Victim Participation Rights In Afghan Trials Versus Icc Standards
🔷 Victim Participation Rights in Afghan Trials vs. ICC Standards
1. Overview of Victim Participation
🟩 In Afghan Law:
Victim rights are recognized in the Criminal Procedure Code (2014) and Penal Code (2017).
Victims can:
File complaints
Seek compensation
Appear at trial as civil claimants
Testify as witnesses
However:
Participation is limited to procedural aspects.
Victims have no independent legal standing in criminal prosecutions (i.e., cannot challenge prosecutorial decisions or demand specific sentences).
Rights depend heavily on the discretion of the prosecutor or judge.
Support mechanisms (e.g., psychological, legal aid) are minimal or absent.
🟥 Under ICC Standards:
Victim participation is central to the ICC’s restorative justice model.
Victims may:
Participate independently in proceedings (Article 68 of the Rome Statute)
Submit views and concerns
Be represented by a legal representative
Apply for reparations (Article 75)
The ICC has dedicated structures such as the Victims and Witnesses Unit (VWU) and the Office for Victims’ Participation (OVP).
2. Key Differences: Afghan Law vs. ICC
| Criteria | Afghan Law | ICC Standards |
|---|---|---|
| Independent legal standing | ❌ No | ✅ Yes |
| Right to reparation | ✅ Civil claim allowed (limited) | ✅ Formal reparation process |
| Participation in trial phases | ✅ Limited (mainly trial stage) | ✅ All stages (investigation to appeals) |
| Legal representation | ❌ Rare / informal | ✅ Mandatory through legal counsel |
| Support services | ❌ Minimal | ✅ VWU for protection and support |
| Right to appeal decisions | ❌ No | ✅ Yes (via legal representatives) |
⚖️ Case Law Examples from Afghanistan
Case 1: The Farkhunda Lynching Case (2015)
Facts:
Farkhunda Malikzada, a young woman, was falsely accused of blasphemy and publicly lynched in Kabul. The brutal killing was captured on video, sparking national outrage.
Victim Participation:
Her family participated in the trial and demanded justice.
Initial verdicts sentenced some perpetrators to death or long prison terms.
On appeal, most sentences were significantly reduced or overturned.
Issues:
Victim’s family had no standing to challenge the appeal decisions.
No reparations or psychological support offered.
Media played a bigger role than the legal system in advocating justice.
ICC Comparison:
Under ICC standards, the family would have had independent legal counsel, a right to challenge appeals, and access to reparations and protection.
Case 2: Khost Honor Killing Case (2019)
Facts:
A young girl was killed by her family in an “honor killing.” The state prosecuted several family members.
Victim Participation:
Since the victim was deceased and had no representatives, no family appeared in court to demand justice.
The prosecutor pursued the case, but the lack of victim presence weakened the case in court.
Issues:
No legal provision to appoint a representative for deceased victims unless relatives voluntarily appear.
Weak advocacy for the victim’s rights.
ICC Comparison:
The ICC would appoint legal representatives for deceased victims, ensuring their rights are protected throughout the process.
Case 3: Civilian Casualty in Security Raid – Nangarhar Case (2016)
Facts:
A civilian family lost two members in a night raid conducted by Afghan security forces targeting insurgents.
Victim Participation:
Family tried to seek justice through provincial courts.
Their complaint was dismissed for “lack of jurisdiction,” and no further participation allowed.
No reparations or formal acknowledgment.
Issues:
Victims had no ability to trigger or participate in investigations.
Political and military immunity often obstructs justice.
ICC Comparison:
Victims would be able to submit views and concerns, and reparation orders could be issued against responsible parties.
Case 4: War Crime Allegation – Wardak Massacre (2013)
Facts:
Afghan villagers accused Afghan Local Police (ALP) of torture and extrajudicial killings during operations in Wardak province.
Victim Participation:
Complaints were filed by families.
Investigation stalled due to pressure from military and local authorities.
Victims were not allowed to participate in hearings or receive updates.
Issues:
Lack of transparency and no support for victims in war-related cases.
No victim protection against threats or retaliation.
ICC Comparison:
Under the ICC, these would qualify as war crimes. Victims would participate via legal representatives, and protective measures would be mandatory.
Case 5: Victims in Taliban Atrocity Trials – Ghazni School Attack (2018)
Facts:
Taliban fighters attacked a girls’ school, killing several students and teachers.
Legal Proceedings:
Arrested perpetrators were tried under anti-terror laws.
Victims’ families attended some sessions but were not formally included in the process.
Verdicts were issued without victims’ input.
Issues:
No right to submit evidence or questions through counsel.
No recognition of victims' suffering in sentencing.
ICC Comparison:
Victims would have a say in the proceedings and might be eligible for collective reparations.
Case 6: Domestic Violence Case in Bamyan (2020)
Facts:
A woman filed charges against her abusive husband. The case reached trial, but the court was dismissive of the emotional harm she endured.
Victim Participation:
She was treated merely as a witness, not a rights-holder.
She had no access to legal aid, and her safety was not prioritized.
ICC Comparison:
Gender-based crimes receive special victim-sensitive procedures, and victims are given psychological, legal, and protective support.
📌 Summary Table
| Case | Victim Participation (Afghan Law) | ICC Standard Comparison | Key Issues Identified |
|---|---|---|---|
| Farkhunda Lynching (2015) | Limited court presence, no appeal rights | Full legal standing, reparations, support | Lack of legal representation |
| Khost Honor Killing (2019) | No family participation | Independent representation possible | No mechanism for victimless crimes |
| Nangarhar Civilian Death (2016) | Complaint dismissed, no access to process | Participation in all stages | Military impunity, lack of access |
| Wardak War Crimes (2013) | No trial, victim exclusion | Formal protection and participation | No accountability for security forces |
| Ghazni School Attack (2018) | Observers only, not heard in court | Right to submit views | No reparations or acknowledgement |
| Bamyan Domestic Abuse (2020) | Victim treated as witness, no aid | Gender-sensitive procedures | No legal aid, inadequate protection |
✅ Conclusion
Afghan law provides basic rights to victims, but these are mostly limited to civil claims and testimonies.
In practice, victim participation is often symbolic, with no real legal power or protection.
The ICC model provides a far more comprehensive system, focusing on participation, protection, and reparations.
Bridging this gap in Afghanistan would require:
Stronger victim protection laws,
Legal aid structures,
Independent victim representation,
Greater judicial sensitivity to victim rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments