Advertisement

Systemic Torture, the New Normal: Civilian Victims of “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” in Afghan Detention Facilities

  • Vasja Badalič
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Victims and Victimology book series (PSVV)

Abstract

In order to shed light on the Afghan torture program, this chapter explores the following themes. The first section of the chapter examines the torture techniques used by the Afghan security forces. The section shows how members of the Afghan security forces routinely ignored due process guarantees (e.g., the right of detainees to have access to a lawyer) in order to have free rein in torturing and mistreating detainees. The second section analyses how Afghan prosecutors and judges relied on confessions obtained through torture to convict individuals accused of committing conflict-related offenses. The last, third section of the chapter examines the practices used by the Afghan authorities to prevent attempts to bring to justice those responsible for torture.

Keywords

Afghanistan National directorate of security Afghan national police Torture Forced confessions Impunity 

References

  1. Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC), and Open Society Foundation (OSF). 2012. Torture, Transfers, and Denial of Due Process: The Treatment of Conflict-Related Detainees in Afghanistan. Kabul: AIHRC and OSF. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/conflict-related-detainees-afghanistan-20120319.pdf. Accessed on 6 August 2018.
  2. Costanzo, Mark A., and Ellen Gerrity. 2009. “The Effects and Effectiveness of Using Torture as an Interrogation Device: Using Research to Inform the Policy Debate.” Social Issues and Policy Review 3 (1): 179–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. CTITF (Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force). 2014. Basic Human Rights Reference Guide: Right to a Fair Trial and Due Process in the Context of Countering Terrorism. New York: CTITF Publication Series. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/newyork/Documents/FairTrial.pdf. Accessed on 3 July 2018.
  4. Henckaerts, Jean-Marie, and Louise Doswald-Beck. 2005. Customary International Humanitarian Law. Volume 1: Rules. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Interim Code of Criminal Procedure for Courts—Official Gazette No. 820, Published 2004/02/25 (1382/12/06 A.P.). http://www.asianlii.org/af/legis/laws/icocpfcogn820p2004022513821206a675/. Accessed on 7 August 2018.
  6. Kassin, Saul M., and Gisli H. Gudjonsson. 2004. “The Psychology of Confessions: A Review of the Literature and Issues.” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 5 (2): 33—67.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00016.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Svensson-McCarthy, Anna-Lenna. 1998. The International Law of Human Rights and States of Exception: With Special Reference to the Travaux Preparatoires and the Case-Law of the International Monitoring Organs. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. The Constitution of Afghanistan. 2004. http://www.afghanembassy.com.pl/afg/images/pliki/TheConstitution.pdf. Accessed on 14 August 2018.
  9. U.N. Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders. 1990. Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors. Adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, Cuba, 27 August to 7 September 1990. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Professionalinterest/Pages/RoleOfProsecutors.aspx. Accessed on 15 August 2018.
  10. U.N. Economic and Social Council. 1995a. Question of the Human Rights of All Persons Subjected to Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, in Particular: Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Report of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Nigel S. Rodley, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1995/34. http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/commission/thematic51/34.htm. Accessed on 9 August 2018.
  11. ———. 1995b. Independence and Impartiality of the Judiciary, Jurors and Assessors and the Independence of Lawyers. Report of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Param Cumaraswamy, Submitted in Accordance with Commission on Human Rights Resolution 1994/41, E/CN.4/1995/39. http://undocs.org/E/CN.4/1995/39. Accessed on 24 July 2017.
  12. U.N. General Assembly. 1966. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 19 December 1966. https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%20999/volume-999-i-14668-english.pdf. Accessed on 8 May 2018.
  13. ———. 1984. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Adopted and Opened for Signature, Ratification and Accession by General Assembly Resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984 Entry into Force 26 June 1987. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cat.aspx. Accessed on 14 August 2018.
  14. ———. 1988. Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons Under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 43/173 of 9 December 1988. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/bodyprinciples.pdf. Accessed on 14 May 2018.
  15. U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), and U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). 2011. Treatment of Conflict-Related Detainees in Afghan Custody. Kabul: UNAMA and OHCHR. http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/Documents/October10_%202011_UNAMA_Detention_Full-Report_ENG.pdf. Accessed on 6 August 2018.
  16. ———. 2013. Treatment of Conflict-Related Detainees in Afghan Custody: One Year On. Kabul: UNAMA and OHCHR. https://unama.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/master_unama_detention_report_20_jan_2013_final.pdf. Accessed on 6 August 2018.
  17. ———. 2015. Update on the Treatment of Conflict-Related Detainees in Afghan Custody: Accountability and Implementation of Presidential Decree 129. Kabul: UNAMA and OHCHR. https://unama.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/unama_detention_report_2015_revised.pdf. Accessed on 6 August 2018.
  18. ———. 2017. Treatment of Conflict-Related Detainees: Implementation of Afghanistan’s National Plan on the Elimination of Torture. Kabul: UNAMA and OHCHR. https://unama.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/treatment_of_conflict-related_detainees_24_april_2017.pdf. Accessed on 6 August 2018.
  19. U.N. Human Rights Committee. 1982. CCPR General Comment No. 7: Article 7 (Prohibition of Torture or Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment). http://www.refworld.org/docid/4538840021.html. Accessed on 8 August 2018.
  20. ———. 1992a. CCPR General Comment No. 20: Article 7 (Prohibition of Torture, or Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment). http://www.refworld.org/docid/453883fb0.html. Accessed on 9 August 2018.
  21. ———. 1992b. M. Gonzalez del Río v. Peru. Communication No. 263/1987, U.N. doc. CCPR/C/46/D/263/1987. http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/undocs/dec26346.pdf. Accessed on 24 July 2018.
  22. U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). 2003. Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  23. ———. 2004. Istanbul Protocol: Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vasja Badalič
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Criminology at the Faculty of LawLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations