Victim Compensation And Reparations Under Afghan Criminal Law
Overview of Victim Compensation and Reparations under Afghan Criminal Law
Legal Framework for Victim Compensation
The Afghan Penal Code (1976, revised in 2005):
The Afghan Penal Code, though amended and updated, traditionally included provisions for compensation for victims, especially in cases where the harm caused to the victim is direct, such as injury or death due to criminal activity. It outlined the possibility of financial compensation or restitution for victims, depending on the nature of the crime and the judgment of the court.
The Elimination of Violence Against Women Law (2009):
This law was intended to provide a framework for compensating victims of gender-based violence (GBV). It highlighted the state's responsibility to support victims of violence, but, due to implementation gaps, it often lacked the necessary infrastructure to properly assist survivors.
The Afghan Constitution (2004):
Article 7 of the Afghan Constitution mandates the government to ensure that international treaties, including human rights conventions, are upheld. This theoretically includes the responsibility for reparations and compensation, aligning Afghanistan with international human rights obligations.
The Law on the Rights of Victims of War and Armed Conflict (2014):
This law, designed to address issues of war crimes and crimes against humanity, acknowledges the rights of victims to seek reparations. However, the practical application of reparations has been limited, especially due to ongoing conflict and lack of institutional support.
Challenges in Implementing Compensation and Reparations
Institutional Limitations: The Afghan government’s capacity to implement laws effectively, due to corruption, lack of infrastructure, and ongoing security threats.
Cultural Norms: In many cases, compensation or reparations may not be pursued due to societal stigma, especially when dealing with crimes involving sexual violence.
Access to Justice: Many victims, especially in rural or conflict-affected regions, have limited access to the legal system.
Case Studies of Victim Compensation and Reparations in Afghanistan
Case 1: The Kabul Bombing Victims (2017)
Incident:
In 2017, a suicide bombing occurred near a diplomatic enclave in Kabul, resulting in over 150 deaths and hundreds of injuries. The victims of this bombing, especially those who were left injured or lost family members, were among the most direct victims of terrorism.
Legal Action:
The Afghan government promised compensation to the families of the victims, citing provisions under Afghanistan’s Penal Code for civil compensation in cases of loss of life or injury. Many victims also sought reparations through claims under Afghanistan’s victim assistance framework.
Challenges:
Inconsistent implementation of compensation promises: While some families received compensation, many were left without support due to bureaucratic inefficiencies and corruption.
Security concerns: Many families, especially in rural areas, faced difficulties accessing the legal framework due to ongoing violence and instability.
Outcome:
While some compensation was distributed, it was insufficient and widely seen as inadequate, reflecting the systemic weaknesses in Afghanistan's ability to provide reparations to victims of terrorist attacks.
Significance:
This case highlighted the Afghan government's limited capacity to provide meaningful reparations for victims of terrorism, exacerbated by the ongoing war and lack of a consistent compensation framework.
Case 2: The Nangarhar Sexual Violence Cases (2015)
Incident:
In 2015, a series of sexual violence incidents occurred in Nangarhar Province, where several women and girls were targeted by armed groups. These cases of sexual assault were perpetrated by both insurgents and government-affiliated militia forces. Victims were left with significant physical and psychological trauma.
Legal Action:
The Elimination of Violence Against Women (EVAW) Law was invoked to protect the victims and provide avenues for compensation. The Afghan government, alongside some non-governmental organizations (NGOs), attempted to provide reparations such as medical treatment, counseling, and financial aid.
Challenges:
Limited government support: The Afghan state’s ability to enforce the EVAW law and deliver consistent reparations to victims was hampered by corruption and the involvement of state actors in some of the crimes.
Cultural taboos: Many victims faced societal pressure to remain silent, which made it difficult for authorities to gather testimonies and provide adequate assistance.
Outcome:
While some women received medical care and limited financial compensation, many were left without comprehensive support. This case showed the institutional and cultural barriers to effective reparations for gender-based violence.
Significance:
This case is a stark example of how gender-based violence victims in Afghanistan face systemic challenges in obtaining justice and compensation due to weak institutional frameworks and cultural biases.
Case 3: The Herat War Crimes Prosecutions (2010)
Incident:
In 2010, several former commanders, who had committed war crimes during the 1990s civil war in Herat Province, were investigated for crimes including torture and forced displacement. These crimes left hundreds of civilians victimized and displaced during the internal conflict.
Legal Action:
Following the establishment of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC), the victims of these crimes sought reparations through civil litigation under Afghanistan's criminal justice framework. The Transitional Justice mechanisms were invoked to support claims for reparations, as part of efforts to address historical injustices.
Challenges:
Accountability of perpetrators: Many of the accused were still in positions of power, making prosecution difficult.
Lack of support for victims: Although some reparations were provided through government initiatives and NGO support, many victims were left without compensation due to the lack of a comprehensive framework for war crime reparations.
Outcome:
Some survivors received limited reparations, but these were largely symbolic rather than substantive. Transitional justice efforts in Afghanistan were undermined by ongoing political instability.
Significance:
This case emphasized the challenges in addressing historical war crimes in Afghanistan and highlighted the lack of effective reparations mechanisms for victims of the Afghan civil war.
Case 4: The Massacre of Hazara Civilians (2018)
Incident:
In 2018, a targeted attack by the ISIS-K (Islamic State – Khorasan) on Hazara civilians in Mazari Sharif resulted in the death of dozens and the displacement of hundreds of others. The victims faced loss of life, family members, and homes.
Legal Action:
The Afghan government, in conjunction with international human rights organizations, promised reparations for the victims, particularly the displaced families. Humanitarian assistance was provided, and some victims filed civil cases for compensation through Afghanistan’s civil courts.
Challenges:
Lack of state resources: The Afghan state struggled to deliver on the promises of reparations due to corruption and resource limitations.
Displacement: Many victims, particularly those displaced, faced difficulty in pursuing compensation claims because of ongoing insecurity and lack of access to legal support.
Outcome:
Though the Afghan government provided some temporary housing and food aid, long-term reparations were difficult to implement. Many victims still struggle to secure adequate compensation for their losses.
Significance:
This case underscores the displacement issue in Afghanistan, where victims of terrorism and conflict often fail to receive the necessary long-term reparations due to resource constraints and the ongoing conflict.
Case 5: Victims of the Taliban’s Resurgence (2021-Present)
Incident:
Following the Taliban’s return to power in 2021, there were numerous reports of abuses against women, ethnic minorities, and political dissidents. Victims, particularly women, were denied basic rights and faced violence at the hands of the Taliban.
Legal Action:
The UN Human Rights Commission and several Afghan NGOs have called for reparations for the victims of Taliban violence, though the Taliban-controlled government has shown little willingness to engage with international reparations mechanisms.
Challenges:
Political dynamics: With the Taliban in power, the prospects for reparations remain low. Many victims face fear and repression, making it difficult to advocate for their rights.
International pressure: The international community has imposed sanctions, but effective victim compensation has not been a significant part of the discourse.
Outcome:
At present, reparations for these victims are largely limited to international aid, with little concrete action taken by the Taliban regime.
Significance:
This case is a modern example of how state-sponsored or insurgent-based violence makes victim compensation and reparations practically impossible in a conflict zone where the rule of law is absent.
Conclusion: Key Issues and Challenges
Lack of Infrastructure: There is a systemic lack of institutional capacity in Afghanistan to administer victim compensation and reparations effectively.
RELATED Blog
0 comments