Crimes Against Humanity In Afghan Courts
I. Introduction: Crimes Against Humanity in Afghanistan
Crimes against humanity are serious violations of international law involving widespread or systematic attacks against civilians, including murder, torture, rape, enslavement, persecution, and other inhumane acts. Afghanistan has faced numerous such instances due to decades of conflict, including Soviet occupation (1979–1989), civil war (1990s), Taliban regime (1996–2001), U.S.-led intervention (2001 onwards), and post-2021 Taliban takeover.
Afghanistan has acceded to several international conventions, including:
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (signed 2003)
Geneva Conventions (ratified 1956)
Convention against Torture (ratified 1987)
Despite the lack of robust domestic legal mechanisms for prosecuting crimes against humanity, some efforts were made—especially by Afghanistan’s Domestic War Crimes Tribunal, Special Courts, and transitional justice initiatives such as the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC).
Let’s explore five significant case studies in Afghan courts or quasi-legal mechanisms addressing crimes against humanity.
Case 1: The Case of General Shahnawaz Tanai (1990)
Background:
General Tanai was a high-ranking military officer in the communist regime under President Najibullah. He was involved in major military operations during the 1980s, particularly in campaigns against the Mujahideen in the countryside, including aerial bombardments and civilian displacement.
Allegations:
Indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas in Kunar, Nangarhar, and Logar provinces.
Use of chemical weapons (reported by human rights observers).
Torture and mass executions in military prisons.
Judicial Status:
After a failed coup in 1990, Tanai fled to Pakistan. He was never tried in Afghan courts, but his actions were documented in several AIHRC reports, and he was named in Transitional Justice dossiers as responsible for crimes against humanity. Civil society groups pushed for his trial in absentia, but political instability and lack of legal capacity blocked formal prosecution.
Legal Challenges:
Lack of effective witness protection.
Political influence shielding high-profile figures.
No specific domestic law codifying crimes against humanity at the time.
Case 2: The Taliban Massacre in Yakaolang (2001)
Background:
In January 2001, Taliban forces recaptured the town of Yakaolang in Bamyan Province, a Hazara-majority area. They executed more than 170 civilians and surrendered combatants over several days.
Allegations:
Extrajudicial executions.
Targeted persecution of the Hazara ethnic group (sectarian violence).
Destruction of civilian property and religious sites.
Evidence:
Satellite imagery.
Eyewitness accounts.
AIHRC investigations.
UN Special Rapporteur reports.
Judicial Status:
The AIHRC documented the massacre and submitted it to the Afghan Attorney General’s Office. Although no official trial occurred in national courts, this massacre was cited in:
The UN Security Council as evidence of Taliban war crimes.
Preliminary investigations by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Challenges:
Collapse of Taliban regime months later delayed legal proceedings.
Transitional government prioritized reconciliation over retributive justice.
Case 3: The Massacre of Dasht-e-Leili (2001)
Background:
After the fall of Kunduz to the Northern Alliance, 2,000+ Taliban prisoners were transported to Sheberghan prison in metal containers under General Abdul Rashid Dostum’s forces. Many suffocated to death.
Allegations:
Mass killing of prisoners (war crime and crime against humanity).
Cover-up of mass graves.
Lack of medical care and cruel treatment.
Investigations:
Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Physicians for Human Rights uncovered mass graves.
Witness testimonies implicated Dostum's forces.
U.S. involvement and knowledge of the incident was suspected.
Judicial Response:
The Afghan government under Karzai did not prosecute Dostum due to his political power.
In 2009, President Obama called for a new investigation, but Afghan courts never formally prosecuted it.
Legal Analysis:
The case qualifies under “inhumane acts” and “extermination” under crimes against humanity.
The AIHRC recommended a hybrid tribunal, but no implementation occurred.
Case 4: Prosecution of Commander Zardad (Tried in the UK, 2005)
Background:
Zardad Faryadi, an Afghan warlord, operated a checkpoint on the Kabul–Jalalabad highway in the 1990s, where he and his subordinate "Zardad's Dog" tortured and killed travelers.
Allegations:
Torture and enforced disappearances.
Sexual violence.
Arbitrary detention and killings.
Judicial Process:
Although not tried in Afghanistan, this case is important because:
It was the first successful prosecution of an Afghan war criminal for crimes against humanity abroad.
Tried under universal jurisdiction in the UK.
Zardad was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Relevance to Afghan Courts:
The case was extensively reported in Afghanistan and prompted debates about the need for domestic trials for war crimes. The AIHRC used it as a model to urge Afghan authorities to pursue their own prosecutions.
Case 5: Massacre at Robatak Pass (1997)
Background:
In May 1997, the Taliban executed 53 prisoners of war from the Northern Alliance at Robatak Pass (Samangan Province). Victims were mostly ethnic Tajiks.
Allegations:
Mass execution of civilians and surrendered soldiers.
Torture before execution.
Denial of burial rights, bodies left exposed.
Evidence:
Discovered mass graves.
Testimonies from survivors and local villagers.
Taliban documents later captured during U.S. invasion.
Judicial Action:
The case was included in the “Conflict Mapping Report” by the AIHRC, identifying Taliban figures such as Mullah Dadullah as responsible. However, Mullah Dadullah was killed in 2007 and never brought to trial.
Legal Significance:
Demonstrates pattern of systematic targeting of non-Pashtun ethnic groups by Taliban.
Constitutes murder, persecution, and inhumane acts under international law.
Case 6: The Kharoti Massacre (1990s, Civil War Period)
Background:
During the civil war in the 1990s, Hezb-i-Islami forces under Gulbuddin Hekmatyar targeted the Kharoti tribe in eastern Afghanistan, executing tribal elders and bombing civilian areas.
Allegations:
Targeted ethnic/tribal killings.
Rape and pillaging.
Use of child soldiers.
Judicial Status:
No trial was ever held domestically due to Hekmatyar’s later political reintegration (signed peace deal in 2016). However, AIHRC’s transitional justice documentation listed him among those potentially liable for crimes against humanity.
II. Legal Frameworks and Challenges in Afghan Courts
1. Lack of Domestic Law:
Until 2017, Afghanistan lacked a specific law criminalizing "crimes against humanity." The 2017 Penal Code finally included such crimes under Book Two, Chapter 2, aligning with the Rome Statute.
2. Weak Judiciary:
Corruption, lack of independence.
Poor witness protection and forensic capacity.
3. Political Will:
Many alleged war criminals held senior government positions.
Calls for amnesty over accountability.
4. Transitional Justice Delay:
Despite a strong AIHRC mandate, no special court or hybrid tribunal was ever formed.
III. Conclusion
While Afghanistan’s judicial system has made some efforts to document and acknowledge crimes against humanity, actual prosecution remains extremely limited. Most cases either stalled or were avoided due to political compromise. International efforts, such as the ICC preliminary examinations and foreign trials under universal jurisdiction (like Zardad's case), filled some gaps but could not replace a domestic accountability mechanism.
Recommendations for Future Action:
Establish a hybrid court with international support.
Fully implement the 2017 Penal Code provisions on international crimes.
Reinforce the AIHRC's independence and mandate for transitional justice.
Encourage documentation and truth-telling commissions at local levels.
Prioritize victim-centered justice and reparations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments