Abstract
The chapter examines the parallel justice system established by the Afghan Taliban. The first section analyzes both conflict-related crimes (e.g., spying for the Afghan regime and U.S. forces) and non-conflict-related crimes (e.g., murder, crimes against property, “moral crimes”) as defined by the Taliban. The section also examines the punishments meted out by Taliban courts (e.g., executions by stoning, beheading or shooting, amputations of limbs, lashings). The second section examines how Taliban courts failed to provide key judicial guarantees needed to ensure a fair trial (e.g., lack of access to a legal counsel, the lack of time to prepare a defense, limited right to appeal). The last section shows why the punishments imposed by the Afghan Taliban amounted to human rights violations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The entire account of Farooq’s arrest and trial is based on the report by Masood Saifullah (2017).
- 2.
This chapter adopts the view that the Afghan Taliban, a non-state armed group involved in a non-international armed conflict with the Afghan regime and their foreign backers, were bound to observe the norms of customary international law. According to Bellal et al. (2011), it is not contested that customary international law is applicable to non-state armed groups that meet the needed criteria (i.e., responsible command, control over territory, ability to conduct sustained military operations against government forces, and the ability to implement Additional Protocol II). This chapter argues that the Afghan Taliban met the criteria for a non-state armed group, and, therefore, had to observe the norms of customary international law, including the rule that no one may be convicted or sentenced, except pursuant to a fair trial providing all essential judicial guarantees (Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck 2005, 352–371).
- 3.
The brief description of this case is based on a report by UNAMA (2015, 65).
- 4.
The provincial governors had the authority to order an execution only if there were no provincial or district judges working in the province (Clark 2011, 4–5).
- 5.
Even after they established a firm grip over large parts of the country, the Taliban continued to lack the needed investigative infrastructure and information on which Taliban judges could make fair and informed decisions (Giustozzi and Baczko 2014, 216). The inability to verify the facts before announcing a judgment led to miscarriages of justice (Ladbury 2010, 16; Giustozzi and Baczko 2014, 216).
References
Ahmed, Azam. 2015. “Taliban Justice Gains Favor as Official Afghan Court Fail.” The New York Times, January 31. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/01/world/asia/taliban-justice-gains-favor-as-official-afghan-courts-fail.html. Accessed on 17 September 2018.
Bellal, Annyssa, Gilles Giacca, and Stuart Casey-Maslen. 2011. “International Law and Armed Non-State Actors in Afghanistan.” International Review of the Red Cross 93 (881): 47–79. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1816383111000051.
Clark, Kate. 2011. The Layha: Calling the Taleban to Account:Appendix 1. The Taleban Codes of Conduct in English. Kabul: Afghanistan Analyst Network. http://www.afghanistan-analysts.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/10/Appendix_1_Code_in_English.pdf. Accessed on 1 October 2017.
Forbes, Jami. 2013. “The Significance of Taliban Shari’a Courts in Afghanistan.” CTS Sentinel, 6 (5). https://ctc.usma.edu/app/uploads/2013/05/CTCSentinel-Vol6Iss57.pdf. Accessed on 12 September 2018.
Ghafoori, Abdul Qadir, and Frud Bezhan. 2015. “Disturbing Footage Emerges of ‘Taliban’ Stoning in Afghanistan.” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, November 2. https://www.rferl.org/a/afghanistan-taliban-stoning-woman-adultery/27341045.html. Accessed on 13 September 2018.
Giustozzi, Antonio, and Adam Baczko. 2014. “The Politics of the Taliban’s Shadow Judiciary 2003–2013.” Central Asian Affairs 1 (2): 199–224. https://doi.org/10.1163/22142290-00102003.
Giustozzi, Antonio, Franco Claudio, and Adam Baczko. 2012. Shadow Justice: How the Taliban Run Their Judiciary? Kabul: Integrity Watch Afghanistan. https://www.baag.org.uk/sites/www.baag.org.uk/files/resources/attachments/Integrity%20Watch%20Shadow%20Justice%20Dec.%202012.pdf. Accessed on 3 September 2018.
Henckaerts, Jean-Marie, and Louise Doswald-Beck. 2005. Customary International Humanitarian Law.Volume 1: Rules. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ladbury, Sarah. 2010. Helmand Justice Mapping Study. Department for International Development. http://cpau.org.af/manimages/publications/Helmand_Justice_Mapping.pdf. Accessed on 17 September 2018.
OHCHR (U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights). 2003. Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers. New York: United Nations.
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Additional Protocol II), 8 June 1977. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/475?OpenDocument. Accessed on 14 September 2018.
Saifullah, Masood. 2017. “The Disturbing Trend of Taliban Justice in Afghanistan.” Deutsche Welle, March 15. https://www.dw.com/en/the-disturbing-trend-of-taliban-justice-in-afghanistan/a-37950678. Accessed on 3 September 2018.
UNAMA (United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan). 2012. Afghanistan Mid-Year Report 2012: Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict. Kabul: UNAMA. https://unama.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/2012_mid-year_report.pdf. Accessed on 3 September 2018.
———. 2014. Afghanistan Annual Report 2013: Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict. Kabul: UNAMA. https://unama.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/feb_8_2014_poc-report_2013-full-report-eng.pdf. Accessed on 3 September 2018.
———. 2015. Afghanistan Annual Report 2014: Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict. Kabul: UNAMA. https://unama.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/2014-annual-report-on-protection-of-civilians-final.pdf. Accessed on 2 September 2018.
———. 2016. Afghanistan Annual Report 2015: Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict. Kabul: UNAMA. https://unama.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/poc_annual_report_2015_final_14_feb_2016.pdf. Accessed on 12 December 2017.
———. 2017a. Afghanistan Annual Report 2016: Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict. Kabul: UNAMA. https://unama.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/protection_of_civilians_in_armed_conflict_annual_report_2016_final280317.pdf. Accessed on 15 March 2018.
———. 2017b. Afghanistan Midyear Report 2017: Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict. Kabul: UNAMA. https://unama.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/protection_of_civilians_in_armed_conflict_midyear_report_2017_july_2017.pdf. Accessed on 12 December 2017.
———. 2018. Afghanistan Annual Report 2017: Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict. Kabul: UNAMA. https://unama.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/afghanistan_protection_of_civilians_annual_report_2017_final_6_march.pdf. Accessed on 15 March 2018.
U.N. Economic and Social Council. 1995. 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.
U.N. General Assembly. 1948. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Adopted and Proclaimed by General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/CoreTreatiesen.pdf. Accessed on 9 May 2018.
———. 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.
———. 1985. Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. Adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders Held at Milan from 26 August to 6 September 1985 and Endorsed by General Assembly Resolutions 40/32 of 29 November 1985 and 40/146 of 13 December 1985. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/independencejudiciary.aspx. Accessed on 28 July 2018.
U.N. Human Rights Committee. 1982. CCPR General Comment No. 6: Article 6 (Right to Life). http://www.refworld.org/docid/45388400a.html. Accessed on 2 August 2018.
———. 1984. CCPR General Comment No. 13: Article 14 (Administration of Justice, Equality Before the Courts and the Right to a Fair and Public Hearing by an Independent Court Established by Law). http://www.refworld.org/docid/453883f90.html. Accessed on 18 September 2018.
———. 1987. Carlton Reid v. Jamaica, Communication No. 250/1987, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/39/D/250/1987. http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/undocs/session39/250-1987.html. Accessed on 5 September 2018.
———. 1992a. 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.
———. 1992b. Alrick Thomas v. Jamaica, Communication No. 272/1988, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/44/D/272/1988. http://www.worldcourts.com/hrc/eng/decisions/1992.03.31_Thomas_v_Jamaica.htm. Accessed on 31 July 2018.
———. 1992c. 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 18 September 2018.
——— 1998. Domukovsky et al. v. Georgia, Communications No. 623/1995, 624/1995, 626/1995 and 627/1995, CCPR/C/62/D/623, 624, 626 and 627/1995. http://www.univie.ac.at/bimtor/dateien/hrc_1998_domukovsky_vs_georgia.pdf. Accessed on 2 August 2018.
———. 2000. Cesario Gómez Vázquez v. Spain, Communication No. 701/1996, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/69/D/701/1996. http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/undocs/session69/view701.htm. Accessed on 2 August 2018.
———. 2003. Azer Garyverdy ogly Aliev v. Ukraine, Communication No. 781/1997, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/78/D/781/1997. http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/undocs/781–1997.html. Accessed on 27 July 2018.
———. 2005. Valichon Aliboev v. Tajikistan, Communications No. 985/2001, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/85/D/985/2001. http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/undocs/985-2001.html. Accessed on 27 July 2018.
———. 2007. General Comment No. 32: Article 14 (Right to Equality Before Courts and Tribunals and to Fair Trial), CCPR/C/GC/32. http://www.refworld.org/docid/478b2b2f2.html. Accessed on 24 July 2018.
U.N. Human Rights Council. 2017. Capital Punishment and the Implementation of the Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty: Yearly Supplement of the Secretary-General to His Quinquennial Report on Capital Punishment, A/HRC/36/26. https://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/hrc/regularsessions/session36/pages/listreports.aspx. Accessed on 25 July 2017.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Badalič, V. (2019). Executions, Amputations, and Lashings: Civilian Victims of the Afghan Taliban’s Parallel Justice System. In: The War Against Civilians. Palgrave Studies in Victims and Victimology. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12406-9_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12406-9_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-12405-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-12406-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)