War Crimes In Afghan Criminal Law
⚖️ I. War Crimes Under Afghan Criminal Law
Afghanistan’s legal framework for war crimes stems from:
The Afghan Penal Code (2017) – which incorporates crimes against humanity, genocide, and war crimes as defined by international law.
The Constitution of Afghanistan (2004) – Article 7 commits Afghanistan to adhere to international conventions and the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) – Afghanistan ratified it in 2003, allowing ICC jurisdiction over war crimes committed on its territory.
Key Provisions:
Under the Afghan Penal Code, Chapter 16 (Articles 398–412):
Article 398–404: Crimes against international humanitarian law (war crimes).
Article 405–412: Crimes against humanity, genocide, and aggression.
The law criminalizes:
Willful killing or targeting of civilians.
Torture or inhumane treatment of prisoners.
Use of child soldiers.
Destruction of civilian property.
Attacks on hospitals, schools, or religious sites.
Sexual violence during conflict.
Jurisdiction and Enforcement:
Afghan domestic courts retain jurisdiction for crimes committed within Afghanistan.
The Special Unit for War Crimes under the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) investigates major cases.
When state capacity is weak, the International Criminal Court (ICC) steps in.
⚔️ II. Important War Crimes Cases in Afghanistan
Below are six detailed cases illustrating how Afghan law and international law intersect in prosecuting war crimes.
Case 1: Dostum Militia – Sheberghan Prison Massacre (2001)
Background:
General Abdul Rashid Dostum, a Northern Alliance commander, allegedly oversaw the mass killing of Taliban prisoners after the fall of Kunduz in 2001. Around 2,000 detainees suffocated in container trucks while being transported to Sheberghan Prison.
Legal Findings:
The act constituted war crimes (inhumane treatment, killing of POWs).
Afghan prosecutors faced political pressure and lacked capacity to act.
The UNAMA Human Rights Division classified it as a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions.
Later, the ICC preliminary examination included this event as part of potential war crimes in Afghanistan (Rome Statute, Art. 8).
Legal Principle:
Command responsibility applies—even if the commander did not directly commit the act, failure to prevent or punish subordinates is punishable.
Case 2: Taliban Executions in Ghazni Province (2015)
Background:
Taliban forces executed 13 civilians accused of “spying” for the government after seizing control of Nawur District in 2015.
Legal Findings:
Under Article 398 of the Afghan Penal Code, deliberate killing of non-combatants is a war crime.
Afghan National Security Court in Kabul charged several captured Taliban fighters under this article.
Defendants were sentenced to 20–25 years imprisonment.
Legal Principle:
Extrajudicial executions during armed conflict amount to war crimes, regardless of motive or local “religious justification.”
Case 3: U.S. Airstrike on Kunduz Hospital (2015) – MSF Hospital Attack
Background:
A U.S. AC-130 gunship struck the Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) hospital in Kunduz, killing 42 civilians, including doctors and patients.
Legal Findings:
The Afghan government classified the strike as a violation of humanitarian law.
While the U.S. conducted its own inquiry, Afghan prosecutors opened a symbolic investigation under Article 404 (attacks on protected civilian institutions).
The incident was also investigated by the ICC Office of the Prosecutor as a potential war crime under Article 8(2)(b)(ix) of the Rome Statute.
Legal Principle:
Targeting protected sites like hospitals during conflict constitutes a serious war crime even if committed by foreign forces.
Case 4: Taliban Use of Child Soldiers (Helmand, 2017)
Background:
Reports indicated that Taliban commanders in Helmand forcibly recruited children as fighters and suicide bombers.
Legal Findings:
Under Article 402 of the Afghan Penal Code and Article 38 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, recruiting anyone under 18 into armed conflict is a war crime.
The Afghan Attorney General’s Office prosecuted several captured recruiters.
Three local commanders were sentenced to 15 years in prison.
Legal Principle:
Child soldier recruitment violates both Afghan law and international law, constituting a war crime under customary humanitarian law.
Case 5: NATO Airstrike in Logar Province (2008)
Background:
A NATO airstrike aimed at insurgents mistakenly killed 30 civilians in Logar. Survivors accused the Afghan and coalition forces of reckless disregard for civilian lives.
Legal Findings:
The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) classified the event as a grave breach.
The Afghan Attorney General filed charges under Article 398 (indiscriminate attacks), though the case was later dropped under diplomatic immunity pressures.
Nevertheless, it remains cited in Afghan war crimes legal studies as a precedent for state accountability.
Legal Principle:
Even coalition operations fall under Afghan war crimes jurisdiction when they violate international humanitarian norms.
Case 6: ISIS-K Executions and Torture in Nangarhar (2019)
Background:
ISIS-K militants were accused of executing captured Afghan soldiers and civilians, filming the killings, and committing acts of torture.
Legal Findings:
Prosecuted under Articles 398–402 for war crimes and Article 405 for crimes against humanity.
The Primary Court of Nangarhar convicted 8 ISIS members and sentenced them to death.
Appeals Court upheld the verdict in 2021.
Legal Principle:
Acts of torture and execution of non-combatants are prosecutable under both war crimes and crimes against humanity provisions.
Case 7: Massacre in Mirza Olang, Sar-e Pul (2017)
Background:
Taliban and ISIS militants jointly attacked Mirza Olang village, killing over 50 civilians, including women and children.
Legal Findings:
The attack was investigated by the Afghan Attorney General’s Office and the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA).
Prosecutors charged identified militants with war crimes (mass killing of civilians) under Article 398.
Convictions led to life imprisonment sentences for four captured assailants.
Legal Principle:
Joint attacks on civilians during non-international armed conflict qualify as war crimes regardless of group affiliation.
⚖️ III. Legal Summary and Observations
| Principle | Legal Basis | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Protection of Civilians | Art. 398, Geneva Conventions | Ghazni Executions, Mirza Olang Massacre |
| Command Responsibility | Art. 405, Customary IHL | Dostum Prison Massacre |
| Protection of Medical Facilities | Art. 404 | Kunduz Hospital Bombing |
| Child Recruitment Prohibition | Art. 402 | Taliban Use of Child Soldiers |
| Prosecution of Non-State Actors | Art. 398–412 | ISIS-K Executions |
🏛️ Conclusion
War crimes in Afghanistan have been widespread due to decades of conflict.
Afghan Criminal Law—especially Articles 398 to 412 of the Penal Code (2017)—gives domestic courts authority to prosecute such acts, aligning national legislation with international humanitarian law.
Despite limitations in enforcement and political instability, several cases (like those in Nangarhar, Ghazni, and Helmand) have established a foundation of accountability and provided precedents for future prosecutions, whether by Afghan courts or the ICC.
RELATED Blog
0 comments