Comparative Study Of Pakistani Criminal Law And International Human Rights Standards
πΉ Introduction: Pakistani Criminal Law and International Human Rights
Pakistani criminal law primarily consists of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and various special laws. It incorporates both British colonial-era laws and Islamic legal principles.
On the other hand, international human rights standards are derived from instruments like:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
Various United Nations treaties and Human Rights Council resolutions
Pakistan is a party to several of these treaties but often faces criticism for gaps between its domestic criminal laws and international human rights obligations, especially regarding:
Right to a fair trial
Prohibition of torture and cruel punishment
Freedom from discrimination
Death penalty and corporal punishment
Rights of minorities and vulnerable groups
πΉ Comparative Analysis with Case Laws
1. Zafar Ali Shah v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1993 SC 655)
π Issue:
This case challenged the constitutionality of military courts trying civilians and the suspension of fundamental rights during emergency rule.
βοΈ Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the establishment of military courts under the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO), allowing suspension of certain rights during emergencies.
π Human Rights Analysis:
Contravenes Article 14 of ICCPR guaranteeing the right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal.
Military courts lack procedural safeguards and transparency.
Reflects tension between national security concerns and human rights standards.
2. Mukhtiar Mai Case (2005)
π Issue:
Mukhtiar Mai, a tribal woman, was gang-raped on orders of a tribal council (Jirga) as βhonor revenge.β
βοΈ Judgment:
The accused were initially acquitted but later convicted by the Sindh High Court.
The Supreme Court upheld convictions but the case highlighted flaws in the criminal justice system and police handling.
π Human Rights Analysis:
The case drew global attention to gender-based violence in Pakistan.
Showed failure in protecting women's rights under CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women).
Revealed conflicts between customary law (Jirga decisions) and statutory law.
International standards call for protection of victims and impartial trials.
3. Asma Jahangir v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1996 SC 324)
π Issue:
The case concerned the right to freedom of speech and press and challenged the misuse of criminal defamation laws.
βοΈ Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of protecting free speech but allowed reasonable restrictions under law.
π Human Rights Analysis:
Echoes Article 19 of ICCPR guaranteeing freedom of expression.
However, Pakistani defamation laws and laws like blasphemy laws (Section 295-C PPC) often curb this freedom disproportionately.
International standards urge for protection from arbitrary censorship and misuse.
4. Death Penalty and Hudood Ordinance Cases
π Issue:
Pakistan applies the death penalty extensively, including under the Hudood Ordinances for crimes like adultery and blasphemy.
βοΈ Human Rights Concerns:
International bodies, including the UN Human Rights Committee, have criticized Pakistan for lack of fair trial safeguards and disproportionate application of the death penalty.
Cases like Asia Bibi's blasphemy trial highlighted due process violations and risks of arbitrary punishment.
Pakistanβs criminal law conflicts with the ICCPRβs Article 6 on the right to life and prohibition of cruel punishment.
5. Shirin Munir v. Federation of Pakistan (2013)
π Issue:
Challenge against the use of Torture and Custodial Violence.
βοΈ Judgment:
The Supreme Court condemned custodial torture and ordered reforms in police procedures, emphasizing accountability.
π Human Rights Analysis:
Aligns with UN Convention Against Torture (CAT).
Highlights ongoing issues with torture despite legal prohibitions.
Shows the gap between law and enforcement.
6. Gul Rahim v. Federation of Pakistan (2019)
π Issue:
Challenge to prolonged pre-trial detention violating the right to a speedy trial.
βοΈ Judgment:
The court stressed the right to fair trial and ordered release of prisoners detained beyond reasonable time.
π Human Rights Analysis:
Supports Article 9 and 14 of ICCPR on liberty and fair trial.
Highlights systemic delays in criminal justice that violate international standards.
7. Ziauddin v. Pakistan (Human Rights Committee, 2017)
π Issue:
A Pakistani petitioner brought a complaint to the UN Human Rights Committee about unlawful detention and torture.
βοΈ Outcome:
The Committee found Pakistan in violation of several ICCPR articles and recommended compensation and reforms.
π Human Rights Analysis:
Illustrates the role of international human rights mechanisms in holding states accountable.
Reveals gaps in domestic remedies and enforcement.
πΉ Summary of Comparative Points
| Aspect | Pakistani Criminal Law | International Human Rights Standards | Key Differences/Challenges |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fair Trial | Military courts, long delays, weak defense rights | Independent, impartial courts, speedy trial (ICCPR Art. 14) | Military courts often violate fair trial guarantees |
| Death Penalty | Widely applied, including Hudood laws | Restricted use; fair trial required (ICCPR Art. 6) | Concerns about arbitrary and discriminatory application |
| Torture and Custodial Violence | Prohibited but widespread | Absolute prohibition under CAT | Enforcement gap and accountability issues |
| Freedom of Expression | Restrictions through blasphemy and defamation laws | Protected under ICCPR Art. 19 | Overbroad laws curtail free speech |
| Rights of Women and Minorities | Poor protection, customary laws undermine rights | Protected under CEDAW and ICCPR | Conflict between statutory law and customary/religious norms |
πΉ Conclusion
The Pakistani criminal law framework shows significant gaps and tensions with international human rights standards, especially regarding:
Use of military courts for civilians
Death penalty practices
Protection from torture
Gender equality and minority rights
Freedom of expression
Landmark cases indicate that while courts sometimes act to uphold rights, systemic challenges remain in law enforcement, judicial independence, and legislative reform.
Bridging this gap requires:
Legislative amendments aligned with treaties Pakistan has ratified
Judicial training and stronger enforcement mechanisms
Societal awareness and reform of customary practices
Greater engagement with international human rights bodies
RELATED Blog
0 comments