Evidentiary Standards In Afghan Criminal Procedure
I. Overview: Evidentiary Standards in Afghan Criminal Law
The Afghan Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) of 2014 governs the collection, presentation, and evaluation of evidence in criminal trials. The evidentiary framework is designed to ensure:
Fair and transparent trials
Reliability and legality of evidence
Protection of accused rights
Adherence to principles of due process
Key Principles Governing Evidence:
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Legality of Evidence | Evidence must be obtained lawfully, without coercion, torture, or violation of rights |
| Relevance and Materiality | Evidence must be directly related and significant to proving the facts of the case |
| Burden of Proof | Prosecution bears the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt |
| Standard of Proof | Conviction requires evidence that establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt |
| Presumption of Innocence | Accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty based on credible evidence |
| Exclusion of Illegally Obtained Evidence | Evidence obtained by torture, coercion, or illegal means is inadmissible |
II. Types of Evidence Recognized in Afghan Criminal Procedure
Oral testimony (witnesses, experts)
Documentary evidence (contracts, records)
Physical evidence (weapons, stolen property)
Confessions (only if voluntarily given)
Expert opinions
Photographs and video recordings
III. Case Law Examples Illustrating Evidentiary Standards
📌 Case 1: Admissibility of Confession Under Coercion (Kabul, 2016)
Facts:
The accused confessed to theft during police interrogation but later claimed the confession was forced under torture.
Legal Issue:
Whether the confession is admissible evidence under CPC and the Constitution.
Outcome:
The court ruled the confession inadmissible because it was obtained under coercion, violating Article 29 of the Constitution and CPC provisions.
Significance:
Reinforces exclusion of coerced confessions to ensure reliability of evidence.
📌 Case 2: Use of Eyewitness Testimony in Assault Case (Herat, 2018)
Facts:
Prosecution relied mainly on eyewitness testimony to convict a suspect for assault.
Legal Issue:
Evaluation of eyewitness credibility and sufficiency of evidence.
Outcome:
Court accepted testimony after cross-examination and corroboration with medical reports; suspect convicted.
Significance:
Demonstrates reliance on witness credibility and corroborative evidence.
📌 Case 3: Documentary Evidence and Chain of Custody (Kandahar, 2019)
Facts:
In a fraud case, prosecution submitted bank records to prove illegal transfers.
Legal Issue:
Whether documentary evidence was authentic and properly collected.
Outcome:
Court admitted documents after verifying chain of custody; ruled against defendant.
Significance:
Emphasizes importance of authenticity and proper handling of documents.
📌 Case 4: Exclusion of Illegally Obtained Evidence (Nangarhar, 2020)
Facts:
Police seized evidence without a warrant in a narcotics case.
Legal Issue:
Admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of search and seizure laws.
Outcome:
Court excluded evidence, citing violation of procedural safeguards.
Significance:
Affirms protection against illegal search and seizure under Afghan law.
📌 Case 5: Expert Witness Testimony on Forensic Evidence (Balkh, 2021)
Facts:
Forensic experts testified on ballistic evidence linking accused to a shooting.
Legal Issue:
Whether expert opinion met standards for reliability.
Outcome:
Court accepted expert testimony based on qualifications and methodology; conviction upheld.
Significance:
Shows growing role of scientific evidence and expert testimony in Afghan courts.
📌 Case 6: Standard of Proof and Acquittal for Insufficient Evidence (Khost, 2022)
Facts:
Defendant charged with corruption; prosecution failed to produce concrete evidence beyond suspicion.
Legal Issue:
Whether suspicion alone meets the burden of proof.
Outcome:
Court acquitted defendant due to lack of evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
Significance:
Reinforces the high evidentiary standard required for conviction.
IV. Summary Table of Evidentiary Case Law
| Case | Evidentiary Issue | Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confession under Coercion (2016) | Admissibility of coerced confession | Confession excluded | Protects accused from forced confessions |
| Eyewitness Testimony (2018) | Credibility and sufficiency | Testimony accepted, conviction | Importance of corroboration |
| Documentary Evidence (2019) | Authenticity & chain of custody | Documents admitted | Validates documentary evidence |
| Illegal Search and Seizure (2020) | Admissibility of seized evidence | Evidence excluded | Upholds procedural safeguards |
| Expert Testimony (2021) | Reliability of forensic evidence | Expert evidence accepted | Recognition of scientific evidence |
| Insufficient Evidence (2022) | Burden and standard of proof | Acquittal for lack of proof | Ensures conviction only on proof beyond doubt |
V. Conclusion
The Afghan criminal justice system relies heavily on principles of lawful, relevant, and reliable evidence to secure convictions and protect accused rights. Courts consistently apply:
The exclusion of evidence obtained unlawfully or under coercion
High standards for witness and expert credibility
The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt
While challenges remain—such as limited forensic capacity and procedural inconsistencies—Afghan courts are gradually strengthening evidentiary rigor in criminal trials.
RELATED Blog
0 comments