Impunity prevails in Afghanistan

01 December 2010 by Michael E. Hartmann and Agnieszka Klonowiecka-Milart

Transitional Justice has not yet come to Afghanistan, notwithstanding the legacy of three eras of conflict: the communist/Soviet rule (1978–1992), rule of the mujaheddin (1992–1996), and the Taliban regime (1996–2001). This is due mainly to a lack of Constitutional authorisation and statutory tools, exacerbated by the 2010 Amnesty Law and an absence of political will.

All three conflict periods were marked by large-scale atrocities: crimes against humanity, war crimes, extrajudicial executions, and rape as a weapon of war, committed by combatants on all sides.

Members of all of Afghanistan’s major ethnic and political groups were implicated, and mass graves have been discovered belonging to all three periods of conflict. This is a précis of the barriers to transitional justice in Afghanistan.

As a result of an epic report by the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) from 2004, and their continued research, there were high hopes five years ago for the "peace, reconciliation and justice action plan in Afghanistan."

The report contained some key actions, including criminal justice: “Establishment of effective and reasonable accountability mechanisms: In order to end impunity . . . and ensure that there will be no amnesty for war crimes (and) crimes against humanity . . . the conditions for fair and effective justice procedures are established in accordance with the principles of the sacred religion of Islam, international law and transitional justice.”

Want to read more?

If you subscribe to a free membership, you can read this article and explore our full archive, dating back to 1997.

Subscribe now

Related articles

article
19 February 2007 by Laetitia Grotti

One year ago on January 6, 2006, the 17 members of Morocco's Equity and Reconciliation Commission (IER) were closing up shop after submitting their final report to King Mohammed VI. The Moroccan truth commission had received a flood of compliments from the international community praising the recommendations in its report, especially those advocating legislative and constitutional reforms. One year later, however, the results have been rather mixed.

article
11 September 2006 by our correspondent in Arusha

After having tried high-ranking officers, ministers, businessmen, priests, journalists, local officials and militiamen, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is in uncharted waters. On September 11, the most famous rwandese troubadour of his generation will stand trial for genocide. 

article
23 October 2006 by Christine Chaumeau

China is keeping a polite distance from international criminal justice. Beijing is hardly disinterested, but China does want to make sure that these new global mechanisms are not going to infringe upon its sovereignty by delving into particularly sensitive cases such as Tibet. 

article
United Nations Operation in Burundi disarms rebel forces in Mbanda in February 2005 (Photo: Flickr/UN Photo/Martine Perret)
03 June 2015 by Janet H. Anderson, The Hague (The Netherlands)

Over the last month, Burundi has hit the headlines as the president put himself forward to be elected for a controversial third term, resulting in street protests, thousands of refugees who fled instability and an attempted coup. Behind the issues of elections and constitutionalism are also those of justice following Burundi’s long-running civil war. The international community supported an intensive process of negotiation and the signing of the Arusha Accord in 2000. But in the decade and a half since, its provisions on justice have been debated though never fully implemented.

article
06 November 2006 by Pierre Hazan

France's attitude towards international criminal justice is marked by ambiguity. Paris subscribes to a vision of the world in which international humanitarian law is considered a way to curb violence against civilian populations, but at the same time it is wary of an unchecked judicial system that could end up prosecuting French soldiers engaged in areas where it has old and deep-rooted interests.