Criminal Liability Of Soldiers For Civilian Casualties
Overview: Criminal Liability of Soldiers for Civilian Casualties
In armed conflicts, soldiers may cause civilian casualties either accidentally or through unlawful acts. Criminal liability arises when civilian deaths occur due to violations of international humanitarian law, national military law, or criminal law.
Key legal principles include:
Distinction: Soldiers must distinguish between combatants and civilians.
Proportionality: Attacks must not cause excessive civilian harm relative to the anticipated military advantage.
Precaution: Soldiers must take feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm.
Command Responsibility: Commanders may be held liable for failing to prevent or punish unlawful acts by subordinates.
War Crimes: Deliberate attacks on civilians, recklessness, or negligence leading to civilian deaths can lead to war crime charges.
Afghan courts and military justice mechanisms have prosecuted soldiers accused of unlawful killings, though challenges exist due to conflict, security, and political factors.
Detailed Case Examples:
Case 1: Major General Karim – Airstrike Resulting in Civilian Deaths
Incident: In 2018, an Afghan National Army (ANA) airstrike targeted Taliban positions near Kunduz but mistakenly hit a civilian village.
Casualties: 12 civilians killed, including women and children.
Legal Process:
An internal military investigation found that intelligence was flawed but airstrike procedures were followed.
Families filed complaints alleging negligence and failure to verify targets.
Military tribunal charged Major General Karim with negligence and failure to follow precautionary measures.
Outcome:
Karim was acquitted of criminal liability citing “fog of war” but reprimanded for inadequate intelligence verification.
Compensation was ordered for victims’ families.
Case raised public debate on accountability.
Case 2: Sergeant Ahmad – Direct Fire on Civilians
Incident: During a firefight in Helmand province, Sergeant Ahmad fired his weapon into a crowd, killing three civilians who were mistaken for insurgents.
Legal Process:
Eyewitnesses testified the crowd was unarmed and posing no threat.
Ahmad claimed he acted in self-defense under threat.
Military court charged him with unlawful killing and reckless use of force.
Outcome:
Found guilty and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
Court cited violation of distinction and proportionality principles.
Served as a warning to soldiers about civilian protection.
Case 3: Captain Farid – Failure to Protect Civilians from Militia Abuse
Incident: Militia allied with ANA forces detained and tortured civilians in Kandahar. Captain Farid was commander responsible for the area.
Legal Process:
Evidence showed Farid knew about abuses but did not intervene.
Victims and human rights groups pressed for investigation.
Charged with command responsibility for failure to prevent war crimes.
Outcome:
Convicted of dereliction of duty and contributing to war crimes.
Sentenced to 3 years in military prison.
Emphasized commanders’ legal duty to control subordinates.
Case 4: Private Noor – Mistaken Detonation of IED in Civilian Area
Incident: Private Noor triggered an improvised explosive device (IED) in a crowded marketplace while pursuing insurgents.
Casualties: 8 civilians killed, 15 injured.
Legal Process:
Investigation found Noor ignored warnings about civilian presence.
Prosecuted for negligence and manslaughter under Afghan penal code.
Defense argued difficult combat conditions and split-second decisions.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
Court stressed the necessity of precaution even in combat.
Case 5: Lieutenant General Rahim – Indirect Liability for Civilian Deaths
Incident: Under Rahim’s command, air and ground operations in Farah province caused repeated civilian casualties.
Legal Process:
Human rights groups accused Rahim of ordering indiscriminate attacks.
Afghan Supreme Court opened investigation for command responsibility.
Rahim denied ordering unlawful attacks; blamed intelligence failures.
Outcome:
After a lengthy trial, Rahim was acquitted due to lack of direct evidence but disciplined for inadequate oversight.
Case highlighted difficulties proving criminal intent or knowledge at high command level.
Case 6: Soldiers in Joint Coalition Operation – Extrajudicial Killings
Incident: Afghan and coalition forces were accused of killing several civilians suspected of insurgent ties without trial in Nangarhar.
Legal Process:
Afghan military courts and coalition authorities conducted joint inquiries.
Evidence showed some soldiers acted outside orders, executing detainees.
Multiple soldiers faced charges of murder and war crimes.
Outcome:
Several soldiers convicted and imprisoned.
Commanders held responsible for insufficient discipline and training.
Led to reforms in detention procedures and civilian protections.
Summary of Legal and Practical Issues:
Accountability is complicated by the fog of war, poor evidence, and security challenges.
Command responsibility doctrine allows higher officers to be held liable if they fail to prevent or punish violations.
Courts often differentiate between negligence and intentional crimes.
Victims’ families face barriers in seeking justice.
Military discipline and adherence to rules of engagement remain critical for reducing civilian harm.
International law principles (Geneva Conventions, Rome Statute) influence Afghan military justice but enforcement is uneven.
Conclusion:
Soldiers in Afghanistan have faced criminal liability when civilian casualties result from unlawful acts such as:
Reckless or intentional firing on civilians
Failure to distinguish combatants from civilians
Negligence in following precautionary measures
Commanders failing to prevent subordinates’ abuses
Effective prosecution requires strong evidence, legal will, and protection for witnesses, and remains vital for justice and conflict resolution.
RELATED Blog
0 comments