Well, I tried to come with something as good as yours.

The Block of Legacy in French Law


Block of constitution

Block of convention

Block of legacy

General principal of right

Decree + arretes (presidential and minisries)

administrative acts


The block of constitution or bloque de constitualite includes 1958 constitution, 1946 preambule and 1789 declaration of Human Rights the environment chart 2005 and the fundamental principles of the republic laws.
It represents the fact that all the norms included in it have the same hierarchical level in French Law. Also the constitution can be modified.

The block of conventions includes the international law: treaties and international conventions at the exclusion of the coutume. It also includes the European Community Laws.

The supremacy of treaties and international agreements on law, even at posteriori, has been stated by arrèt Nicolo (CE, Ass., 20 oct 1989). It has been extended to the European Commission Laws and regulations. But constitution keeps its primacy regarding domestic laws (CE, Ass., 30 octobre 1988, Sarran et Levacher. ).

The primacy of constitutional norms is limited as there are several systems of constitutionality control. Such control can be applied before promulgation of a law by the conseil constitutionel. But it is impossible for an individual (a physical person or a moral person) to take the constitution as a base to oppose to a law once it is in application. A new law that abrogates the previous one has to be promulgated.

Also, the jurice prudence does not have the same value in French Law. Robespierre and Saint-Just thought that it was not acceptable in a democracy to use jurice prudence. They believed it was an abnormal interference from judiciary power on legislative power and against the separation of powers.

As a direct consequence, judges are nominated as an administrative corps and not elected. The judge say the law but cannot interprets it.

I hope this short description of the difference will help. As you see, there is huge difference as the constitution can be modified, especially concerning European Union Laws and regulations. Also as International treaties have a higher normative status than domestic laws.
In France, I believe that the president would have never been in position to pass any kind of decree, administrative order or regulation that would go against a Convention or a treaty that has been signed and ratified.

Concerning the problem of detention and more generally the judiciary law in application in war, in France we do not have death penalty, it is unconstitutional and has been abrogated. The only laws that still have death penalty is the military law of exception that is in application only for the soldiers when in operation or if France declares the state of war and promulgate a decree or law stating that military law will apply. President can declare a state of exception but it must be revised regularly (every 6 month at least if I well remember) by the parliament and has to be limited in time with a clear dead line.

So, for civilians or opponents prisoners during military operations, the Geneva Convention always applies without any exception. In Ivory Coast, a case occurred that a prisoner died during his transfer. Then the soldiers and the chain of command have been under investigation. The same case happened in 2003 in DRC. There also, soldiers and officers responsibilities have been under investigation.
My point is not to compare or to show that those or those are better. I just believe that a strict respect of Geneva Convention is a tool to protect all parts. As stated by a college from ICRC, during war military use force and no one challenges that. The objective is to regulate it to preserve all parties.

Concerning our case, what is interesting is that Shariat is placed above all. Even above the laws and constitution of the Islamic State of Afghanistan.
The introduction is a quote of the Quran which needs to be exanimate, even in Arabic. (Unfortunately I do not read Arabic). Quoting is a common practice in Islam but the thing is the choice of the quote: you can quote all of a verse, a part of a verse, the interpretation of a verse, a version of a verse…
But still it refers at the Law of God as the referential law which is Shariat. This is in contradiction with the art4 S1, where Shariat is considered as a secondary law. Also the art 67 S13 gives the primacy to Afghanistan Islamic Emirates Laws.
The question would be what are the Afghanistan Islamic Emirates Laws?