Human Trafficking In Afghanistan
I. Overview of Human Trafficking in Afghanistan
Human trafficking in Afghanistan has been a persistent and serious human rights issue, involving forced labor, sexual exploitation, child trafficking, and debt bondage. The instability caused by decades of conflict, poverty, lack of education, and weak law enforcement has made vulnerable populations — especially women and children — prime targets for traffickers.
Afghanistan is both a source and transit country for trafficking victims. Afghan citizens are trafficked internally and to neighboring countries like Pakistan, Iran, India, the Gulf States, and Central Asia.
II. Legal Framework
1. Afghan Law on Combating Human Trafficking (2017 Amendment of the 2008 Law)
This law criminalizes:
The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of persons by means of threat, coercion, abduction, fraud, or abuse of power.
It sets penalties up to 10–15 years imprisonment for severe cases involving minors or organized crime.
The law defines trafficking separately from smuggling, aligning with UN Palermo Protocol standards.
2. Penal Code (2017)
Articles 510–518 criminalize:
Trafficking in persons
Sexual exploitation
Forced prostitution
Slavery-like practices
Using children in illicit activities
III. Detailed Case Law Examples
Below are six notable cases that illustrate how Afghan authorities and courts have handled trafficking cases.
Case 1: State vs. Abdul Rahim (Kabul, 2018)
Facts:
Abdul Rahim and three accomplices were convicted for trafficking eight young boys from rural Bamiyan province to Kabul under the guise of offering religious education. Once in Kabul, the boys were forced to beg in markets and hand over their daily earnings.
Legal Issue:
Whether deception in the name of education qualifies as trafficking under Afghan law.
Court’s Finding:
The Kabul Primary Court ruled that misleading minors for economic exploitation constitutes trafficking, even if physical coercion was absent. Abdul Rahim was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment, and the minors were placed under state protection.
Significance:
Established that fraud and abuse of vulnerability (not just physical force) fulfill the element of coercion under Afghan anti-trafficking law.
Case 2: State vs. Mariam & Others (Herat, 2019)
Facts:
A trafficking network led by a woman named Mariam recruited impoverished women and girls with promises of domestic jobs in Iran. Upon crossing the border, the victims were sold into forced marriages or prostitution.
Legal Issue:
Whether cross-border exploitation falls under Afghan jurisdiction when recruitment starts within Afghanistan.
Court’s Finding:
Herat Provincial Court held that since the recruitment and transportation originated within Afghan territory, Afghan courts retain jurisdiction. Mariam was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment, and her accomplices received 10–12 years.
Significance:
Affirmed Afghanistan’s jurisdiction over transnational trafficking acts initiated domestically.
Case 3: State vs. Qari Nazir (Kunduz, 2020)
Facts:
Qari Nazir, a local religious teacher, was accused of recruiting orphaned boys into a madrasa that acted as a front for forced labor in opium fields. The children were beaten and deprived of education.
Legal Issue:
Whether forced labor in narcotics production constitutes “human trafficking” or only “child labor.”
Court’s Finding:
The Kunduz Appellate Court ruled that using minors through coercion for illicit economic gain is trafficking. Nazir was convicted under Articles 510 and 512 of the Penal Code and sentenced to 14 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Extended trafficking interpretation to forced labor in illegal industries, not just sexual or cross-border exploitation.
Case 4: State vs. Zahirullah (Nangarhar, 2021)
Facts:
Zahirullah and his cousin were caught transporting three young girls to Jalalabad for intended sale to a local commander as "temporary brides."
Legal Issue:
Whether selling girls into forced marriage constitutes trafficking or cultural custom.
Court’s Finding:
The Nangarhar Provincial Court rejected the defense of customary marriage practices, holding that any sale or exchange of women for monetary benefit amounts to trafficking. Both were sentenced to 15 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Clarified that forced or transactional marriage = human trafficking, even when disguised as tradition.
Case 5: State vs. Ahmad Shah Network (Balkh, 2017–2020)
Facts:
Ahmad Shah led a criminal network trafficking Afghan boys to Iran for camel racing and domestic servitude. Iranian police returned 11 rescued victims to Afghan authorities.
Legal Issue:
How to prosecute cross-border networks involving both Afghan and foreign participants.
Court’s Finding:
The Balkh Provincial Court, under joint investigation with the Ministry of Interior, convicted four Afghan recruiters under the 2017 Anti-Trafficking Law. Ahmad Shah was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment, the maximum penalty for organized trafficking.
Significance:
Marked the first major organized trafficking conviction under the revised Afghan law and strengthened cross-border cooperation mechanisms.
Case 6: State vs. Hamid Gul and Others (Kandahar, 2022)
Facts:
Following the Taliban takeover, local authorities arrested Hamid Gul and associates for selling internally displaced women from Helmand to buyers in Pakistan. Victims were forced into prostitution in Quetta.
Legal Issue:
Applicability of pre-Taliban trafficking laws under the new regime.
Court’s Finding:
A Taliban-controlled court, applying Sharia principles, found the defendants guilty of enslaving Muslim women, which it equated to trafficking. The accused were given life imprisonment under Taliban justice, although the trial process lacked procedural transparency.
Significance:
Showed the continuity and adaptation of anti-trafficking enforcement even under Taliban governance, albeit with limited due process.
IV. Challenges in Enforcement
Corruption and weak institutions often lead to acquittals or non-prosecution.
Victim protection programs remain minimal — victims often face re-victimization or stigmatization.
Limited cross-border cooperation hampers rescue and rehabilitation efforts.
Gender norms and lack of awareness prevent women and children from reporting exploitation.
V. Conclusion
Afghanistan’s anti-trafficking jurisprudence has evolved significantly since 2008, showing progress toward recognizing fraud, coercion, and cultural practices as trafficking forms. Despite structural challenges, judicial interpretations—especially in Abdul Rahim and Mariam cases—have established a strong precedent for protecting vulnerable populations and holding traffickers accountable.
RELATED Blog
0 comments