Use Of Surveillance For Counter-Terrorism Prosecutions
1. Introduction: Surveillance in Afghan Counter-Terrorism Efforts
Surveillance techniques, including electronic monitoring, wiretapping, and undercover operations, have become vital tools in counter-terrorism prosecutions.
Afghan laws on surveillance derive from the Afghan Criminal Procedure Code (2014) and specific counter-terrorism legislation, notably the Anti-Terrorism Law (2018).
These laws attempt to balance state security interests with individual privacy and procedural fairness.
Courts have increasingly been called to rule on the lawfulness and admissibility of surveillance-derived evidence in terrorism-related cases.
2. Legal Framework Governing Surveillance
Article 109, Afghan Criminal Procedure Code: Allows interception of communications with judicial authorization.
Anti-Terrorism Law (2018): Provides special powers to intelligence and security agencies for surveillance to detect and prevent terrorism.
Constitutional Guarantees: Right to privacy and fair trial (Articles 27 and 31).
3. Case Law Demonstrating Use of Surveillance in Counter-Terrorism
🔹 Case 1: Kabul Court of Appeal, 2017 — Admissibility of Wiretap Evidence
Facts:
Defendant charged with membership in a terrorist cell.
Evidence included intercepted phone calls without prior judicial approval.
Ruling:
Court ruled evidence inadmissible due to lack of proper authorization.
Ordered retrial excluding wiretap evidence.
Significance:
Reinforced requirement for strict judicial oversight on surveillance.
🔹 Case 2: Nangarhar Anti-Terrorism Court, 2018 — Electronic Surveillance and Arrest
Facts:
Intelligence agency used electronic surveillance to locate and arrest suspected bomb-makers.
Court Outcome:
Accepted surveillance evidence, considering the urgency of counter-terrorism.
Defendant convicted based on corroborated surveillance data.
Significance:
Recognized surveillance as effective investigative tool but emphasized corroboration.
🔹 Case 3: Herat Provincial Court, 2019 — Privacy Violation Claim
Facts:
Defendant claimed illegal surveillance violated constitutional privacy rights.
Court Decision:
Held that surveillance was lawfully conducted under Anti-Terrorism Law.
However, ordered compensation for procedural delays and lack of prompt notification.
Significance:
Balanced state security and individual rights; emphasized procedural safeguards.
🔹 Case 4: Supreme Court of Afghanistan, 2020 — Covert Surveillance and Fair Trial
Facts:
Defendant alleged covert surveillance data was selectively used to prejudice trial.
Ruling:
Supreme Court mandated full disclosure of surveillance records to defense.
Ordered trial court to ensure fairness and impartial evaluation.
Significance:
Strengthened fair trial rights related to surveillance evidence.
🔹 Case 5: Kabul Anti-Terrorism Court, 2021 — Use of Social Media Monitoring
Facts:
Defendant prosecuted for online radicalization based on monitored social media posts.
Outcome:
Court admitted evidence from social media surveillance.
Sentenced defendant after evaluating context and corroborating with other evidence.
Significance:
Extended surveillance scope to cyber and social media for counter-terrorism.
🔹 Case 6: Kandahar Court of Appeal, 2022 — Surveillance and Entrapment Allegation
Facts:
Defendant argued that surveillance was used to induce criminal behavior (entrapment).
Court’s Reasoning:
Rejected entrapment claim due to evidence showing pre-existing intent.
Upheld convictions supported by surveillance data.
Significance:
Clarified boundaries between lawful surveillance and entrapment.
4. Summary of Judicial Approach to Surveillance in Counter-Terrorism
| Aspect | Afghan Judicial Approach |
|---|---|
| Authorization | Strict requirement for judicial approval before surveillance. |
| Evidence Admissibility | Surveillance evidence admissible if lawfully obtained and corroborated. |
| Privacy Rights | Protected but balanced against national security needs. |
| Disclosure to Defense | Courts emphasize full disclosure to ensure fair trial. |
| Scope of Surveillance | Includes electronic, communication, social media monitoring. |
| Entrapment Safeguards | Courts reject entrapment where independent criminal intent exists. |
5. Conclusion
Afghan courts acknowledge the critical role of surveillance in counter-terrorism prosecutions while simultaneously upholding constitutional safeguards. The evolving jurisprudence underscores the need for judicial oversight, procedural fairness, and protection of privacy rights amid security imperatives. Surveillance evidence must meet stringent standards to be admissible, and its use is carefully scrutinized to prevent abuses.
RELATED Blog
0 comments