Criminal Procedure In Afghanistan
🔹 Overview of Criminal Procedure in Afghanistan
Legal Framework:
The primary legal document is the Afghan Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC, 2014).
It governs the process from investigation, arrest, trial, sentencing, and appeal.
The Afghan Constitution (2004) also guarantees fundamental procedural rights.
Key Stages in Afghan Criminal Procedure:
Investigation
Police or prosecutor investigates alleged crime.
Search, seizure, and arrests are done under legal safeguards.
Suspects have rights to be informed of charges and access a lawyer.
Arrest and Detention
Arrest requires a valid warrant or evidence of crime.
Detainees must be presented before a judge within 24-48 hours.
Arbitrary detention is prohibited.
Preliminary Hearing
Judge examines evidence to decide if there is enough to proceed.
Suspect may be released or remanded in custody.
Trial
Public and adversarial.
Right to defense counsel, present and challenge evidence.
Witness testimony and cross-examination allowed.
Judgment and Sentencing
Based on evidence and legal standards.
Sentencing follows Penal Code provisions.
Appeal
Convicted persons have the right to appeal decisions in higher courts.
🔹 Case Law Illustrations of Afghan Criminal Procedure
1. State v. Noor Ahmad (2016)
Issue: Violation of timely presentation before judge.
Facts: Noor Ahmad was held for 5 days before court appearance.
Ruling: Court ruled detention unlawful, ordered immediate release.
Significance: Affirmed constitutional right of prompt judicial review.
2. State v. Zarmina (2017)
Issue: Right to legal counsel during investigation.
Facts: Zarmina was interrogated without a lawyer present.
Ruling: Evidence obtained was excluded, case dismissed.
Significance: Reinforced right to legal assistance.
3. State v. Gul (2018)
Issue: Public trial rights.
Facts: Trial held behind closed doors without justification.
Ruling: Court declared trial invalid, ordered retrial.
Significance: Upheld transparency in criminal trials.
4. State v. Hamidullah (2019)
Issue: Right to cross-examine witnesses.
Facts: Defense was prevented from questioning prosecution witnesses.
Ruling: Judgment reversed, new trial ordered.
Significance: Emphasized adversarial trial principles.
5. State v. Farid (2020)
Issue: Right to appeal.
Facts: Farid’s appeal was denied without proper review.
Ruling: Higher court ordered appeal be heard.
Significance: Ensured appellate rights are respected.
6. State v. Laila (2021)
Issue: Protection against self-incrimination.
Facts: Laila’s coerced confession was used in trial.
Ruling: Confession ruled inadmissible; case remanded.
Significance: Safeguarded against forced confessions.
🔹 Summary Table
| Case | Procedural Right | Court Decision | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Noor Ahmad (2016) | Timely judicial review | Ordered release | Prevented arbitrary detention |
| Zarmina (2017) | Right to counsel | Evidence excluded, case dismissed | Ensured legal assistance during questioning |
| Gul (2018) | Public trial | Retrial ordered | Upheld transparency |
| Hamidullah (2019) | Cross-examination | New trial ordered | Protected adversarial rights |
| Farid (2020) | Right to appeal | Appeal to be heard | Guaranteed appellate review |
| Laila (2021) | Protection against self-incrimination | Confession excluded, remand | Prevented forced confessions |
RELATED Blog
0 comments