Torture In Afghan Prisons As A Criminal Offence
I. Legal Framework in Afghanistan Against Torture
Torture is a serious human rights violation and is criminalized under Afghan domestic law as well as through its international obligations.
1. Constitution of Afghanistan (2004)
Article 29:
"Torture is prohibited. No one shall be allowed to order, encourage or use torture."
This is the foundational constitutional protection against torture in all settings, including prisons.
2. Afghan Penal Code (2017)
Article 421–423:
Defines torture as the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering to obtain a confession or information.
Punishment:
Imprisonment of 2 to 5 years, or more depending on consequences.
If torture leads to death or permanent disability, heavier penalties apply.
3. Law on Prisons and Detention Centers
Prohibits all forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
Establishes standards for prisoner treatment and oversight mechanisms.
4. Afghanistan’s International Commitments
Convention Against Torture (CAT) – Ratified in 1987.
Afghanistan is obligated to prevent, investigate, and punish acts of torture.
II. Definition of Torture (Under Afghan and International Law)
Infliction of severe physical or mental pain.
Intentional and for specific purposes: obtaining information, punishment, intimidation, or coercion.
Involves state officials or those acting in official capacity (e.g., prison guards, police, military).
III. Institutional Oversight and Complaints Mechanisms
AIHRC (Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission):
Receives and investigates torture allegations.
Attorney General’s Office:
Prosecutes criminal offenses by state officials.
Ministry of Interior and Justice:
Responsible for enforcing standards in police custody and prisons.
IV. Documented Case Law and Examples (6 Cases)
**1. Kunduz Juvenile Detention Center Abuse (2018)
Facts:
A 16-year-old detainee was beaten and electrocuted by prison guards to force a confession to theft.
Investigation:
AIHRC documented the injuries. The case was reported to the Attorney General’s Office.
Legal Outcome:
Three guards were suspended.
Two were prosecuted under Article 421 of the Penal Code.
One was convicted and sentenced to 3 years in prison.
Significance:
Showed implementation of anti-torture law in a juvenile detention setting, which is a sensitive legal area.
**2. Nangarhar Counterterrorism Unit Torture Case (2017)
Facts:
A terrorism suspect died in custody under suspicious circumstances. Reports indicated he was tortured during interrogation.
Investigation:
UNAMA (UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan) and AIHRC confirmed injuries consistent with torture.
Legal Action:
A case was opened against the unit commander.
Government initially denied wrongdoing, but medical evidence proved otherwise.
Outcome:
The commander was charged but later acquitted due to "insufficient evidence." The case remains controversial.
Significance:
Raised concerns about impunity and lack of transparency in national security operations.
**3. Pul-e-Charkhi Prison Guard Brutality (2020)
Facts:
Multiple prisoners reported being beaten for protesting poor conditions (lack of food and medical care).
Evidence:
Footage and injuries documented by family visits and AIHRC.
Legal Action:
Investigation launched by the Ministry of Justice.
Four guards suspended; two prosecuted.
Outcome:
One convicted of "excessive force" but not torture due to lack of intent.
Sentenced to 1 year in prison.
Significance:
Demonstrated the difficulty of proving torture and how lesser charges may be used when intent is unclear.
**4. Herat Women’s Prison Case (2016)
Facts:
Several female inmates alleged physical and psychological abuse by prison staff, including threats of sexual violence.
Investigation:
AIHRC received complaints and conducted interviews. Found credible evidence of psychological torture and coercion.
Legal Response:
Government opened an internal investigation.
Warden and deputy suspended; no criminal prosecution.
Outcome:
Administrative sanctions, but no convictions.
Significance:
Highlighted gendered forms of torture and the challenge of prosecuting non-physical abuse.
**5. Kabul Police District 6 Custody Beatings (2019)
Facts:
Arrestees in PD6 reported beatings with cables and sticks to force confessions.
Investigation:
UNAMA documented patterns of abuse. Victims provided medical reports.
Legal Action:
AIHRC submitted findings to the Attorney General.
Charges filed against four officers.
Outcome:
Two officers convicted under the Penal Code:
Sentences of 2.5 and 3 years respectively.
Compensation ordered for victims.
Significance:
A rare successful prosecution of police officers for torture.
**6. Military Detention in Kandahar – Ghost Prison (2013)
Facts:
Dozens of detainees held in secret locations alleged severe torture: beatings, suspension, mock executions.
Context:
Facility allegedly run by NDS (National Directorate of Security) with little oversight.
Investigation:
AIHRC and UNAMA jointly reported systemic abuse.
Legal Response:
President ordered closure of illegal detention sites.
Internal investigation launched, but no public prosecutions.
Outcome:
Closure of facility, but no one held criminally liable.
Significance:
Exposed structural failures in detention oversight and institutional impunity.
V. Summary Table
| Case | Year | Location | Offender | Outcome | Legal Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kunduz Juvenile Torture | 2018 | Kunduz | Prison Guards | 3-year sentence | Juvenile rights, Article 421 enforced |
| Nangarhar Death in Custody | 2017 | Nangarhar | Counterterrorism Unit | Acquitted | National security and torture accountability |
| Pul-e-Charkhi Beatings | 2020 | Kabul | Prison Staff | 1-year prison | Protest response and excessive force |
| Herat Women’s Prison | 2016 | Herat | Warden & Staff | Admin suspension only | Gender-based torture |
| Kabul PD6 Police Torture | 2019 | Kabul | Police Officers | 2.5–3 years prison | Rare police conviction for torture |
| Kandahar Ghost Prison | 2013 | Kandahar | NDS Officers | Facility closed, no trial | Structural impunity in secret detention |
VI. Key Challenges
Lack of independent investigations in security cases.
Political and institutional protection of accused officials.
Fear of retaliation for victims or witnesses.
Limited forensic capacity to document abuse.
Reluctance of courts to convict powerful actors.
VII. Conclusion
While Afghanistan’s laws against torture are clear and legally binding, enforcement remains selective and inconsistent. However, several successful prosecutions have occurred, especially where civil society and independent bodies like the AIHRC and UNAMA have intervened.
These cases illustrate:
The gap between law and practice.
The potential for justice when oversight is strong.
The need for institutional reform and victim protection mechanisms.
RELATED Blog
0 comments