Chain Of Custody Issues In Afghan Prosecutions
🔹 What Is Chain of Custody?
Chain of custody refers to the documented process of collecting, preserving, transferring, and presenting physical evidence in court. It ensures:
Integrity: Evidence hasn’t been altered.
Authenticity: Evidence comes from the crime scene or the accused.
Admissibility: Judges can trust the evidence in court.
If the chain of custody is broken — for example, no proper labeling, missing records, or unauthorized access — evidence can be excluded, or the case can collapse.
🔹 Challenges in Afghanistan
In Afghan prosecutions, chain of custody problems often arise due to:
Lack of standardized procedures.
Weak documentation and record-keeping.
Limited forensic training for police and prosecutors.
In some areas, interference by powerful figures or tribal elders.
Institutional breakdowns (especially during regime transitions).
🔹 Key Afghan Case Examples (Post-2004 Constitution Era)
1. State v. Zubair (2013) – Narcotics Case Dismissed
Crime: Accused of heroin smuggling in Nangarhar.
Issue: The heroin was seized but not sealed, and there were no logs showing who had access.
Court’s Ruling: Evidence was deemed inadmissible, and the case was dismissed.
Impact: Emphasized the need for proper evidence handling in narcotics cases.
2. State v. Latifa (2015) – Assault with Weapon
Crime: Accused of stabbing another woman during a dispute.
Issue: The weapon was collected but stored in an unsealed bag, later found missing.
Court’s Ruling: Case weakened by lost weapon; conviction downgraded to lesser offense.
Impact: Highlighted how mishandling physical evidence weakens prosecution.
3. State v. Ahmad (2016) – Armed Robbery in Kabul
Crime: Accused of robbing a jewelry shop.
Issue: Fingerprints were collected but no proper documentation about lab transfer or analysis.
Court’s Ruling: Fingerprint evidence rejected; case relied solely on witness statements.
Impact: Showed limits of forensic use without proper chain of custody.
4. State v. Nasir (2018) – Sexual Assault Case in Herat
Crime: Accused of raping a minor.
Issue: DNA samples were collected but no chain of documentation, and the lab technician was unavailable to testify.
Court’s Ruling: DNA evidence excluded; case relied on victim testimony.
Impact: Serious case impacted by lack of forensic protocol.
5. State v. Bashir (2019) – Explosives Possession
Crime: Found with explosives in vehicle.
Issue: Explosives were stored for two weeks in a local police office without inventory or photos.
Court’s Ruling: Defense argued possibility of evidence tampering; court dismissed explosives-related charges.
Impact: Critical in terrorism-related trials where evidence handling must be airtight.
6. State v. Sahar (2020) – Domestic Violence Case in Bamyan
Crime: Physical assault on spouse.
Issue: Medical evidence (X-rays and photos) were taken but not properly labeled or signed by doctors.
Court’s Ruling: Court accepted evidence but noted weakness in documentation, lowering sentence.
Impact: Partial evidence admissibility affected sentencing.
🔹 Summary Table
| Case | Crime | Chain of Custody Issue | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zubair (2013) | Drug smuggling | No seal/log on heroin sample | Case dismissed |
| Latifa (2015) | Assault with knife | Weapon lost | Lesser offense |
| Ahmad (2016) | Armed robbery | No fingerprint chain | Evidence excluded |
| Nasir (2018) | Sexual assault | DNA undocumented, technician absent | DNA excluded |
| Bashir (2019) | Explosives possession | No inventory; stored informally | Charges dropped |
| Sahar (2020) | Domestic violence | Medical files poorly documented | Sentence reduced |
🔍 Reflection Questions
Why do you think even strong physical evidence (like DNA or explosives) can be rejected in court?
How could Afghan courts and police improve their handling of forensic evidence?
RELATED Blog
0 comments