...
These extensive authorizations are problematic with regard to the separation of powers and the rule of law and should at least be mitigated by a strict judicial review. According to Article 121 of the Constitution and Article 24 para. 1 of the qānūn-e tashkīlāt va salāhiyāt-e mohākem-e qove-ye qasā-ye jomhūrī-ye eslāmī-ye Afghānestān the Supreme Court is competent to review the conformity of formal laws, legal decrees and international treaties with the Constitution and its interpretation. However, these legal decrees (farāmin-e taqnīnī) are a peculiarity of Afghanistan's Interim Legal System. They have the function of formal laws and are not equivalent to the decrees (moqararāt) which the government may enact according to Article 76 of the Constitution. (This perception correlates with the legal terminology used in the Iranian legal system since regulations since regulations passed by the government are called moqararāt as well, the term taqnīn is reserved for acts of the legislator; see Ja'afar Ja'afarī Langarūdī 2004: 679-680). There is , therefore, at least no direct possibility of judicial review of legislative acts by the executive. Only an incidental review by the courts in the course of regular proceedings is possible as courts are merely bound by law and not decrees of the executive (Article 130 of the Constitution). Such an indirect control is, however, insufficient with regard to the rule of law (Moschtaghi 2009: 85-86; and Moschtaghi 2006: 584).
...
