Comparison Of Afghan And Western Due Process Standards
Comparison of Afghan and Western Due Process Standards
1. Concept of Due Process
Western Due Process:
Rooted in principles of fair trial, equality before the law, presumption of innocence, right to counsel, public hearing, right to appeal, and protection from arbitrary detention. It ensures the accused's rights are protected throughout the criminal justice process.
Afghan Due Process:
Formally guaranteed in the Afghan Constitution (2004) and criminal procedure laws, but in practice, due process is often compromised by weak institutions, corruption, and traditional practices (like jirgas or shuras) which may override formal courts.
2. Key Elements of Due Process Compared
| Element | Western Standards | Afghan Standards (Practical) |
|---|---|---|
| Presumption of Innocence | Fundamental, must be upheld in all trials | Often compromised; suspects face public stigma |
| Right to Counsel | Guaranteed, with public defenders available | Often limited, especially for poor or women |
| Right to a Public Hearing | Trials generally open to public and media | Many trials secretive or held in special courts |
| Right to Appeal | Clear and accessible appellate process | Appeals exist but often ineffective due to corruption |
| Protection Against Torture | Prohibited absolutely | Widespread allegations of torture and coercion |
| Impartial and Independent Judiciary | Key principle, with judicial independence ensured | Courts influenced by politics, warlords, and corruption |
| Speedy Trial | Right to timely trial | Delays common; cases linger for years |
Case Law and Illustrative Cases Comparing Due Process
1. Farkhunda Malikzada Case (2015) – Afghanistan
Due Process Issues:
Farkhunda was lynched by a mob; her killers were initially arrested.
Trials conducted under public pressure.
Many sentences were later reduced or overturned on appeal.
Evidence showed police negligence, but few officers were held accountable.
Accused had limited legal representation.
Comparison:
Western systems would ensure full protection of defendants’ rights, impartial trials, and no political influence.
Afghan courts showed vulnerability to political and social pressures, with inconsistent application of law and inadequate victim protection.
2. Omar Khadr Case (Canada/US) – Western System
Background: Omar Khadr, a Canadian detained by the US military as a child soldier in Guantanamo, was prosecuted by military commission.
Due Process Elements:
Prolonged detention without charge.
Limited access to legal counsel initially.
Trial in military commission, not civilian court.
Later transferred to Canadian custody with improved due process protections.
Comparison:
Even Western systems face due process challenges in terrorism contexts.
Afghan courts often lack even minimal safeguards present here.
3. Sahar Gul Case (2011–2013) – Afghanistan
Due Process Issues:
Sahar Gul was a child bride tortured by in-laws.
Initial convictions were overturned on appeal due to procedural flaws.
Defense lawyers poorly resourced; trial lacked transparency.
Government faced criticism for weak enforcement of protective laws.
Comparison:
Western systems would ensure protection for vulnerable victims and witnesses, and robust prosecution of abusers.
Afghan due process failed to protect the victim adequately, showing systemic weaknesses.
4. Amanda Knox Case (Italy/Western Europe)
Due Process Elements:
High-profile murder case with extensive media coverage.
Multiple trials and appeals, with eventual acquittal.
Right to fair representation, presumption of innocence, and appeal respected.
Courts conducted public hearings with transparency.
Comparison:
Reflects Western commitment to exhaustive judicial process, even in complicated cases.
Afghan courts rarely exhibit such transparency or consistency.
5. Trial of ISIS-K Foreign Fighters (Afghanistan, 2017)
Due Process Issues:
Trials in military tribunals with limited public access.
Allegations of coerced confessions and lack of proper defense counsel.
Defendants often convicted on vague or secret evidence.
Death sentences issued rapidly with limited review.
Comparison:
Western courts require high standards of evidence and protections against coerced confessions.
Afghan trials lacked procedural safeguards, compromising fairness.
Summary of Differences with Practical Implications
| Due Process Component | Western Courts | Afghan Courts (in Practice) |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Representation | Robust, including public defenders | Limited, especially for marginalized groups |
| Trial Transparency | Open trials with media access | Closed or secretive trials, especially for terrorism |
| Judicial Independence | Strong, protected by law | Influenced by politics, local power brokers |
| Appeals and Review | Accessible and effective | Often symbolic, with political influence |
| Protection from Torture | Strictly enforced | Commonly reported, weak enforcement |
| Rights of Vulnerable Groups | Special protections and support | Minimal, with social stigma and discrimination |
Conclusion
While Afghan law formally guarantees many due process rights, the reality is marked by weak judicial institutions, political interference, corruption, and social customs that undermine these protections. Western due process standards emphasize fairness, transparency, and protection of individual rights—elements often missing or compromised in Afghanistan’s legal system.
The cases illustrate that Afghan courts face systemic challenges in delivering justice fairly, especially for vulnerable groups, foreign fighters, and politically sensitive cases. Strengthening Afghan judicial independence, legal aid access, and protections against torture would be key steps to align Afghan due process with international standards.
RELATED Blog
0 comments