- Judge Naeem Akhtar Afghan says no global ban on military trials.
- The lawyer maintains that military trials violate fundamental rights and int’l.
- The UN report says that the military courts of Pakistan are not independent.
Islamabad: Judge of the Supreme Court Naeem Akhtar Afghan observed that the court martial civilian is not prohibited under international principles.
His remarks occurred during the hearing of an intra-cour-cier call against the military trials of civilians.
A constitutional bench of seven members, led by judge Amin-Uud-Din Khan, heard the intra-short appeal against the military trials of civilians, during which the Sen Salman Akram Raja presented arguments on behalf of the condemned defense, Arzam Junaid.
Last year, the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court granted conditional authorization before the military courts to announce verdicts in cases involving 85 suspects – allegedly involved in the riots of May 9, 2023.
In his order on the hearing of calls against the military trial of civilians, the constitutional bench said that the judgments of the military courts would be conditional to the verdict of the court of high on the current affairs.
Subsequently, the military courts condemned 85 PTI activists for two to 10 years of “rigorous prison” for their involvement in the demonstrations of May 9, marking the conclusion of the trials for those who were detained in police police attacks against army installations and monuments.
Later in January, the army accepted pleadings of mercy of 19 of the 67 condemned in the May 9 riots for “humanitarian reasons,” said inter-service public relations (ISPR).
The high -level court, in its unanimous verdict by a bench of five members, on October 23, 2023 declared the trials of civilians in the zero military courts and not eager after having recognized the petitions disputing the trial of the civilians involved in the riots of the May 9.
During today’s hearing, Raja argued that military trials violate the fundamental rights of civilians and contradict international standards for fair trials, which require open, independent and transparent procedures.
He also declared that, on a global scale, the verdicts of the military court could be disputed by the civil courts, citing a decision of the European Court which forced several countries to reform their processes of military trials.
During the hearing, judge Jamal Mandokhail questioned the consequences of the violation of international principles. In response, Raja said that non-compliance with international standards meant that the trial was not fair. Judge Mandokhail also requested the impact of these violations by the States, to which Raja replied that certain international principles are binding, while others are not.
Referring to article 10-A of the Constitution, Raja argued that the right to a fair trial was included in the constitution based on international principles. However, the Afghan judge argued that there was no explicit prohibition on civilian civilians in international law.
Raja also said that in the United Kingdom, military trials are supervised by independent judges rather than by military staff. He remembers judicial practices prior to Pakistan, where civilian officials such as assistant commissioners and Tehsildars were authorized to carry out criminal lawsuits, which led to the argument that if they could proceed to trials, Military officers too.
In addition, Raja referred to a report by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, which said that the military courts of Pakistan lacked independence and urged the government to give the surety to persons in care view.
Later, the hearing was postponed after the lawyer finished his arguments.
