COMMON ANALYSIS
Last update: January 2023

Land disputes are common in Afghanistan due to the fragmented regularisation/registration of land, large population movements and rapid urbanisation, the protracted conflict situation, and a weak rule of law.

COI summary

Land disputes occur among individuals and families and can sometimes involve powerful elites or insurgent groups. They occur in a context of growing urbanisation, population growth and high numbers of returnees all over the country, and among all ethnic groups, including nomadic tribes. In rural areas, land conflicts can expand to include whole families, communities, ethnicities, tribes, or clans within one tribe [Criminal law and customary justice, 2.1; Society-based targeting, 6].

Land conflicts can quickly escalate and become violent, sometimes degenerating into small armed conflicts, as well as blood feuds (see also 3.18.1. Blood feuds). Approximately 70 % of serious violent crimes such as murder are caused by disputes over land ownership. Cases of conflicts over land and property in different regions of Afghanistan that resulted in killings and casualties were reported [Criminal law and customary justice, 2.1, pp. 22-24; Society-based targeting, 6.1, pp. 73-74].

A weak rule of law had led to a possibility for powerful individuals to influence the administration in order to produce forged documents, and the judiciary to allow them to operate with impunity. In dispute resolution, both formal and informal mechanisms had displayed a bias towards the powerful, wealthy, men, elites and dominant ethnicities [Criminal law and customary justice, 2.3.1, pp. 25-26; 2.3.2, pp. 26-27; State structure, 3, p. 39; Society-based targeting, 6.4.1, p. 77; 6.4.4, pp. 81-82; 7.7.4, pp. 91-92].

Land disputes were reported to be the most common cases heard by the Taliban courts, during their time as insurgency [Criminal law and customary justice, 2.3.3, pp. 27-28].

Several sources reported on cases of forced displacement affecting minority populations following the takeover. In these cases, Taliban or groups supporting the Taliban forcibly displaced Hazaras, Uzbeks, Turkmens or Tajiks, often in order to distribute land to Taliban supporters [Security 2022, 3.3.2, pp. 74-78; 4.5.2, p. 102; 4.14.2, p. 127; 4.31.2, p. 184; Targeting 2022, 6.4.3, pp. 136-138].

The Taliban’s efforts to gain support from people who did not have a positive perception of Hazaras could be at the expense of the minority group, for example with the de facto authorities taking sides in favour of non-Hazaras in land disputes. In the past, the Taliban usually took the side of Pashtun nomads in land disputes [Country Focus 2022, 2.4, pp. 42-43]. Similar incidents with Kuchi’s were also documented in recent reporting [Security 2022, 3.1, p. 62; 4.10.1, p. 115; 4.14.2, p. 127; Targeting 2022 6.4.3, pp. 137-138]. See also 3.14.1. Individuals of Hazara ethnicity and other Shias.

Cases were also reported in which civilians were forcibly evicted from their homes in apparent retaliation for the perceived support for the former government. Properties were distributed to Taliban fighters [Security 2022, 4.16.2, p. 136; 4.20.2, p. 150; 4.33.2, p. 190; 4.35.2, p. 194; Targeting 2022, 2.4, pp. 68-69].

Risk analysis

Disputes over land would not in themselves amount to persecution. However, the violence that entails from land disputes, together with the lack of an effective legal system to prevent it, may result in severe violations of basic human rights which would amount to persecution (e.g. killing).

The individual assessment of whether there is a reasonable degree of likelihood for the applicant to face persecution should take into account risk-impacting circumstances, such as: violent nature of the dispute, ethnicity, power and influence of the actors involved in the land dispute, area of origin, etc.

Nexus to a reason for persecution

Available information indicates that in the case of violence related to land disputes, there is in general no nexus to a Convention reason for persecution.

This is without prejudice to individual cases where nexus could be established based on additional circumstances (e.g. ethnicity in relation to Taliban taking sides based on the ethnic origin of the person, land dispute leading to a blood feud, etc.).

Exclusion considerations could be relevant to this profile (see the chapter 7. Exclusion).