Restorative Justice and Juveniles in Afghan Law

Abstract

Methods for the resolution of disputes and offenses in Afghanistan have a long history. Although this field of study is considered modern in the contemporary era, informal methods continue to resolve the majority of cases to this day. An examination of the substantive and procedural laws of Afghanistan in light of restorative thinking reveals that Afghan legislators, by instituting necessary reforms within local councils, have sought to recognize *Jirgas* and reform councils, thereby facilitating the resolution of minor disputes through them. Consequently, this approach is most frequently utilized in matters concerning juvenile delinquency. The distinctive characteristics of children, such as their lower levels of discernment, understanding, and capacity for self-defense, necessitate enhanced protections compared to those afforded to adults. To prevent the labeling, victimization, and criminalization of children and adolescents, justice must be applied in a manner that better implements this differential system of justice. Restorative justice programs, by strengthening the sense of responsibility and the feeling of shame in the juvenile offender, facilitate reintegration into society and prevent their harm within the criminal justice process. The origin and foundation of restoring the criminal incident stem from the traditions and indigenous customs of various tribes throughout the world. Indeed, restorative justice has been a prominent model of criminal justice throughout human history and for all peoples globally. The Afghan legal system, under Article 25 of the Law on the Treatment of Offenses Committed by Children, proposes the use of reconciliation with specific limitations, such as the consent of the parties. These limitations include the offender's apology, the victim's agreement, and compensation for damages... This present article is the first scholarly work concerning restorative justice and juveniles in Afghanistan. Utilizing a descriptive-analytical method, it concludes that many of these restrictions conflict with the restorative perspective in restorative programs for juvenile proceedings on one hand, and with practical procedures in the courts on the other. Consequently, it is imperative for the legislator to act in accordance with criminal justice when drafting restorative laws, issuing decisions appropriate to the restorative nature, and utilizing such justice, ensuring alignment with criminal justice.