Afghanistan: UN Report Documents Human Rights Violations Of Forced Returnees
Since 2023, large numbers of Afghans have been involuntarily returned to the country, primarily by Pakistan and Iran.
The report issued by the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan and the UN Human Rights Office found that groups of people returning to the country who were at particular risk of reprisals and other human rights violations by the de facto authorities were women and girls, individuals affiliated with the former government and its security forces, media workers and civil society. It is based on interviews conducted in 2024 with 49 individuals involuntarily returned to Afghanistan.
'Nobody should be sent back to a country where they face risk of persecution on account of their identity or personal history,' said UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk. 'In Afghanistan, this is even more pronounced for women and girls, who are subjected to a range of measures that amount to persecution on the basis of their gender alone.'
Interviewees affiliated with the former government and its security forces revealed that they had been forced to go into hiding since returning due to fears of reprisals, despite the de facto authorities' publicly stated amnesty for all who had previously fought against them in the conflict.
For women involuntarily returned to the country, the situation is particularly severe. One former TV reporter who left the country after the takeover in August 2021 due to earlier Taliban threats described how, after her involuntary return to Afghanistan, she and other women in similar situation found there that there were no job opportunities, no freedom of movement, and no access to education beyond grade six for women and girls. 'I can unequivocally state that I am effectively under house detention,' she said.
A former government official described how, after his return in 2023, he was detained for two nights in a house where he was severely tortured, including beatings with sticks, cables and wood, waterboarding, and was subjected to a mock execution. His leg was broken as a result.
Sending people back to a country where they are at risk of persecution, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, enforced disappearance or other irreparable harm, is in violation of the principle of non-refoulement and a serious breach of international law.
The report urges States to ensure that individualised assessments are carried out before any return of persons to Afghanistan, and to refrain from returning any individuals at real risk of serious human rights violations to Afghanistan. States are also called on to increase the availability of safe pathways for Afghans at risk to leave the country and to remain safely in their territories without fear of detention for purposes of expulsion.
Many hundreds of thousands of Afghans have been involuntarily returned from Pakistan and Iran, placing enormous pressure on the limited resources available to the de facto authorities to address their needs more generally. The report also recommends that States increase financial support to ensure that sustainable reintegration is possible.
'While the de facto authorities have responded in a coordinated manner to the significant influx of returnees to Afghanistan in recent years, more needs to be done to ensure that all returnees are included in society and have their human rights upheld,' said Roza Otunbayeva, the Secretary-General's Special Representative for Afghanistan and head of UNAMA.
'The participation of all Afghans in the social, political and economic life of the country is critical to the development and prosperity of the nation. I urge the de facto authorities to uphold their obligations under international law and their responsibilities to the Afghan people.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
39 minutes ago
- Scoop
Palestine Action Ban ‘Disturbing' Misuse Of UK Counter-Terrorism Legislation, Türk Warns
GENEVA (25 July 2025) – The UK Government's decision to proscribe the 'Palestine Action' protest group under terrorism legislation raises serious concerns that counter-terrorism laws are being applied to conduct that is not terrorist in nature and risks hindering the legitimate exercise of fundamental freedoms across the UK, UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk warned today. The UK Government proscribed Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000 after some of its members broke into a military airfield in June and reportedly spray-painted two military aircraft, among other incidents of property damage. 'UK domestic counter-terrorism legislation defines terrorist acts broadly to include 'serious damage to property'. But, according to international standards, terrorist acts should be confined to criminal acts intended to cause death or serious injury or to the taking of hostages, for purpose of intimidating a population or to compel a government to take a certain action or not,' said Türk. 'It misuses the gravity and impact of terrorism to expand it beyond those clear boundaries, to encompass further conduct that is already criminal under the law.' The ban, among other things, makes it a criminal offence to be a member of Palestine Action, express support for the group, or wear an item of clothing that would arouse 'reasonable suspicion' that a person is a member of or supports the organization. Such conduct is punishable by criminal penalties, including fines and prison sentences of up to 14 years. 'The decision appears disproportionate and unnecessary. It limits the rights of many people involved with and supportive of Palestine Action who have not themselves engaged in any underlying criminal activity but rather exercised their rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association,' the High Commissioner said. 'As such, it appears to constitute an impermissible restriction on those rights that is at odds with the UK's obligations under international human rights law.' 'The decision also conflates protected expression and other conduct with acts of terrorism and so could readily lead to further chilling effect on the lawful exercise of these rights by many people,' he added. Since the UK Government's ban came into effect on 5 July, at least 200 people have been arrested under the UK Terrorism Act 2000, many of them while attending peaceful protests. 'I urge the UK Government to rescind its decision to proscribe Palestine Action and to halt investigations and further proceedings against protesters who have been arrested on the basis of this proscription. I also call on the UK Government to review and revise its counter-terrorism legislation, including its definition of terrorist acts, to bring it fully in line with international human rights norms and standards,' the High Commissioner said.
NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
Israel allows aid airdrops to Gaza as famine looms
Israel has said it would allow food to be airdropped to Gaza and designate humanitarian corridors for UN aid convoys, as thousands of Palestinians face the threat of widespread famine. Before Israel announced that the flights would resume, the United Arab Emirates had said it would restart aid drops and
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
UN Experts Urge Brazil To Halt Serious Regression On Environmental Licensing
UN human rights experts* today expressed grave concern over Brazil's General Environmental Licensing Bill approved by the Chamber of Deputies on 17 July and by the Senate last May. The law is pending presidential enactment. 'The bill introduces significant regressions to Brazil's environmental licensing system and threatens the human rights to life, health, an adequate standard of living, and a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment,' the experts said. The approved licensing bill PL No. 2159/2021 includes measures such as simplified environmental licensing through developers' self-declarations and automatic renewal of permits. Several activities would also be exempt from licensing despite potentially severe environmental and human rights impacts, including industrial agriculture and energy-related infrastructure. 'These changes risk exacerbating the planetary crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, toxic pollution, and worsening inequalities. They would also weaken the rights to access to information, public participation, and access to justice, particularly for marginalised peoples and groups,' the experts said. They stressed that the licensing amendments would disproportionately affect Indigenous Peoples, and Quilombola Afro-descendant communities, who are already severely impacted by environmental and climate harms, violating Brazil's obligations of non-discrimination. 'While procedural efficiency in environmental licensing is important, it must not be achieved at the expense of effective regulations, controls and monitoring, and accountability, and human rights and environmental protections,' the experts said. They noted that Brazil's obligations to prevent significant environmental harm by public and private actors, including to prevent transboundary environmental harm, encompasses conducting comprehensive and integral environmental, social and human rights impact assessments before authorising any activity that threatens human rights or the environment. 'This legislative rollback contradicts Brazil's international legal obligations,' the experts said. 'It is paradoxical that this law might be enacted shortly after historic Advisory Opinions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which clarified States' obligations to adopt all necessary measures to respond to the climate emergency and prevent harm by all actors, including effective regulation and supervision relating to fossil fuels, agriculture and deforestation.' The experts reaffirmed that the principle of non-regression is fundamental to international human rights and environmental law, requiring States to refrain from weakening existing legal protections. 'As the ICJ and the IACtHR underscored, States have an enhanced due diligence obligation to protect the climate system and the environment on which all human rights depend, and must prevent irreversible harm to the climate and life-supporting systems,' they said. The experts warned that the bill would undermine Brazil's credibility as the host of the upcoming COP30, the 2025 UN Climate Change Conference in Belém. As a global climate leader, Brazil must ensure that its domestic legislation is aligned with its international commitments, including under the Paris Agreement. We call on President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to veto parts of the licensing bill that contradict Brazil's constitutional and international obligations. Protecting the environment is essential to safeguarding the rights and dignity of present and future generations. * Experts: Astrid Puentes Riaño, the Special Rapporteur on the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment; Pedro Arrojo-Agudo, the Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation ; Elisa Morgera, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change; Bina D'Costa, the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent; Albert K. Barume, the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; Pichamon Yeophantong, the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises
