A UK Independent Afghanistan Inquiry published Wednesday has shed light on allegations of unlawful killings carried out by British special forces in Afghanistan between 2010 and 2013. The inquiry, which examined classified military records, whistleblower accounts, and survivor testimonies, uncovered a disturbing pattern of behavior that raises serious questions about accountability and the rule of law in armed conflict.
According to a video statement released Wednesday by Sir Charles Haddon-Cave, the chair of the inquiry, seven special forces witnesses were questioned in secret, more than ten years after they voiced concerns about alleged purposeful detention activities in Afghanistan. In a decision last year, Haddon-Cave, a judge in the Court of Appeal, had said unequivocally that his investigation will provide open copies of exhibits and witness statements with the required redactions, together with summaries of oral testimony provided during closed hearings.
At the core of the inquiry is evidence suggesting that detainees were killed in suspicious circumstances during raids conducted by elite military units, including the Special Air Service (SAS). Whistleblower accounts, such as those of the former soldier identified as “N1799,” describe instances of detainees allegedly being executed in a manner euphemistically referred to as “flat-packing.” This was allegedly followed by efforts to falsify operational reports to disguise the unlawful nature of the acts.
Under the Geneva Conventions, the unlawful killing of detainees constitutes a war crime. The inquiry’s findings suggest that the UK may have breached its obligations to investigate and prosecute such crimes promptly and effectively. The principle of command responsibility—enshrined in both customary international law and statutes such as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court—requires senior officials to be held accountable for crimes committed by subordinates if they knew or should have known about such acts and failed to prevent them.
From a rule of law perspective, this inquiry underscores two critical principles: accountability and the protection of human rights. Accountability, a cornerstone of the rule of law, mandates that government officials and institutions act within the law and are held responsible for violations. The evidence of systematic obfuscation and cover-ups by high-ranking officials highlights a troubling failure to uphold this principle. Mechanisms such as public corruption investigations, ethics committees, and government watchdog agencies must be empowered to prevent and address such failures. Public trust in government institutions erodes without accountability, and the rule of law becomes a hollow ideal.
Equally significant is the protection of individual rights. The unlawful killing of detainees represents a grave violation of the right to life, a fundamental human right protected under both domestic and international law. Domestically, section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 protects individual rights against arbitrary and discriminatory actions, including those by state actors. The inquiry’s findings serve as a stark reminder of the need for robust legal protections and due process to uphold the dignity and autonomy of all individuals, even in the context of war.
As warfare increasingly involves asymmetrical conflicts where traditional rules of engagement are tested, adherence to international humanitarian law becomes even more critical. The inquiry’s findings highlight the necessity of robust legal frameworks and enforcement mechanisms to prevent the erosion of these standards.
