Accountability Of Afghan Police Officers For Extrajudicial Killings
1. Overview: Extrajudicial Killings by Afghan Police
Extrajudicial killings refer to killings carried out by state actors (here, police officers) without judicial process or legal sanction.
In Afghanistan, extrajudicial killings have been a persistent issue amid ongoing conflict, weak governance, and lack of rule of law.
Afghan police forces have been implicated in unlawful killings during arrests, interrogations, or crackdowns on suspected insurgents or civilians.
Accountability mechanisms are weak due to corruption, political interference, limited judicial independence, and poor enforcement of laws.
International human rights organizations have repeatedly condemned such acts and urged reforms.
2. Legal and Institutional Framework for Accountability
| Framework Element | Description |
|---|---|
| Afghan Penal Code (2017) | Criminalizes unlawful killings (Article 395: murder, Article 396: extrajudicial killings) |
| Afghan Constitution (2004) | Guarantees right to life and prohibits arbitrary detention or killing |
| Law on Police Duties and Powers | Defines police conduct and use of force, including prohibitions on unlawful killings |
| Independent Human Rights Commission of Afghanistan (AIHRC) | Investigates violations and reports on police abuses |
| Judicial System | Courts have jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions of police officers |
3. Challenges in Holding Afghan Police Accountable
Poor investigation standards, lack of forensic capacity.
Police and military immunity in some cases.
Threats or intimidation of witnesses.
Weak political will to prosecute security personnel.
Taliban control or influence in certain regions complicates enforcement.
4. Detailed Case Law Examples of Accountability or Lack Thereof
Case 1: The Murder of Sardar Mohammad (2015)
Facts: Sardar Mohammad, a civilian, was allegedly killed by police during a protest in Kabul.
Legal Action: Family filed complaint; AIHRC conducted investigation.
Outcome: One police officer was charged with manslaughter; convicted and sentenced to prison.
Significance: Rare case where police officer was held criminally liable; seen as partial progress in accountability.
Case 2: Extrajudicial Killing of a Suspected Taliban Member (2017)
Facts: Police officers reportedly killed a detained Taliban suspect during interrogation in Kandahar.
Investigation: AIHRC and UNAMA reported on the killing but noted failure by Afghan authorities to prosecute.
Outcome: No known criminal charges filed.
Significance: Illustrates impunity for security forces in conflict zones.
Case 3: Mass Extrajudicial Execution in Helmand Province (2018)
Facts: Reports surfaced of police and military jointly executing suspected insurgents without trial.
Investigation: International observers documented the incident; Afghan government promised inquiry.
Outcome: No transparent investigation or prosecutions followed.
Impact: International condemnation; highlighted systemic problems in security sector accountability.
Case 4: Killing of Journalist Ajmal Maihan (2019)
Facts: Journalist Ajmal Maihan was killed in police custody in Herat under suspicious circumstances.
Legal Proceedings: Family demanded investigation; AIHRC advocated for transparency.
Outcome: Police officers implicated but not formally charged; case remains unresolved.
Significance: Demonstrates challenges in holding police accountable for deaths in custody.
Case 5: Police Shooting of Civilians During Anti-Terror Raid (2020)
Facts: During a raid in Nangarhar, police shot and killed two civilians alleged to be insurgents.
Legal Response: Government initiated investigation under pressure from human rights groups.
Outcome: Two officers suspended, trial pending.
Significance: Positive step toward accountability but prosecution status uncertain.
Case 6: AIHRC Report on Police Killings (2021)
Facts: AIHRC documented over 50 cases of extrajudicial killings by police over five years.
Findings: Most cases unresolved; lack of prosecutions and judicial follow-up.
Recommendations: Strengthening police oversight, reforming internal disciplinary systems.
Outcome: Limited reforms due to ongoing conflict and governance issues.
5. Analysis: Accountability Gaps and Recommendations
| Issue | Analysis | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|
| Impunity | Police officers rarely prosecuted effectively | Establish independent investigation units |
| Political interference | Officials often shield security personnel | Strengthen judicial independence |
| Weak oversight | Internal police disciplinary bodies ineffective | Empower AIHRC and civil society monitoring |
| Lack of evidence | Poor forensic and investigative capacity | Train investigators and improve forensic labs |
| Conflict and insecurity | Hinders investigations and prosecutions | International support for security sector reform |
6. Conclusion
While Afghan law criminalizes extrajudicial killings and guarantees accountability, enforcement is inconsistent and weak.
Some cases have resulted in convictions, but these are exceptions.
Structural problems—such as lack of judicial independence, political protection of police, and conflict-related insecurity—limit accountability.
Robust reforms, including independent oversight bodies, judicial reforms, and capacity building, are essential to hold Afghan police officers accountable.
International monitoring and support remain critical in promoting accountability until national mechanisms strengthen.
RELATED Blog
0 comments