Crimes Against Humanity During Afghan Civil Wars
1. Understanding Crimes Against Humanity in Afghan Context
Crimes Against Humanity (CAH) are acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against civilians, including murder, torture, rape, persecution, and enforced disappearance.
Legal Basis:
Afghan Penal Code (Post-2017) criminalizes acts such as mass killings, torture, and persecution.
International Law: Rome Statute of the ICC defines CAH under Articles 7(1) and 7(2).
Afghanistan’s civil wars (1978–1992: PDPA vs Mujahideen; 1992–2001: Mujahideen infighting; 2001–2021: Taliban rule) were rife with such acts.
2. Case Law Analysis
Case 1: Mass Killings in Kabul (1992–1996)
Facts: During the civil war after Najibullah’s fall, various Mujahideen factions (Hezb-i-Islami, Jamiat, etc.) engaged in indiscriminate shelling of Kabul neighborhoods. Civilians were killed, hospitals destroyed, and homes targeted.
Issue: Does indiscriminate targeting of civilians constitute CAH?
Ruling/Analysis: Under Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute, murder committed as part of a widespread attack qualifies as CAH. The shelling was systematic and widespread, not isolated. Afghan courts rarely prosecuted, but UN human rights reports documented responsibility.
Significance: Illustrates the distinction between wartime casualties and deliberate targeting of civilians.
Case 2: Torture and Detention by PDPA Regime (1978–1992)
Facts: Afghan Democratic Republic’s intelligence agency (KHAD) routinely arrested and tortured political opponents. Practices included beatings, electric shocks, and mock executions.
Issue: Can systematic torture in detention centers be classified as CAH?
Ruling/Analysis: Article 7(1)(f) defines torture as a crime against humanity when systematic. The PDPA regime’s practices, documented in Amnesty International reports, meet both widespread and systematic criteria.
Comparison: Similar to Prosecutor v. Furundzija (ICTY, 1998), where torture in detention centers was prosecuted as CAH.
Case 3: Ethnic Persecution of Hazaras (1990s)
Facts: During Mujahideen factional fighting, Hazaras in central Afghanistan faced massacres, forced displacement, and denial of resources.
Issue: Do targeted killings of ethnic groups constitute CAH?
Ruling/Analysis: Systematic attacks against Hazaras constitute persecution under Article 7(1)(h) of the Rome Statute. Even absent formal trials, UN reports confirm these acts as CAH.
Comparison: Comparable to Prosecutor v. Krstić (ICTY, 2001) for Srebrenica, where ethnic targeting constituted CAH and genocide.
Case 4: Enforced Disappearances Under Taliban Rule (1996–2001)
Facts: Taliban forces disappeared political opponents, journalists, and former government officials. Families were left uninformed about victims’ fates.
Issue: Does enforced disappearance qualify as CAH?
Ruling/Analysis: Yes. Article 7(1)(i) covers enforced disappearance of persons as part of systematic attack against civilians. Taliban’s widespread practice in multiple provinces constitutes CAH.
Significance: Highlights both scale and systematic nature, key elements for CAH.
Case 5: Sexual Violence Against Women
Facts: During Taliban rule, women were subjected to rape, forced marriages, and sexual slavery in some areas as punishment or intimidation.
Issue: Are these acts crimes against humanity?
Ruling/Analysis: Article 7(1)(g) of the Rome Statute defines rape and sexual violence as CAH when widespread/systematic. These acts were systematic, often used to instill fear and enforce control.
Reference: Analogous to Prosecutor v. Akayesu (ICTR, 1998), where sexual violence was prosecuted as CAH.
Case 6: Targeting of Civilian Infrastructure
Facts: Civil war factions deliberately destroyed schools, hospitals, and civilian infrastructure to gain control.
Issue: Can destruction of civilian objects qualify as CAH?
Analysis: Systematic attacks that endanger civilians and deprive them of basic needs can support CAH charges under Article 7(1)(k) (other inhumane acts). While not prosecuted domestically, UN reports considered these acts indicative of CAH.
Comparison: Similar reasoning in Prosecutor v. Blaškić (ICTY, 2000) for attacks on civilian infrastructure.
Case 7: Use of Child Soldiers
Facts: Warlord factions recruited children for fighting in the 1990s, particularly in northern provinces.
Issue: Does recruitment of children constitute CAH?
Analysis: Under Rome Statute Article 7(1)(g) (other inhumane acts), the systematic use of children in hostilities constitutes a crime against humanity.
Reference: Analogous to Lubanga Dyilo ICC Case (2012), which prosecuted child soldier recruitment as CAH.
3. Key Observations
Patterns of CAH in Afghanistan:
Mass killings, targeting ethnic groups, torture, sexual violence, forced displacement.
Systematic vs. Isolated Acts:
Civil wars often produced widespread attacks rather than isolated crimes.
Domestic vs. International Accountability:
Afghan courts rarely prosecuted CAH due to instability.
UN reports and ICC frameworks recognize these acts as prosecutable crimes.
Comparison With International Cases:
Many Afghan civil war practices are analogous to ICTY, ICTR, and ICC jurisprudence, confirming they meet CAH definitions.
Conclusion
Afghan civil wars were marked by widespread and systematic attacks against civilians, satisfying the elements of Crimes Against Humanity. While domestic accountability was minimal, international law clearly provides a framework to classify:
Mass killings → Article 7(1)(a)
Torture → Article 7(1)(f)
Persecution → Article 7(1)(h)
Enforced disappearances → Article 7(1)(i)
Sexual violence → Article 7(1)(g)
The pattern of abuses across multiple factions demonstrates that CAH was pervasive and systematic, making the Afghan civil wars a textbook case for international criminal law study.
RELATED Blog
0 comments