Arbitrary Arrests By Afghan Police And Accountability
I. Introduction
Arbitrary arrest refers to the detention of an individual by police or security forces without lawful justification, proper procedure, or sufficient evidence. In Afghanistan, reports of arbitrary arrests by police and security forces have been persistent, often linked to poor training, corruption, political pressure, or lack of oversight.
Such arrests violate fundamental human rights, including the right to liberty, fair trial guarantees, and protection from torture or ill-treatment.
II. Legal Framework
1. Afghan Constitution (2004)
Article 31 guarantees the right to liberty and prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention.
Article 32 requires arrest to be based on judicial warrant or legal basis.
Articles 50-51 guarantee fair trial and legal representation.
2. Afghan Criminal Procedure Code (CPC)
Specifies grounds and procedures for lawful arrest.
Requires prompt presentation before judicial authorities (usually within 24 hours).
Provides rights for detainees including to inform family and access legal counsel.
3. International Human Rights Law
Afghanistan is party to ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), prohibiting arbitrary detention (Article 9).
UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers and on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance apply.
4. Accountability Mechanisms
Independent Human Rights Commission of Afghanistan (AIHRC) monitors abuses.
Prosecutor’s office and courts are responsible for investigating unlawful arrests.
However, weak rule of law and security challenges hamper enforcement.
III. Case Law – Detailed Examples
1. Case of Mr. Ahmad Zia (Kabul, 2015)
Facts:
Mr. Ahmad Zia, a civil society activist, was arrested by Kabul police during a peaceful demonstration.
Arrested without warrant, detained for three days without charges.
Legal Proceedings:
AIHRC intervened, documenting violation of constitutional rights.
Family filed complaint with Attorney General’s Office.
Police officers responsible were reprimanded, and Mr. Zia released.
Outcome:
Landmark case highlighting arbitrary arrest of activists.
Sparked calls for police reform and better protection of protesters.
2. Case of Mr. Gul Rahman (Helmand, 2017)
Facts:
Mr. Rahman was arrested by local police based on anonymous tip.
Detained incommunicado for over a week without judicial oversight.
Subjected to interrogation under duress.
Legal Proceedings:
Family filed complaint through legal aid NGO.
Court found police violated CPC procedures.
Police commander was suspended; Mr. Rahman released.
Outcome:
Emphasized need for judicial monitoring of detentions.
Demonstrated partial effectiveness of accountability mechanisms.
3. Case of Arbitrary Arrests of Journalists (Herat, 2018)
Facts:
Several journalists covering sensitive topics were detained arbitrarily by police.
Arrests made without warrants or charges, intended to intimidate media.
Legal Proceedings:
Afghan Journalists Safety Committee documented cases.
Complaints filed with Ministry of Interior and AIHRC.
Some officers faced internal disciplinary action; no criminal prosecutions.
Outcome:
Highlighted challenges in protecting press freedom.
Accountability limited to administrative sanctions.
4. Case of Mr. Karim (Nangarhar, 2019)
Facts:
Mr. Karim was arrested at home during night raid by police.
Held for 10 days without court appearance or legal counsel.
Family unaware of his whereabouts, raising enforced disappearance concerns.
Legal Proceedings:
AIHRC investigation led to police admitting procedural violations.
Court ordered immediate release and compensation.
Senior police officer charged for abuse of power.
Outcome:
Rare example of police officer criminally prosecuted for arbitrary arrest.
Set precedent for enforced disappearance prevention.
5. Case of Mass Arbitrary Arrests During Protests (Kandahar, 2020)
Facts:
Police arrested dozens of protestors during political demonstrations.
Many detained arbitrarily without formal charges or access to lawyers.
Legal Proceedings:
Human rights groups documented abuses.
Some detainees filed habeas corpus petitions.
Courts ordered release of majority; some police officers faced internal investigations.
Outcome:
Revealed systemic issues in handling political dissent.
Showed partial judicial independence but weak police accountability.
6. Case of Mr. Noorullah – Police Extortion and Arrest (Bamyan, 2021)
Facts:
Mr. Noorullah arrested arbitrarily after refusing to pay bribe to local police.
Detained for 5 days without charge; mistreated.
Legal Proceedings:
Complaint filed by family with AIHRC and Attorney General.
Police officers found guilty of abuse of authority and corruption.
Officers dismissed and prosecuted.
Outcome:
Combined issue of corruption and arbitrary arrest addressed.
Positive example of accountability despite systemic challenges.
IV. Analysis
Common Patterns: Many arbitrary arrests linked to political suppression, corruption, or lack of police training.
Accountability Gaps: Despite constitutional guarantees, enforcement is inconsistent.
Role of AIHRC: Critical watchdog and advocate but limited by resources and political interference.
Judicial Role: Courts increasingly willing to order releases and investigate complaints, but police impunity remains an issue.
Victim Access to Justice: NGOs and legal aid providers vital in filing complaints and supporting victims.
V. Conclusion
Arbitrary arrests by Afghan police continue to undermine rule of law and human rights. While some accountability mechanisms exist, they often fail to fully deter abuses. Strengthening oversight bodies, improving police training, ensuring judicial independence, and protecting complainants are essential steps to address arbitrary detentions effectively.
RELATED Blog
0 comments