Jun 5, 2017 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ has made a submission to the UN Human Rights Committee in advance of its forthcoming examination of Pakistan’s initial report under International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
In its submission, the ICJ has brought to the Committee’s attention concerns in relation to the following issues:
- The compliance of Pakistan’s counter-terrorism laws with the State’s obligations under Articles 6, 9 and 14 of the Covenant, particularly in the context of its “military justice” system;
- Shortcomings in the legal framework relevant to torture and other ill-treatment;
- The continuing practice of enforced disappearances and, in this context, the ongoing impunity of law enforcement and military agencies;
- The compliance of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws with Articles 14, 18, and 19 of the Covenant; and
- The compatibility of Pakistan’s “International Non-Governmental Organizations Policy” with the State’s obligations under Article 22 of the Covenant.
The Human Rights Committee will examine Pakistan’s initial report during its 120th session, which will be held in Geneva from 3-28 July 2017.
Following the review, the Committee will adopt Concluding Observations setting out recommendations to the Pakistani Government.
Pakistan -ICCPR submission-Advocacy-non legal submission-2017-ENG (full text in PDF)
Apr 28, 2017 | Multimedia items, News, Video clips
Honorary Member of the ICJ, Asma Jahangir, talks of her experiences as part of the ICJ’s ongoing profile series on women human rights defenders.
Asma Jahangir became interested in human rights legal work after having witnessed the frequent arrests of her father, an outspoken critic of military dictatorships, and seeing the courtroom as a place where justice could be accessed. From these early experiences, Asma identified the importance of rule of law but came to understand that this was something that went far beyond the courtrooms of Pakistan.
As a married women, her in-laws had concerns about her practicing law in a mixed firm so she co-founded Pakistan’s first all-female law firm. Initially the firm was viewed as a hobby but Asma and her other co-founders persevered and the firm still thrives today.
Ms Jahangir spoke about the challenges she faced as a female lawyer where courts and judges were at first patronizing towards her and then became angry at her as she continued to present them with cases that were challenging for them. She worked on a number of landmark cases including about whether women could get married without their fathers’ permission, be entitled to family maintenance and whether women should be judged according to religious or codified law.
Women in Pakistan face many issues in accessing justice, Ms Jahangir said. They lack resources, if they are able to access the courts they are frequently exploited by male lawyers and they encounter prejudice in their cases. In addition many laws are simply discriminatory, however women have been challenging these and will continue to do so.
There has been progress in family law in Pakistan, particularly in relation to the procedures if not the substance, yet Pakistan remains a long way from having equality in the family law framework.
Asma noted that it can be hard to engage men in women’s rights issues but commented that many men who had not considered giving certain rights to their wives had become a lot more conscious about women’s rights issues as their daughters had grown up. Many of her colleagues now ask for internships for their daughters at her law firm and admit how narrow-minded they had previously been in relation to women’s rights and equality.
From 2004 to 2010, Ms Jahangir served as the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and explained that she worked with the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression to address the delicate balance in managing freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
Freedom of expression is currently under threat around the world, Asma commented, and is being undermined in the name of a variety of reasons including security, religion and tradition or social norms. Asma said that freedom of expression is fundamental to basic human rights because stopping freedom of expression stops people from thinking.
“Self-censorship is a by-product of undermining freedom of expression and self-censorship by itself dis-informs people, brings out irrelevant issues, and suppresses the more relevant issues.”
Ms Jahangir told the ICJ that in the course of her work as a human rights activist she has been threatened, put under house arrest and imprisoned. However, rather than deterring her, Asma’s experience in jail made her stronger: “It made every woman who went to jail stronger and more resolute that we want rights.”
There was a particular case that had a strong impact on Asma, which was when she worked in defence of a child who had been accused of blasphemy and was sentenced to death. The initial verdict against the boy knocked her confidence as a lawyer, but senior colleagues encouraged her and she continued with the case, taking this to appeal.
This was a very contentious case that attracted a lot of negative attention against Ms Jahanagir. People claimed she was anti-Muslim and, as she argued for the defendant, crowds gathered outside the court calling for her execution. At one point opposing lawyers asked the judges if they could simply close the case but the judges said that if Asma was prepared to keep arguing they were prepared to hear her arguments.
Asma explained that she was inspired to continue by the defendant himself, a boy of around 14 years of age, who, when given the opportunity to run away whilst on bail, decided to stay and continue the trial rather than risk others being harmed in retaliation if he were to flee. She felt that even if she had to give her life to defend this child then it would be worth it. Ultimately the case was decided in the boy’s favour and he was acquitted.
She advised young women interested in a career as a human rights lawyer not to label themselves as ‘human rights lawyers’ rather than simply ‘lawyers’ or they will not be taken seriously. Asma said that “I think that life where you don’t have dignity and where you don’t fight for people’s dignity is a wasted life.”
Watch the interview:
The series of profiles introducing the work of ICJ Commissioners and Honorary Members on women’s rights was launched on 25 November 2016 to coincide with the International Day to Eliminate Violence against Women and the first day of the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence Campaign.
Mar 30, 2017 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today, the ICJ made a submission to the Universal Periodic Review of Pakistan.
The submission brings to the attention of the members of the Human Rights Council’s Working Group on the UPR issues concerning:
- Trials of civilians by military tribunals;
- Enforced disappearances;
- Torture and other ill-treatment;
- Blasphemy laws; and
- International human rights instruments.
With respect to each of the above-mentioned concerns, the ICJ calls upon the Working Group on the UPR and the Human Rights Council to make a number of recommendations to the Pakistani authorities.
Pakistan-ICJ UPR-Advocacy-non-legal submissions-2017-ENG (full text in PDF)
Mar 28, 2017 | News
Legislation adopted today by the Pakistani Parliament allowing civilians to be tried by military tribunals in secret proceedings is a serious blow to human rights and rule of law in the country, the ICJ said.
“The nationwide concern at a number of recent attacks in the country seems to have once again been misdirected toward a seriously flawed counter terrorism strategy that weakens the rule of law and the struggle for justice,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia director.
“Pakistan must reject this counter productive strategy and instead strengthen its judicial process and law enforcement in line with its domestic law and international obligations,” he added.
The Pakistani Parliament voted to amend the 1973 Constitution and the Army Act, 1952, to again allow military tribunals to try civilians who allegedly belong to “a terrorist group or organization misusing the name of religion or a sect” and are suspected of committing a number of offences, including: abducting any person for ransom; raising arms of waging war against Pakistan; causing any person injury of death; using or designing vehicles for terrorist attacks; creating terror or insecurity in Pakistan; and attempting, aiding or abetting any of these acts.
The use of military courts to try civilians is inconsistent with international standards.
The ICJ has also documented serious fair trials violations in the operation of military courts from January 2015 to January 2017, including: denial of the right to counsel of choice; failure to disclose the charges against the accused; denial of a public hearing; failure to give convicts copies of a judgment with evidence and reasons for the verdict; and a very high number of convictions based on “confessions” without adequate safeguards against torture and ill treatment.
“Militarizing the judicial process will not lead to justice and it will not effectively counter terrorism; this is the lesson from around the world,” Zarifi said. “It has not proven to do so in Pakistan in the past, and there is nothing to indicate that it will do so now.”
“Instead, secret military trials of civilians that flout even basic fair trial guarantees will further erode the rule of law and weaken the government’s role in providing justice and protecting the rights of people in Pakistan,” he added.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Pakistan (London), t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Background
Military courts constituted under the 21st Amendment convicted 274 people in the two years during which they were in operation, from 7 January 2015 to 6 January 2017.
Of those 274 convictions, 161 people were sentenced to death and 113 people were given prison sentences. At least 21 people given death sentences have been executed by hanging.
The enabling legislation for these courts lapsed on 6 January 2017 pursuant to a two-year sunset clause.
The ICJ opposes the use of the death penalty under any circumstances as a violation of the right to life and freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
Mar 14, 2017 | News
The ICJ urged the Pakistan government to withdraw its proposal to reinstate and widen the scope of military trials for civilians.
“Bringing back military courts is an attempt to deflect attention from the real issue: the Government’s failure to enact reforms to strengthen the criminal justice system during the two years the 2015-2017 military courts were in operation,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.
Bills to amend the Constitution of Pakistan and the Army Act, 1952, to extend the jurisdiction of military courts to try a wide variety of terrorism-related offences, were introduced before the National Assembly (lower house of parliament) on Friday, 10 March.
The “terrorism-related” offences include, among others: abducting any person for ransom; raising arms of waging war against Pakistan; causing any person injury of death; using or designing vehicles for terrorist attacks; creating terror or insecurity in Pakistan; and attempting, aiding or abetting any of these acts.
The new amendments are also applicable in all cases where the accused commit “grave and violent acts against the State”. The mandatory requirement to belong to a group that uses “the name of religion or sect”, as introduced by the 21st Amendment and corresponding amendments to the Army Act introduced in 2015, is no longer applicable.
“The expansion of military courts’ jurisdiction over all ‘grave and violent acts against the State’ creates the possibility that these courts could be used against a wide variety of people, including those who are legitimately exercising their rights to speech, association, and assembly,” added Zarifi.
According to the preambles of the bills, an “extraordinary situation” and a “grave and unprecedented threat to the integrity of Pakistan” still exist in the country, and military courts are being revived because they “yielded positive results in combatting terrorism” in the two years they were in operation.
“The military courts have not had any positive results in combating terrorism, given the country’s ongoing problem with acts of terrorism and armed insurgents,” said Zarifi. “Instead, military trials of civilians have further eroded the rule of law and weakened the government’s legitimacy in providing justice and defending the rights of people in Pakistan.”
Background
Military courts constituted under the 21st Amendment convicted 274 people in the two years during which they were in operation, from 7 January 2015 to 6 January 2017. Of those 274 convictions, 161 people were sentenced to death and 113 people were given prison sentences. At least 17 people given death sentences have been executed by hanging. The enabling legislation for these courts lapsed on 6 January 2017 pursuant to a two-year sunset clause.
The ICJ recalled that the use of military courts to try civilians is inconsistent with international standards.
The ICJ has documented serious fair trials violations in the operation of military courts including: denial of the right to counsel of choice; failure to disclose the charges against the accused; denial of a public hearing; failure to give convicts copies of a judgment with evidence and reasons for the verdict; and a very high number of convictions based on “confessions” without adequate safeguards against torture and ill treatment.
Contacts
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Pakistan (London), t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
