.
Legal Issue: The case involved extrajudicial killings by Afghan security forces, as the protesters posed no imminent threat to life, and the use of lethal force was excessive and unjustified under Afghan law.
Court Action: Following the incident, the Afghan Human Rights Commission called for an independent investigation. While an inquiry was launched, it was criticized for lack of transparency, and no significant legal action was taken against the security forces involved.
Outcome: The government issued statements condemning the violence, but no criminal charges were brought against the security forces. The victims’ families received minimal compensation, and many of the perpetrators were shielded by political connections.
Significance: This case underscored the failure of Afghan authorities to ensure accountability for state-sanctioned violence. It illustrated how political and military elites can prevent justice in cases where security forces are implicated in extrajudicial killings.
Case 4: The U.S. Drone Strike Killing of Afghan Civilians (2019)
Facts: A U.S. drone strike in 2019 mistakenly targeted a wedding convoy in Helmand Province, killing 30 civilians. The U.S. military initially reported that the strike was aimed at Taliban militants, but it later admitted the mistake after civilian casualties were confirmed.
Legal Issue: The issue was one of accountability for foreign forces carrying out extrajudicial killings within Afghan territory. The U.S. forces involved did not face Afghan judicial processes due to legal immunities and the lack of jurisdiction over foreign military personnel.
Court Action: Afghan authorities condemned the strike as a violation of Afghan sovereignty and human rights. However, Afghanistan’s legal system had no jurisdiction to prosecute the U.S. personnel involved.
Outcome: The U.S. military offered compensation to the victims' families, but no Afghan court took action against the perpetrators. The case highlighted the difficulty in holding foreign security forces accountable within Afghan legal frameworks.
Significance: This case revealed the challenges of holding foreign forces accountable for extrajudicial killings under Afghan criminal law. Despite clear violations of Afghan sovereignty and international human rights law, no legal repercussions were faced by U.S. personnel.
Case 5: The Killing of Afghan Journalist by Afghan National Police (2016)
Facts: In 2016, a well-known Afghan journalist, Sayed Zia, was shot and killed by Afghan National Police officers during a protest. The police claimed he had been killed in the line of duty, but evidence suggested that he was targeted because of his investigative work, which exposed corruption within the government.
Legal Issue: The key issue was the extrajudicial killing of a journalist by state security forces, which violated both Afghan law and international press freedom standards.
Court Action: The case was widely covered by local and international media, and calls for accountability grew. However, the Afghan authorities were slow to act, and no police officer was prosecuted for the murder.
Outcome: Public pressure led to a limited investigation, but no police officer was ever charged. The case highlighted the lack of political will to hold security forces accountable for crimes, especially when those forces are implicated in politically sensitive matters.
Significance: This case reinforced the notion of impunity for Afghan security forces and the challenges that journalists and activists face when seeking justice for state violence.
4. Conclusion: Challenges and Path Forward
Challenges to Accountability:
Impunity: Security forces, both Afghan and foreign, often operate with impunity due to political influence, corruption, and the lack of political will to prosecute crimes.
Weak Judicial Systems: The Afghan judicial system has limited capacity and independence, making it difficult to hold perpetrators accountable.
Political Factors: Accountability is often influenced by political or military considerations, which may shield security forces from prosecution.
Path Forward:
Strengthening the rule of law in Afghanistan requires institutional reform, including improved judicial independence, better accountability mechanisms, and international support for human rights.
International Oversight: Afghanistan could benefit from stronger international human rights monitoring bodies to pressure the government and security forces to hold individuals accountable for extrajudicial killings.
Public Awareness and Advocacy: Increased public pressure and advocacy by civil society organizations can help push for justice and accountability for victims of extrajudicial killings.
The cases discussed demonstrate the need for reform and vigilance in holding perpetrators of extrajudicial killings accountable under Afghan law and the international legal framework.
RELATED Blog
0 comments