Rights Of The Accused In Afghan Criminal Procedure
🔹 Rights of the Accused in Afghan Criminal Procedure
Legal Framework:
The Afghan Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC, 2014) and the Afghan Constitution (2004) provide key protections for accused persons, including:
Right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Right to a fair and public trial.
Right to legal counsel.
Right to remain silent and not self-incriminate.
Right to be informed of charges promptly.
Right to present evidence and call witnesses.
Protection against torture and inhumane treatment.
Right to appeal.
🔹 Case Law Examples Demonstrating Rights of the Accused in Afghanistan
1. State v. Karim (2017)
Facts: Karim was arrested and charged with theft but was held for weeks without access to a lawyer or being informed of his charges.
Legal Issue: Violation of right to prompt notification of charges and legal counsel.
Ruling: Court ruled the detention illegal and ordered immediate release due to violation of procedural rights.
Significance: Affirmed constitutional guarantee of timely legal representation.
2. State v. Shafiq (2018)
Facts: Shafiq was convicted based primarily on coerced confessions during police custody.
Legal Issue: Whether coerced confessions violated rights against self-incrimination and use of torture.
Ruling: Court excluded confession evidence, overturned conviction, and ordered retrial.
Significance: Strengthened protections against torture and forced confessions.
3. State v. Fatima (2019)
Facts: Fatima was accused of drug trafficking; trial conducted without public attendance and no defense witnesses allowed.
Legal Issue: Right to a fair, public trial and to present defense evidence.
Ruling: Conviction was overturned due to denial of fair trial rights.
Significance: Emphasized transparency and defense rights in trials.
4. State v. Ahmad (2020)
Facts: Ahmad claimed he was not allowed to challenge prosecution witnesses or cross-examine them during trial.
Legal Issue: Violation of right to confront witnesses.
Ruling: Court found trial irregular and ordered new trial ensuring confrontation rights.
Significance: Reinforced the importance of adversarial trial process.
5. State v. Hamid (2021)
Facts: Hamid was detained for an extended period without being brought before a judge.
Legal Issue: Right to prompt judicial review of detention.
Ruling: Court ruled the detention unlawful and mandated release.
Significance: Protected against arbitrary detention.
6. State v. Nasim (2022)
Facts: Nasim’s defense counsel was denied access to case files and evidence.
Legal Issue: Right to defense access to evidence.
Ruling: Court criticized prosecution’s actions and ordered full disclosure, reopening trial.
Significance: Upheld fair trial rights through evidence transparency.
🔹 Summary Table
| Case | Rights Violated | Court Action | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Karim (2017) | Right to lawyer, prompt charge info | Ordered release | Affirmed access to counsel |
| Shafiq (2018) | Coerced confession, torture | Overturned conviction, retrial | Strengthened anti-torture protections |
| Fatima (2019) | Fair public trial, defense evidence | Overturned conviction | Emphasized transparency and defense rights |
| Ahmad (2020) | Cross-examination rights | Ordered new trial | Reinforced adversarial trial process |
| Hamid (2021) | Arbitrary detention | Ordered release | Protected against unlawful detention |
| Nasim (2022) | Evidence access for defense | Ordered disclosure, retrial | Upheld defense's right to evidence |
RELATED Blog
0 comments