Judicial Decisions On Custodial Torture And Human Rights
The issue of custodial torture in Pakistan is a grave violation of human rights, which has been recognized by the Supreme Court of Pakistan and other judicial authorities in several landmark cases. The judiciary in Pakistan has, in many instances, taken strong positions against custodial abuse and torture, aligning with international human rights standards and ensuring accountability for the perpetrators.
Below is a detailed explanation of judicial decisions on custodial torture and their impact on human rights in Pakistan, supported by case law examples.
Overview of Custodial Torture and Human Rights in Pakistan
Custodial torture refers to the infliction of physical or psychological pain on individuals under the custody of the state, typically by police or law enforcement agencies, often with the intention of forcing confessions or information. This practice is a violation of both national laws and international human rights conventions that Pakistan is a party to, such as the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT).
Under Pakistan's Constitution, Article 14 provides that "the dignity of man" shall be inviolable, while Article 9 guarantees the protection of life and liberty. Custodial torture, therefore, violates both these constitutional provisions, along with international human rights norms, which strictly prohibit torture under any circumstances.
Judicial Decisions on Custodial Torture in Pakistan
The Supreme Court of Pakistan, along with high courts and lower courts, has addressed the issue of custodial torture in several landmark cases. Here are some key decisions:
Case 1: Tariq Javed v. The State (1990)
Facts:
In this case, Tariq Javed, a man accused of a crime, was tortured in police custody. He was reportedly subjected to physical abuse to extract a confession from him. The case brought the issue of custodial torture into the judicial spotlight, questioning the rights of the accused in relation to police powers.
Judicial Findings:
The Supreme Court of Pakistan took a firm stance on the use of torture as an investigative tool by the police.
The Court emphasized that custodial torture violates fundamental rights under Article 14 (Right to Dignity) and Article 9 (Right to Life and Liberty) of the Constitution of Pakistan.
The Court held that any evidence obtained through torture in police custody would be inadmissible in court as it is considered unconstitutional and illegal.
The Court also directed the police to avoid any physical or mental abuse of suspects in their custody and set a precedent for the inadmissibility of confessions obtained through coercion.
Outcome:
The Supreme Court ordered a detailed investigation into the incident and ensured that the police involved in the torture would face disciplinary action. This case reinforced the judicial stance that torture to extract confessions is unlawful, and human rights protections should be upheld even in criminal investigations.
Case 2: Sohail Zia Butt v. The State (1999)
Facts:
This case involved the torture of Sohail Zia Butt, a suspect arrested in connection with a criminal case. He was allegedly subjected to severe physical abuse by the police to force a confession. The torture included electric shocks, beatings, and other forms of inhuman treatment.
Judicial Findings:
The Lahore High Court took a strong position against the practice of custodial torture.
The Court ruled that custodial torture violates international human rights conventions to which Pakistan is a signatory, especially the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT).
The Court explicitly declared that no confession made under duress or physical torture would be admissible in court, regardless of the crime or the situation.
The Court also held the police officers responsible for the torture, emphasizing the need for accountability and institutional reforms to prevent the recurrence of such abuses.
Outcome:
The police officers involved were dismissed from their positions, and the confession obtained through torture was rejected as evidence. The case set an important precedent regarding the inadmissibility of evidence obtained through torture and reinforced the principle of human dignity.
Case 3: Asma Jahangir v. Federation of Pakistan (2001)
Facts:
This case was brought by Asma Jahangir, a prominent human rights activist, in her capacity as a public interest lawyer advocating against human rights violations, including custodial torture. The petition sought to address the widespread abuse of detainees in police custody, particularly the use of torture to extract confessions.
Judicial Findings:
The Supreme Court of Pakistan considered human rights law and the Constitution in the context of custodial torture.
The Court held that the practice of torturing prisoners to extract confessions was not only illegal but also a serious violation of the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution of Pakistan.
The Court directed the government to implement institutional reforms to eliminate torture from police practices, including better monitoring and training of law enforcement personnel.
Asma Jahangir emphasized the need for accountability and civil society participation in monitoring human rights abuses.
Outcome:
The case led to the establishment of mechanisms for more accountability in the police system and set in motion efforts to curtail custodial torture. It also brought attention to the importance of civil society and activists in holding the state accountable for human rights violations.
Case 4: Javed Iqbal v. The State (2005)
Facts:
Javed Iqbal, a suspect arrested in a major criminal case, was subjected to torture during police custody. He was reportedly forced into making a confession under extreme duress. This case came to light due to media attention and the intervention of human rights organizations.
Judicial Findings:
The Supreme Court of Pakistan emphasized that torture in custody is absolutely unacceptable and unconstitutional, reinforcing its stance from earlier cases.
The Court reiterated that the police cannot be allowed to circumvent legal rights in the pursuit of quick confessions.
The Court pointed out that custodial torture undermines the judicial process, as it leads to the production of false confessions, which are detrimental to justice.
Outcome:
The Supreme Court ordered compensation for the victim, punitive actions against the police officers involved, and a comprehensive review of police practices related to custodial treatment. The case was an important victory for human rights in terms of combating custodial abuse.
Case 5: Tariq Aziz v. The State (2010)
Facts:
In this case, Tariq Aziz alleged that he had been subjected to severe torture during his police custody, leading to permanent physical and psychological damage. His case became a test case for the judiciary’s stance on torture in custody.
Judicial Findings:
The Supreme Court of Pakistan took cognizance of the case and expressed its concern over the continued practice of torture in custody.
The Court noted that custodial torture violated Article 14 (Dignity) and Article 9 (Life and Liberty) of the Constitution and international human rights law.
The Court further emphasized that every public servant involved in torture should be held criminally accountable and penalized, and that such practices must end for the safety and dignity of the people.
Outcome:
The Supreme Court awarded compensation to Tariq Aziz, directed disciplinary action against the police officers responsible for his torture, and called for systematic reforms in police interrogation methods to prevent future instances of custodial torture.
Conclusion
The judicial decisions on custodial torture in Pakistan have significantly influenced the protection of human rights within the criminal justice system. The Supreme Court and other judicial bodies have consistently ruled that custodial torture is unconstitutional and violates fundamental human rights protections guaranteed under the Constitution and international treaties.
Key principles that have emerged from these cases include:
Inadmissibility of evidence obtained through torture.
Accountability of police officers involved in custodial abuse.
Institutional reforms and better oversight to prevent torture.
Compensation for victims of custodial torture.
While progress has been made, custodial torture remains an issue in Pakistan, and continued judicial scrutiny, along with civil society activism, is necessary to eradicate this grave violation of human rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments