Civilians' military trial is against fundamental rights, argues Salman Akram Raja in SC
Pakistan
Civilians cannot be court-martialed by stripping them of their fundamental rights: Raja
ISLAMABAD (Dunya News) - During the hearing on appeal on the decision of military trials case of civilians, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan remarked that no international law explicitly prohibited the court-martial of civilians.
A seven-member Supreme Court bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, is hearing intra-court appeals against the verdict on military trials of civilians.
Continuing his arguments, lawyer Salman Akram Raja, representing May 9 events convict Arzam Junaid, stated that civilians cannot be court-martialed by stripping them of their fundamental rights. He argued that such trials violated international standards of fair trials, which require proceedings to be open, independent, and transparent.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail questioned the consequences of not adhering to international standards, to which Raja responded that it would mean the trial was not transparent. He further noted that the European Court’s rulings had forced several countries to modify their military court procedures.
Raja emphasised that the UN Human Rights Committee had expressed concerns over military trials of civilians in Pakistan, stating that military courts in the country are not independent. He added that the European Commission also deemed the court-martial of May 9 protesters as unjust.
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, however, reiterated that international principles do not categorically prohibit military trials of civilians.
Raja tabled a question that if thousands of suspects could be tried in Anti-Terrorism Courts, then why these 105 individuals could not be tried there as well.
