ISLAMABAD: Human rights lawyer Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her spouse Hadi Ali Chattha on Friday filed appeals in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) against their convictions by an anti-terrorism court in the security breach case.
They also moved applications seeking the suspension of their sentences and release on bail pending appeal.
The appeals were filed by advocates Faisal Siddiqui, Riasat Ali Azad and Zainab Janjua under Section 25 of the Anti-Terrorism Act read with Section 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) against the court’s order.
On Oct 29, an ATC sentenced Imaan and Hadi to 10 years in prison each in the security breach case. The court also handed down one-year sentences and imposed fines of Rs50,000 each under Section 186 (obstructing a public servant in the discharge of public functions) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). They were also sentenced to two years each under Section 353 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging his duty) of the PPC.
In the identical appeals, the counsel contended that the trial court failed to meet the requirements of a fair trial and that the conviction was the result of patently illegal and arbitrary proceedings.
It was argued that the charge was framed without providing copies under Section 265-C CrPC and that a plea of “not guilty” was recorded on the appellants’ behalf although none was taken.
They further submitted that the prosecution evidence was recorded in the absence of the appellants and their counsel, contrary to Section 353 CrPC and Article 10-A of the Constitution.
The appeal also challenged the jail trial, arguing that it was conducted in a manner akin to a secret trial and without lawful authority, and that the appellants were not allowed a proper and confidential consultation with their counsel.
It further contended that state counsel was imposed on the appellants against their stated wishes and that the trial court proceeded with the case despite a transfer application pending before the high court, in violation of Section 526(8) of the CrPC.
On the merits, the appeal argued that the conviction under Section 7 of the ATA was unsustainable because the prosecution failed to prove the design or purpose required under Section 6 of the ATA.
It said the trial court itself described the incident as “a very common nature, ordinary type of incident” and that the evidence showed the appellants were on their way to court when they were held up at the barrier.
The appellants have prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and that they be acquitted.
Meanwhile, in the accompanying suspension applications, their counsel sought suspension of the sentences and release on bail, contending that the conviction was rendered during the pendency of a transfer application and that the bar under Section 25(8) of the ATA was not absolute when read with Section 25(5) of the law.
‘Misuse of criminal justice system’
Separately, over 20 international human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, called on the government to “immediately and unconditionally” release Imaan and Hadi.
In a joint statement on Friday, 23 organisations, including Alliance for Lawyers at Risk, Défense Sans Frontière, New York City Bar Association, Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, Geneva Bar Association, Lawyers for Lawyers, and PEN Norway, condemned the recent sentences and sought an end to the “extensive misuse” of the criminal justice system against the two lawyers.
It said that the convictions raised serious concerns over anti-terrorism legislation being used “to criminally punish and intimidate lawyers undertaking permissible human rights work”.
Referring to the case proceedings, the statement noted that the verdict was delivered despite a petition pending in the Supreme Court.
“Proceedings in these circumstances raise concerns about respect for due process and the right to an effective judicial remedy,” the organisations said, expressing concern that the trial, which was conducted at the Adiala jail in Rawalpindi, did not meet fair trial standards.
The organisations noted that the couple had been kept in a “cage-like” structure in the courtroom throughout the trial, rendering them unable to communicate with their counsel effectively. They also noted that the counsel was not given sufficient access to Imaan and Hadi.
“The prosecution relied primarily on police testimony to establish the offence, while the defence were denied adequate opportunity to reasonably challenge prosecutorial evidence,” the statement read, adding that the couple had denied the charges and maintained they were being targeted for their professional work and activism.
The organisations raised alarm that the “misuse of overbroad anti-terrorism legislation to the alleged removal of security barriers raises serious questions about the proportionality of the charges”.
It observed that such legislation must not be applied “arbitrarily or disproportionately, nor used to intimidate individuals or punish permissible conduct or activities that do not meet the applicable threshold”.
The organisations called for the convictions to be seen in the context of “successive, politically motivated, criminal proceedings” against the couple, which the statement said, was “solely to punish them for and deter them from continuing their peaceful, permissible human rights work”.
They also recalled the SC’s September 17 suspension of their 17-year sentences in the social media posts case and subsequent rearrest.
“The successive proceedings in the barrier removal case, and their prolonged deprivation of liberty despite the SC’s intervention, reinforce our concern that the criminal proceedings are calculated to make an example of the two lawyers and risk creating a chilling effect on the independence of the legal profession in Pakistan and on access to justice more broadly.”
In this regard, the organisations cited Article 10A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial and due process, as well as Pakistan’s status as a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
“Anti-terrorism legislation must not be used to criminalise peaceful assembly, protected expression, freedom of association or permissible professional activity,” the organisations stated.
“The arrest, prosecution or prolonged detention of the lawyers because of their professional representation, human rights advocacy and exercise of their right to freedom of expression not only violates their personal human rights – it also sends a stark warning to other legal professionals and human rights defenders.”
They noted that such actions had a “wider chilling effect” on the legal profession in the country and undermined lawyers’ ability to represent politically sensitive or human rights cases “without fear of reprisal”.
In the joint statement, the 23 organisations called on the government and relevant authorities to “immediately and unconditionally” release Imaan and Hadi and “take appropriate steps to have the convictions against them quashed”.
It also called for an end to “misuse of the criminal justice system to target the two lawyers and drop any charges and cases against them arising solely from their work and defence of human rights”.
Further, the organisations urged the government to review the use of Peca as well as anti-terrorism legislation against lawyers, journalists, human rights defenders, and peaceful critics and comply with Pakistan’s obligations under the ICCPR in terms of domestic laws and their enforcement.
“Judicial remedies cannot be meaningful if a grant of liberty by one court is followed immediately by detention through another proceeding without sufficient credible evidence,” it further stated.
The organisations expressed solidarity with Imaan and Hadi and “with all lawyers in Pakistan who continue to defend human rights and the rule of law despite the fear of reprisals”.
“We call on the Pakistani authorities to respect their international obligations, uphold the independence of the legal profession and ensure that lawyers can exercise their profession and their human rights without intimidation, retaliation or improper interference,” the statement concluded.
The post Imaan, Hadi move IHC against conviction in security breach case appeared first on Dawn – Home.
