Physical Address
FRANKFURT, GERMANY.
Afghanistan Spiegel Human Rights Report on Corporal Punishment, Public Humiliation, Fair-Trial Violations and the Need for Judicial Accountability
Publication Date: 28 August 2026
Primary Source: Afghanistan Human Rights and Democracy Organization (AHRDO)
Main Report: Whips of Power, Spectacle of Control: Documenting the Taliban’s Public Floggings (2022–2026)
2,745 People — 634 Documented Flogging Events
A new investigation by the Afghanistan Human Rights and Democracy Organization (AHRDO) presents a disturbing picture of the Taliban’s use of public flogging since its return to power.
In a report published on 25 August 2026, AHRDO said it documented 634 public flogging events involving a total of 2,745 people between February 2022 and April 2026.
But the significance of the report goes beyond the scale of these numbers.
AHRDO says its findings indicate that public flogging has become a systematic instrument of punishment, intimidation and social control, used to enforce the Taliban’s restrictive interpretation of religious and social norms. The organization also documented cases involving arbitrary detention, coerced confessions, and denial of access to legal representation, evidence and witnesses.
The investigation draws on AHRDO’s documented cases as well as 23 personal testimonies from victims of flogging.
An important methodological qualification must be emphasized: AHRDO itself states that its data is not exhaustive. Therefore, 2,745 represents the number of people documented in this investigation — not necessarily the total number of people subjected to flogging across Afghanistan during this period.
Direct source:
AHRDO — Whips of Power, Spectacle of Control, 25 August 2026
From Individual Punishment to a Public Display of Power
When flogging is carried out before a crowd, its consequences extend beyond physical pain.
AHRDO reports that punishments have frequently been carried out in front of groups of spectators, potentially intensifying humiliation, social stigma and psychological harm to victims. On this basis, the organization argues that public flogging in Afghanistan has developed a function extending beyond punishment to intimidation and social control.
Independent sources have documented the broader pattern.
The European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA), citing UNAMA and other sources, reports that following a November 2022 order by the Taliban’s supreme leader for the full implementation of the group’s interpretation of Sharia, Taliban courts issued sentences including flogging, with some corporal punishments carried out publicly, including in sports stadiums.
EUAA also reports that UNAMA recorded the corporal punishment of 656 people between 1 January and 30 September 2025 — including 518 men, 131 women, five girls and two boys.
This independent documentation is important because it demonstrates that AHRDO’s findings do not stand in isolation. Other monitoring bodies have also documented the extensive use of corporal punishment in Afghanistan.
Direct sources:
AHRDO — Documentation of Public Floggings, 2022–2026
EUAA — Afghanistan Country Focus: Capital and Corporal Punishments
“Moral Crimes”: When Private Life Becomes a Matter of Punishment
One of the most significant findings of the AHRDO investigation concerns the allegations for which punishments have been imposed.
According to the investigation, a substantial proportion of documented cases involved sexual allegations and so-called “moral crimes,” including personal relationships, sexual conduct and restrictions relating to women’s movement.
EUAA has similarly reported that flogging has been imposed in cases involving women accused of “running away from home,” extramarital relationships and same-sex relations between men, as well as allegations including theft, alcohol consumption and drug trafficking.
This has particular significance for women because rules and practices governing personal autonomy, family relationships and freedom of movement can bring aspects of their private lives within the sphere of criminal punishment.
Direct sources:
AHRDO — Findings on So-Called Moral and Sexual Offences
EUAA — Documentation of Offences Resulting in Corporal Punishment
Regulations That Deepen the Concern
Public flogging cannot be examined separately from changes to the judicial system under Taliban rule.
In a legal analysis published on 6 March 2026, Amnesty International warned that the Taliban’s Criminal Procedure Regulation of the Courts fails to provide fundamental fair-trial safeguards and institutionalizes corporal punishment in ways the organization says involve torture and other ill-treatment.
Amnesty International further stated that the regulation entrenches discrimination based on gender, religion, belief and social status, while imposing additional restrictions on freedom of expression and thought.
For example, Amnesty’s analysis states that the regulation provides for imprisonment of a woman who regularly visits relatives without her husband’s permission and refuses a court order to return home. The organization also raised concerns about severe punishments associated with failure to comply with religious requirements.
The issue, therefore, is not merely how many people are being flogged. A more fundamental question concerns the legal framework in which these punishments are ordered, the guarantees available to defendants and the definitions of criminal conduct being applied.
Direct sources:
Amnesty International — Taliban Must Revoke the Criminal Procedure Regulation of the Courts
Amnesty International — New Criminal Regulation Targets Women and Minority Groups With Harsher Punishments
Justice Without a Fair Trial Is Not Justice
One of the most serious aspects of AHRDO’s investigation concerns what happens before punishment is carried out.
The organization documented cases involving arbitrary detention, coerced confessions and denial of access to legal representation, evidence and witnesses.
This is fundamental.
Regardless of the accusation, every defendant should have the right to know the charges against them, have effective access to legal counsel, examine the evidence, present a defence and have their case considered by an independent and impartial tribunal.
EUAA has also reported that Afghanistan’s court structure changed following the Taliban’s return to power, with concerns reported about wide disparities in sentencing, lack of accountability and the influence of personal biases on judicial proceedings.
The human-rights question, therefore, is not only what punishment was imposed. It must also ask:
Who issued the sentence? Under what law? On what evidence? Did the defendant have a lawyer? Was a confession obtained under coercion? Was there a meaningful opportunity to challenge the judgment?
Direct sources:
AHRDO — Findings Concerning Fair-Trial Violations
EUAA — Assessment of Afghanistan’s Judicial System and Corporal Punishment
The Question Under International Law
In its legal analysis, AHRDO concludes that public flogging violates fundamental rights, including the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment, the right to privacy, freedom of movement and the right to a fair trial and due process.
The organization further argues that some of the documented evidence may be relevant to examining possible conduct falling within the framework of crimes against humanity or war crimes under the Rome Statute, including torture, persecution, imprisonment, cruel or inhuman treatment, denial of fair-trial rights and outrages upon personal dignity.
Afghanistan Spiegel, however, emphasizes an essential legal distinction:
Evidence potentially relevant to international crimes does not automatically establish the individual criminal responsibility of any particular person.
Attributing individual criminal responsibility requires admissible evidence, examination of the legal elements of the alleged crime, determination of the individual’s role and proceedings before a competent judicial authority.
This distinction does not diminish the seriousness of the allegations. It protects the credibility of documentation and its potential value in future judicial proceedings.
Direct source:
AHRDO — Analysis of Violations and Potential International Crimes
Afghanistan Spiegel Assessment: The Issue Is Not Only Flogging — It Is Impunity
Afghanistan Spiegel does not view these findings merely as a report about 2,745 victims.
The broader concern is the pattern that emerges when the evidence is considered together: corporal punishment, public execution of sentences, extensive use of so-called moral offences, restrictions on individual freedoms, reported coerced confessions and denial of fundamental fair-trial guarantees.
When punishment is carried out before a crowd, its effect can extend beyond the person being punished. Public humiliation can send a message to the wider population: conform to the rules imposed by those in power, or punishment may not only be inflicted but publicly displayed.
AHRDO similarly characterizes public flogging as an instrument not merely of punishment but also of intimidation and social control.
But documentation cannot be the end of the process if accountability never follows.
The objective must be to establish the truth surrounding individual cases, protect victims and witnesses, determine individual responsibility, and prevent impunity for those who may be implicated in serious human-rights violations or international crimes.
Source underlying Afghanistan Spiegel’s assessment:
AHRDO — Full Report Underlying This Assessment
Afghanistan Spiegel Call to Action: From Documentation to Justice
Afghanistan Spiegel calls on the United Nations, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, the European Union, the International Criminal Court and independent human-rights organizations to treat the documented use of corporal punishment in Afghanistan as a serious matter for human-rights investigation and, wherever the applicable legal requirements are met, criminal investigation.
But our call does not end with condemnation, statements of concern or demands that flogging stop.
Where credible evidence indicates that individuals may have committed, ordered, facilitated or otherwise incurred legal responsibility for international crimes, their individual responsibility must be independently investigated.
Evidence must be professionally collected, preserved and assessed. Victims, witnesses, journalists and human-rights documenters must be protected. Relevant chains of command and decision-making structures must be investigated. Responsibility must not disappear behind official titles, institutional structures or political power.
Where sufficient admissible evidence exists and the applicable jurisdictional requirements are satisfied, suspects should be brought before competent national or international courts and prosecuted through independent and fair judicial proceedings.
AHRDO itself calls on governments and international institutions to strengthen independent monitoring, investigate violations, support victims and pursue accountability for those responsible.
Direct source:
AHRDO — Recommendations on Investigation and Accountability
Afghanistan Spiegel emphasizes a fundamental principle:
Justice is not revenge. Justice means truth, evidence, independent investigation, due process and an end to impunity.
If serious crimes are documented but those responsible are never required to answer before a competent court because of their political position or power, victims are effectively denied justice.
2,745 people must not be reduced to a statistic.
Behind every number is a human being, a case and a right to truth and justice.
Evidence must be preserved. Responsibility must be investigated. And any person whose criminal responsibility is established on sufficient evidence through competent judicial proceedings must be held accountable — regardless of rank, power or political position.
