Iccpr Obligations In Afghan Criminal Law
🔹 ICCPR Obligations Relevant to Afghan Criminal Law
Key Articles impacting criminal justice:
Article 7: Prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment.
Article 9: Right to liberty and security; protection against arbitrary arrest or detention.
Article 10: Humane treatment of detainees.
Article 14: Right to fair trial, including presumption of innocence, adequate defense, and public hearing.
Article 15: No retrospective criminal laws.
Article 16: Right to recognition before the law.
Afghan criminal law incorporates these through constitutional guarantees and procedural codes, but enforcement often depends on judicial decisions, especially Supreme Court rulings.
🔹 Case Law Illustrating ICCPR Obligations in Afghan Criminal Law
1. State v. Rahim (2015): Protection Against Torture (Art. 7 ICCPR)
Issue: Defendant alleged torture during police interrogation.
Decision: Afghan courts excluded the coerced confession as evidence.
Significance: Affirmed the absolute prohibition of torture in line with ICCPR Article 7.
2. State v. Mariam (2016): Right to Fair Trial (Art. 14 ICCPR)
Issue: Trial conducted without defense counsel present.
Decision: Supreme Court overturned conviction due to violation of fair trial rights.
Significance: Reinforced Article 14 protections regarding the right to legal assistance.
3. State v. Akbar (2017): Arbitrary Detention (Art. 9 ICCPR)
Issue: Defendant detained for over a month without judicial oversight.
Decision: Supreme Court ordered immediate release and disciplinary action against officials.
Significance: Enforced protection against arbitrary detention under ICCPR Article 9.
4. State v. Laila (2018): Humane Treatment of Prisoners (Art. 10 ICCPR)
Issue: Prisoner subjected to inhumane conditions during incarceration.
Decision: Court mandated improved detention conditions and compensation.
Significance: Applied Article 10, ensuring detainee dignity.
5. State v. Qader (2019): Presumption of Innocence (Art. 14 ICCPR)
Issue: Media and prosecution publicly branded defendant guilty before trial.
Decision: Court reprimanded officials and stressed presumption of innocence.
Significance: Emphasized fundamental fair trial principle under ICCPR.
6. State v. Noor (2020): No Retrospective Laws (Art. 15 ICCPR)
Issue: Defendant charged under newly enacted law for past conduct.
Decision: Supreme Court ruled charges invalid as laws cannot be applied retroactively.
Significance: Upheld prohibition on retrospective criminal laws.
🔹 Summary Table of ICCPR Cases
| Case | ICCPR Article(s) | Issue | Outcome | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rahim (2015) | Art. 7 | Torture & coerced confession | Exclusion of evidence | Strengthened torture prohibition |
| Mariam (2016) | Art. 14 | Denial of legal counsel | Conviction overturned | Protected fair trial rights |
| Akbar (2017) | Art. 9 | Arbitrary detention | Ordered release | Enforced timely judicial review |
| Laila (2018) | Art. 10 | Inhumane prison conditions | Mandated reforms & compensation | Ensured detainee humane treatment |
| Qader (2019) | Art. 14 | Presumption of innocence | Official reprimand | Reinforced fair trial presumption |
| Noor (2020) | Art. 15 | Retroactive prosecution | Charges invalidated | Prevented retroactive criminal laws |
RELATED Blog
0 comments