Latest news with #InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights
Express Tribune
3 days ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Omar urges CJ to ensure 'fair May 9 trials'
Leader of Opposition Omar Ayub Khan has written a letter to Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi, appealing to him to intervene to ensure fair trial of people adjudicated in anti-terrorism courts (ATCs) for their alleged roles in rioting after May 9, 2023 arrest of PTI founder Imran Khan. In the four-page "appeal", the opposition leader, who belongs to the PTI, has highlighted the alleged irregularities happening during the May 9 trials. The ATCs are bound by the Supreme Court to conclude all these May 9 case proceedings by the first week of August. According to Omar, the integrity of Pakistan's judicial process is under grave threat as these trials, which are supposed to exemplify justice, have instead become a means of political persecution. "The ATCs in Lahore, Faisalabad, Sargodha, and other cities are hearing cases related to May 9 with a speed and manner that shock the conscience of any impartial observer. "Hearings commence early morning and extend late into the night; in fact, it is reliably reported that in some cases proceedings continue until 2:00 am to 3:00 am. "This is justice crushed and justice buried under the weight of exhaustion, coercion, and haste," he added. He stated that such a schedule was unprecedented in the annals of Pakistani jurisprudence as it disregarded the most basic principles of a fair trial, including the accused's right to a meaningful opportunity to prepare and present a defense, and the judiciary's solemn obligation to conduct trials with dignity, transparency, and impartiality. He also referred to the motto of the Supreme Court of Pakistan that justice must not only be done, it must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. He regretted that during the May 9 trials, this cardinal principle has been systematically violated. Omar claimed that the leadership, workers, and supporters of the PTI were wrongfully implicated through a process that appeared mala fide and politically motivated. Police reports and prosecutions lack credible evidence and are riddled with procedural irregularities, he added. He also narrated numerous instances of prosecutorial overreach and police misconduct, including the fabrication of FIRs, coercive interrogation tactics, and selective registration of cases against opposition figuresall undermining the rule of law and public confidence in the justice system. Referring to the right to counsel of choice, he said a fundamental right enshrined in Article 10A of the Constitution has been trampled. He said the ATCs frequently deny adjournments and, in many cases, threaten or proceed to appoint state counsels without the consent of the accused. "This practice not only breaches constitutional guarantees but also violates internationally recognized fair trial standards., including those set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 10) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 14), to which Pakistan is a party," he wrote. "If these trials are allowed to continue under current conditionshurried, secretive, and politically charged, the damage to Pakistan's judicial reputation and the people's trust will be irrevocable."
Business Recorder
3 days ago
- Politics
- Business Recorder
May 9 trials: PTI seeks SC review
ISLAMABAD: The opposition leader in National Assembly Omar Ayub called on the Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Yahya Afridi on Tuesday to intervene in what he described as 'constitutional and procedural violations' surrounding the ongoing trials linked to the May 9, 2023 unrest. In a detailed letter addressed to the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Ayub, who is also a senior leader of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), framed his appeal both as a political leader and as an individual directly affected by the legal proceedings. He characterised the trials, which are taking place in multiple cities including Lahore, Faisalabad, and Sargodha, as 'rushed' and 'unfair,' warning that such processes undermine public trust in the country's judiciary. 'The integrity of the country's judicial process is under grave threat,' he wrote, alleging that Anti-Terrorism Courts (ATCs) were holding sessions late into the night, sometimes until 2 or 3 am. 'This is neither justice delayed nor justice served – this is justice crushed and buried under the weight of exhaustion, coercion, and haste,' he lamented. Ayub cited numerous Supreme Court verdicts underscoring the necessity of transparency, fairness, and due process. Quoting the landmark ruling in State vs Ziaul Haq (1975), he emphasised, 'Justice must not only be done, it must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.' The opposition leader expressed deep concern over what he described as a 'systematic' erosion of legal rights for PTI members, accusing authorities of prosecutorial overreach, filing fabricated complaints, and using coercive tactics. He also raised alarms about restrictions placed on defendants' access to legal counsel of their choice, citing Article 10A of the Constitution, and alleged that courts were frequently denying adjournments and appointing state lawyers without consent. Highlighting violations of constitutional protections, including Articles 4, 10A, 14, 19A, and 25, Ayub warned that such practices contravened not only national law but also international standards, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He likened the secretive nature of the trials to the notorious 'Star Chambers' of 17th-century England, underscoring the opacity and lack of public scrutiny. He called on Justice Afridi to take urgent corrective action, including a comprehensive review of all May 9 trials to ensure adherence to fair trial norms and enforcing reasonable court hours. He also urged safeguarding the right to counsel, expanding media access, and investigating allegations of prosecutorial and police misconduct. He also urged reopening trials concluded under questionable conditions. Concluding his letter, Ayub invoked a famous quote from former US Chief Justice Earl Warren: 'The treatment a government gives its citizens when accused of crime reveals the very essence of justice in that society.' He reminded the Chief Justice Afridi of his constitutional duty as the 'guardian of the Constitution' to ensure that courts serve justice rather than political interests. 'The public is watching closely,' he warned. 'And history is being written every day.' Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
4 days ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Ex-CJP moves SC against PM Shehbaz
Former chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) Jawwad S Khawaja has filed a petition in the Supreme Court, seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif for not implementing an SC constitutional bench's (CB) order in the May 9 rioters' military trial case. A full CB of the apex court on May 7 accepted appeals against the Supreme Court's October 2023 order, setting aside the trial of over 100 May 9 rioters by military authorities. However, in the majority order, the CB, sensitized "the need of legislative changes", compliant to the requirements laid down under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) for maintaining and preserving the constitutional and societal norms in the existing legal framework. "Therefore, the matter is referred to the Government/Parliament for considering and making necessary amendments/legislation in the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, and allied Rules within a period of 45 days. "[This is necessary] in order to provide an independent right of appeal in the high court against the conviction awarded to the persons by the court martial/military courts under sub-clauses (i) & (ii) of Clause (d) of subsection (1) of Section 2 of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, read with sub-section (4) of Section 59 of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952," the order said. Justice (retd) Khawaja stated that during the hearing of the case, Attorney-General for Pakistan Mansoor Awan referred to the Jurist Foundation vs Federal Government case "which has been expressly noted by the CB in its short order. "In that case, the SC concluded that there was no provision for the tenure/retirement age or the extension of the COAS in the laws relating to the armed forces. Based on assurances given by the federation, the government was given a six-month time period to legislate to fill this vacuum," he said. The petition said the SC held that in order to give effect to a constitutional mandate, the court has the authority to direct the federal government to initiate and process legislation. "In the present case, the CB has referred to the Jurist Foundation judgment in its short order. The petition noted that the federal government has been directed to legislate to provide a right to appeal in the high court for civilians convicted by military courts. "This is a court direction to enforce a constitutional mandate and protect fundamental rights," it added. The petition said the short order was passed on May 7 and the federal government was given 45 days to make amendments providing a right to appeal to the high court for civilians convicted by military courts. It noted that the 45-day period has lapsed and while the short order holds the field, the federal government has failed to comply with it.
Arab News
25-07-2025
- Business
- Arab News
As political protests stir, Pakistan PM reassures EU on human rights linked to GSP+
ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on Friday held a meeting with outgoing European Union (EU) Ambassador Riina Kionka and discussed with her the EU's Generalized Scheme of Preference Plus (GSP+) framework and "domestic political developments," Sharif's office said. The scheme grants beneficiary countries' exports duty-free access to the European market in exchange for voluntarily agreeing to implement 27 international core conventions, including those on human and civil rights. Sharif's office did not elaborate on which political developments they discussed, but the development comes after the announcement of an anti-government protest movement by jailed former premier Imran Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party. The PTI recently announced the protest drive to secure the release of Khan, who has been in jail for nearly two years on a slew of charges. The party has staged several protests in recent years demanding an audit of Feb. 2024 general election along with Khan's release, saying the polls had been rigged. Pakistani authorities deny the allegations and accuse the PTI of attempting to disrupt its efforts to achieve sustainable economic growth. The EU last year raised also concerns over the sentencing of PTI activists by Pakistani military courts over attacks on government and military installations in May 2023, noting that Islamabad had agreed to effectively implement 27 core conventions, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to continue benefitting from the GSP+ scheme. "The Prime Minister underscored the significance of EU as one of Pakistan's largest trading partners and reaffirmed the Government's commitment to the GSP Plus scheme, which had proved to be mutually beneficial for both sides," Sharif's office said. The EU is one of Pakistan's most important trading partners, accounting for 12.4% of Pakistan's total trade in 2024, while Pakistan was the EU's 48th largest trading partner in goods, accounting for 0.2% of EU trade, according to official EU data. Bilateral trade in goods between the EU and Pakistan represented €12 billion in 2024 (with a deficit for the EU of €4.6 billion). During the meeting, Ambassador Kionka thanked PM Sharif for the support she had received during her stay in Pakistan. "The EU was committed to strengthening its cooperation with Pakistan," she was quoted as saying. PM Sharif conveyed his good wishes for EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and said that he looked forward to meeting her at a convenient opportunity in the coming days.
Irish Examiner
25-07-2025
- Politics
- Irish Examiner
Historic ruling finds climate change ‘imperils all forms of life' and puts laggard nations on notice
Climate change 'imperils all forms of life' and countries must tackle the problem or face consequences under international law, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has found. The court delivered its long-awaited advisory opinion overnight. The momentous case opens the door for countries impacted by climate disasters to sue major emitting countries for reparations. And citizens could seek to hold governments to account for a failure to safeguard their human rights if their own or other countries fail to take adequate action to ensure a safe climate. Here's what the court ruled – and the global ramifications likely to flow from it. Climate change breaches human rights The ICJ case was instigated by law students at the University of the South Pacific in Vanuatu in 2019. They successfully launched a campaign for the court to examine two key issues: the obligations of countries to protect the climate from greenhouse gases, and the legal consequences for failing to do so. A man uses a chainsaw on a fallen tree in Port Vila, Vanuatu, in 2023 after a cyclone barreled through the Pacific island nation. The International Court of Justice case was instigated by law students at the University of the South Pacific in Vanuatu in 2019. File photo: Matt Hardwick/Australian Broadcasting Corp. via AP The court found a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of many other human rights. As such, it found, the full enjoyment of human rights cannot be ensured without the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment. The ruling confirms climate change is much more than a legal problem. Rather, the justices concluded, it is an "existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet". Most nations have signed up to global human rights agreements such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The ICJ ruling means parties to those agreements must take measures to protect the climate system and other parts of the environment. An advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice is not legally binding. But it is an authoritative description of the state of the law and the rights of countries to seek reparations if the law is breached. As such, it carries great legal weight. Just as climate science assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have become the gold standard for understanding the causes and impacts of climate change, the court's ruling provides a clear baseline against which to assess countries' action, or inaction, on climate change. Keeping 1.5°C alive? In recent years, many states' emission reduction targets under the Paris Agreement have seemed to 'settle' at levels which would hold global temperature increases to 2°C at best. But the International Court of Justice ruled the much more ambitious 1.5°C goal had become the scientifically-based consensus target under the Paris Agreement. Some countries argued formal emissions targets should be left to the discretion of each government. However, the court found against this. Rather, each nation's targets had to be in line with – and make an adequate contribution to – the global goal of holding heating to 1.5°C. The court found each state's emissions reduction pledges should be judged against a stringent 'due diligence' standard. The standard takes into account each country's historical contributions to emissions, level of development and national circumstances, among other factors. The ruling means rich countries, such as Australia, will be required under international law to make more ambitious emission-reduction pledges under the Paris Agreement, such as for the 2035 target currently under consideration by the Albanese government. The court decision also provides a measure of climate justice for small island states, which have historically low emissions but face a much higher risk of damage from climate change than other nations. Holding states accountable for inaction Because climate change is global, it is difficult – but not impossible – to attribute damage from extreme weather to the actions of any one nation or group of nations. On this question, the court said while climate change is caused by the cumulative impact of many human activities, it is scientifically possible to determine each nation's total contribution to global emissions, taking into account both historical and current emissions. If a nation experiences damage caused by the failure of another nation, or group of nations, to fulfil international climate obligations, the ruling means legal proceedings may be launched against the nations causing the harm. It may result in compensation or other remedies. For small, climate-vulnerable nations such as those in the Alliance of Small Island States, this opens more legal options in their efforts to encourage high-emitting nations to properly address climate change. Importantly, the court made clear nations can be legally liable even if damage from climate change comes from many causes, including from the activities of private actors such as companies. That means nations cannot seek an exemption because others have contributed to the problem. They must also act to regulate companies and other entities under their jurisdiction whose activities contribute to climate change. Paris Agreement quitters aren't safe One line of argument put to the court by Australia and other states was that climate treaties represented the only obligations to tackle climate change under international law. But the court found this was not the case. Rather, other international laws applied. The United States pulled out of the Paris Agreement earlier this year. The court's opinion means the US and other nations are still accountable for climate harms under other international laws by which all countries are bound. Could this lead to greater climate action? The International Court of Justice has produced a truly historic ruling. It will set a new baseline in terms what countries need to do to address climate change and opens up new avenues of recourse against high-emitting states not doing enough on climate change. Jacqueline Peel is Professor of Law and Director of the Melbourne Climate Futures at The University of Melbourne
