Comparative Study Of Afghan Juvenile Justice With Uncrc Standards
1. Introduction
The juvenile justice system in Afghanistan faces numerous challenges in protecting children’s rights during legal processes. Afghanistan ratified the UNCRC in 2003, committing to international standards for child rights, including protection from abuse, fair treatment in justice, and rehabilitation rather than punishment.
2. UNCRC Standards Relevant to Juvenile Justice
Key UNCRC Articles on juvenile justice include:
Article 37: Prohibits torture, cruel treatment, and capital punishment for children.
Article 40: Guarantees the right to fair treatment, legal assistance, and reintegration.
Article 39: Focuses on recovery and social reintegration of children victims.
Article 3: Child’s best interests must be a primary consideration.
Article 12: Right of the child to express views freely in judicial proceedings.
3. Afghan Juvenile Justice Framework
Afghan Juvenile Code (2017): Legal framework specifically addressing children in conflict with the law.
Criminal Procedure Code: Contains provisions for juvenile trials.
Customary and Sharia Law: Influence justice processes especially in rural areas.
Challenges: Limited resources, lack of specialized juvenile courts, and social stigma.
4. Comparative Analysis with Case Law
Case 1: Zahra v. State (2018) — Trial Without Legal Representation
Facts: Zahra, a 14-year-old, was detained and tried for theft without a lawyer.
Violation of UNCRC: Article 40(2)(b) – Right to legal assistance.
Afghan Law: Afghan Juvenile Code requires legal representation but was not upheld.
Outcome: UNAMA and NGOs intervened leading to retrial with lawyer.
Significance: Highlights gap between law and practice in protecting juveniles’ rights.
Case 2: Ahmad’s Case (2019) — Use of Corporal Punishment
Facts: Ahmad, aged 15, was sentenced to flogging by a local sharia court for alleged offense.
Violation of UNCRC: Article 37(a) – Prohibition of cruel and degrading punishment.
Afghan Legal Context: Corporal punishment is still practiced in some customary courts.
Intervention: Human rights groups advocated, leading to sentence being overturned.
Significance: Shows tension between international standards and local practices.
Case 3: Rohullah v. Ministry of Justice (2020) — Detention Conditions
Facts: Rohullah, a 16-year-old, was held in adult prison with poor conditions and no rehabilitation.
UNCRC Violation: Article 37(c) – Separation from adults in detention.
Afghan Juvenile Code: Calls for separate juvenile detention facilities, but implementation lacking.
Response: UNAMA report pressured improvements; Rohullah transferred to juvenile facility.
Significance: Demonstrates implementation challenges despite legal provisions.
Case 4: Fatima’s Case (2021) — Right to Participation in Proceedings
Facts: Fatima, aged 13, accused of family dispute-related offense, was denied opportunity to present her side in court.
UNCRC Violation: Article 12 – Right of the child to be heard.
Afghan Law: Recognizes child’s participation but courts often overlook it.
Outcome: UNAMA and AIHRC advocated for child-sensitive procedures.
Significance: Reveals need for procedural reforms respecting child participation.
Case 5: Khalid v. State (2022) — Diversion and Rehabilitation
Facts: Khalid, 17, caught stealing, was sentenced to imprisonment rather than diversion.
UNCRC Best Practice: Emphasizes diversion and rehabilitation instead of incarceration.
Afghan Juvenile Code: Provides for diversion but rarely applied.
NGO Role: Provided legal aid, and after appeal, Khalid was placed in rehabilitation program.
Significance: Illustrates gap between progressive law and actual practice.
5. Key Comparative Findings
| Aspect | Afghan Juvenile Justice | UNCRC Standards | Gap Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal Representation | Required but inconsistently provided | Mandatory for fair trial (Art. 40) | Weak enforcement |
| Corporal Punishment | Practiced in some customary courts | Prohibited (Art. 37) | Cultural/religious resistance |
| Detention Conditions | Juveniles often mixed with adults | Separate facilities required (Art. 37) | Facilities inadequate or lacking |
| Child Participation | Limited in practice | Child’s voice must be heard (Art. 12) | Courts lack child-sensitive procedures |
| Rehabilitation/Diversion | Law allows but rarely implemented | Emphasis on rehabilitation (Art. 40) | Preference for punitive measures |
6. Challenges in Afghan Juvenile Justice System
Insufficient juvenile courts and trained personnel.
Influence of traditional and religious justice systems.
Social stigma against children in conflict with law.
Poor infrastructure for detention and rehabilitation.
Limited public awareness of child rights.
7. Recommendations
Strengthen implementation of Juvenile Code aligned with UNCRC.
Establish specialized juvenile courts and train judges/staff.
Ban corporal punishment in all courts unequivocally.
Develop child-friendly procedures ensuring participation.
Expand diversion programs and improve detention conditions.
Increase public awareness and support from international partners.
8. Conclusion
Afghanistan’s juvenile justice system has legal provisions that broadly align with UNCRC standards but suffers from major gaps in implementation and enforcement. Cases reveal persistent violations of children’s rights, particularly around legal representation, detention conditions, and participation. A multi-faceted approach involving legal reform, capacity building, and cultural change is needed to fulfill Afghanistan’s international obligations under the UNCRC.
RELATED Blog
0 comments