Judge Naeem Akhtar Afghan of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court said on Tuesday that international law does not explicitly prohibit the court martial civilians.
The SC judge made these remarks at the hearing of intra-loud appeal calling into question the declaration of civil trials in the military as no and non-Avenus.
During the procedure, judge Jamal Khan Mandokhel wondered if a country does not comply with international regulations. The calls were heard by a bench of seven members, led by Judge Amicin Khan.
Judge Naeem Akhtar Afghan, at the hearing of an intra-short appeal against the decision to try civilians before the military courts, noted that international principles do not declare that civilians cannot be hammered by the court martial.
The lawyer for the May 9 accused, Arzam Junaid, Salman Akram Raja, continued his arguments, saying that he would finish his arguments by 11 a.m. Justice Jamal Mandokhel pointed out that it would be preferable for the arguments to be completed within half an hour.
Salman Akram Raja replied by saying that he should be authorized to say what he wanted so that he could finish with 11. He stressed that in simple terms, the fundamental rights of civilians should not be terminated to lead a martial court.
Salman Akram Raja argued that civilians from the court martial are against international standards for a fair trial.
“International standards require trials to be public, just and transparent, the decisions made public. The decisions of the military courts of the world procedures, “he said.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel asked: “What would happen if international principles are not followed?” To which Salman Akram Raja replied: “Not to adhere to international principles means that the trial is not transparent.”
Judge Mandokhel pushed further: “What happens if a country violates international principles?” Raja replied: “Certain international principles are compulsory, while others are not. However, the principle of a fair trial, as devoted to article 10a of our Constitution, was added to the light of international standards. “
Judge Naeem Akhtar Afghan then pointed out: “Nowhere in international principles, he does not stipulate that civilians cannot be the court martial”.
Salman Akram Raja stressed that in the United Kingdom, the courts are led by independent judges, not in military staff. “In the FB Ali case, the principle of separation of powers was not in place. At that time, the sub-commissioners and the Tehsildars led criminal trials.” Also. “
Raja continued: “All countries present their compliance with international principles to the United Nations. The UN Human Rights Committee reviews these reports and gives their opinion”. He added that last year, in October and November, the United Nations Human Rights Committee examined the Pakistan’s military justice system and expressed concern about the court martial civilians.
“The committee concluded that the military courts of Pakistan are not independent,” he noted, “and they recommended the granting of the deposit to those in police custody”. Raja also mentioned that the European Commission had declared that the court martial of the nine demonstrators was incorrect and that the European Union had granted the status of Pakistan GSP Plus.
He also pointed out: “Judge Yahya Afridi raised these same concerns in his dissident note, asking why thousands could be tried before the ATC courts but not the 105 in question”.
During the hearing, an interesting exchange took place between Salman Raja and Judge Naeem Akhtar Afghan.
Salman Raja said: “In the United Kingdom, there was a case where a soldier named Fedley was in court martial. The European Court of Human Rights declared his invalid military trial because Fedley, who suffered from stress Mental, had drawn a weapon.
He continued: “The person who broke television during the events of May 9 was someone I met later. He was deeply ashamed of what had happened. It was unemployment, with only Four education notes.
Judge Ameenuddin Khan intervened, advising to discuss personal issues, while judge Jamal Khan Mandokhel asked Salman Raja if he had met Fedley.
Judge Naeem Akhtar Afghan, smiling, pointed out: “No, Salman Raja met the Pakistani Fedley.”
Judge Hassan Azhar Rizvi then commented: “You said that your customer was playing first-class cricket. He did not go cricket on May 9, right?”
Judge Mohammad Ali Mazhar asked: “In what law was Kulbhushan given the right to appeal? Is this law present before us?” To which the additional prosecutor Aamir Rehman replied: “I will bring this law on the file.”
Judge Mohammad Ali Mazhar pointed out: “Was this law introduced only for Kulbhushan?”
Aziz Bhindari replied: “Spies who have permission from the International Court of Justice are entitled to a call.”
Juma Jamal Khan Mandokhel then asked: “How many kulbhushans are there here?”
Additional prosecutor Aamir Rehman replied: “The classification is also authorized in FB Ali.”
Salman Raja then expressed his disagreement with the decision of judge Muneeb Akhtar concerning the creation of military courts, declaring: “No judge should be authorized to include words in the Constitution which are not part of the text of the Constitution. If that is authorized, it would be extremely dangerous.
Juma Jamal Khan Mandokhel replied: “Another example could come from Anarkali Bazaar, where outside a store, it was written” Badhia Quality “(good quality), but someone read it as” Badhia Ko Ulti “(the elderly vomited). This also made the courtroom laugh.”
Salman Raja referred to the decision of practice and procedure and the revision decisions of article 63-A, stressing that no court in the world will be free unless it ensures the right to a hearing fair. He argued that even without article 175 (3) of the Constitution, article 2 (d) of the army law could be declared null and not avenue on the basis of article 10-A.
Judge Mohammad Ali Mazhar pointed out: “Judge Muneeb Akhtar, in the majority decision, considered the military courts as a parallel judicial system”. Salman Akram Raja replied: “Judge Muneeb Akhtar made this interpretation of the Constitution by considering history. He wrote that the military courts have historical training, and the interpretation of the Constitution on the basis of history could lead to extremely dangerous results.
He also argued: “When the Constitution is clear, it cannot be interpreted, as was the case in the interpretation of article 63-A, but in the review of article 63-a, the ‘Interpretation was correct. “
With this, Salman Akram Raja concluded his arguments and the Supreme Court has adjourned the hearing of the military court case until tomorrow. The founder of the PTI lawyer, Azir Bhindari, will start his arguments tomorrow.
