The Supreme Court ruled that a low and compromised criminal justice system undermines the rule of law and thus encourages corruption, authoritarianism and the rule of powerful and privileged.
“An effective and reactive criminal justice system, without interference and political corruption, is a fundamental right of each citizen, while inexpensive justice and quickly is a commitment to the State under the Constitution. The criminal justice system will only serve its objective when the real actors, the inhabitants of this country, will be confidence and confidence in a free system.
“It is therefore a constitutional duty of each body of the State, the Executive, the Judicial Power and the Legislative Assembly to take urgent measures in order to ensure that the criminal justice system serves the inhabitants of this country and that they rest their confidence and their confidence in its equity, its impartiality and its independence”, reads a 20 -page judgment authorized to the justice Athar Minallah, which recruited the death penalty the name of sponsorship for having suffered a suffocation for the years of life.
A bench of three members of the Supreme Court led by Judge Minallah heard the criminal appeal in a murder case. The judgment notes that the appellant has remained incarcerated for over 25 years.
“The appellant had escaped from the judicial guard and which obviously constitutes a separate offense and, consequently, it would not be appropriate for us to make an observation for fear that it did not prejudge the case of the parties in a question which could be pending before a competent court / forum.”
The caller was young in 1991 when the event had taken place. He accompanied his father and the reason was awarded to him and not the appellant.
It cannot be excluded that the caller may have acted under the influence of his ancients, in particular his father. He had no criminal record before the event and, therefore, he was a first offender.
The court also noted that the recovery of the gun from the fire arm is not exempt from doubt and that the evidence provided in this regard is not prudent on which to be invoked.
In addition to these recognized attenuation factors, the appellant served the full duration prescribed for the alternative sanction of lifetime imprisonment without the benefit of remissions.
“We are therefore of the opinion that, due to these attenuating and attenuating circumstances, the death sentence on five counts was not justified. We therefore do not allow in part in part to five counts. (CRPC) is extended in favor of the appellant,” explains the judgment.
The court deplored the appalling condition of the criminal justice system in general and the unjustified delays in the ultimate elimination of cases in which the appellant or the petitioner disputed the death penalty. In the case in court, the appellant was sentenced to death by the court of first instance on September 3, 2008. The appeal was preferred over time.
“The High Court decided on the appeal on September 18, 2014, and the reference was replied in the affirmative and, consequently, the death penalty was confirmed. Six years ago in the decision of the appeal of a prisoner who was pronounced the death penalty which cannot be justified.”
The time required to occupy the appeal and its ultimate elimination should not have been more than 12 months, said the Supreme Court.
“The appellant then asked for leave by depositing a request before this court and the necessary and reasonable period required for his final provision should not have been more than twelve months.”
The petition, which was deposited in 2014, was for the first time fixed to hear after seven years, that is to say on March 22, 2021, and finally on January 29, 2025. It took more than 17 years for the call process to end from the date on which the death sentence was pronounced.
“The condemned prisoner was in a cell of death and he was in no way responsible for this disproportionate delay and the procedures for his control.”
The delay had definitively exceeded the necessary and reasonable time required for the appeal procedures to be completed.
This disproportionate delay makes the criminal justice system and undermines the confidence of people before the courts and the criminal justice system. The appalling conditions in most overcrowded prisons across the country and inhuman and degrading conditions have often been reported not only to unimaginable agony and the difficulties of a condemned prisoner, but becomes a form of unauthorized punishment not intended by the legislator.
The court also noted that the judiciary is undoubtedly responsible when the appeal process exceeds the necessary and reasonable time required for its completion, but the other branches of the State, the executive and the legislator, are also responsible for ensuring that the conditions in the prisons are human and that the treatment of prisoners is not cruel, inhuman and degrading.
“This is an expensive task of the high lessons and this court to ensure that the call process and the appeals provided under the law are completed within the necessary and reasonable time.”
Executive power is also responsible for ensuring that the treatment of prison prisoners is not cruel, degrading and inhuman.
“The legislature should also examine legislation in order to make the criminal justice system sensitive to the needs of citizens and responsible for violations of their rights.”
The unauthorized punishment that a prison detainee is forced to bear due to a compromise, weak and defaulting justice system cannot be legalized or tolerated. We have noted with concern that most victims of disproportionate delays in the completion of the call process are those which are so weak financially that they cannot even afford to engage a lawyer of their choice.
“It seems that the criminal justice system, from the stadium of the investigation to fix calls, is vulnerable to be exploited by the privileged and powerful while the victims are those which belong to politically, economically and socially marginalized and disadvantaged classes.”
Each branch of the State playing a role in the management of the criminal justice system is forced to take urgent measures to remedy wrongs. A system that fails in the protection and application of alienated rights to actual stakeholders; the people of this country. “”
