139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING
EXPERTS’SERIESPAPERSRESOURCE
MATERIAL
No.79

CURRENT SITUATION AND ISSUES OF ILLEGAL AND HARMFULACTIVITIES IN THE FIELD OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONTECHNOLOGY IN PAKISTAN
Syed Abbas Ahsan*

I. INTRODUCTION
Information infrastructure is increasingly under attack by cyber criminals. The number, cost andsophistication of attacks are increasing at alarming rates. Such attacks threaten the growing relianceof commerce, governments and the public upon the information infrastructure to conduct business andprocess information. Most of the attacks are transnational by design, with victims throughout the world.
Measures thus far adopted by the private and public sectors have not provided an adequate level of security.
The reasons for lack of success in the field include the lack of timely sharing of information, slow andun-coordinated investigations, inadequacy of legal/investigative infrastructure governing cybercrime,
jurisdictional assertions of multiple states, and lack of international co-operation.
Cybercrimes generally fall into two categories; first where the computer itself or the computer networks
are the intended victims e.g. network intrusion, spoofing and spamming; secondly the use of computers tocommit more traditional crimes e.g. identity theft and computer fraud, etc. Such activities have a significant
negative impact and tend to discourage the use of computers that offer the chance for advancement inknowledge, convenience, commerce and intellectual interaction. This paper focuses on these very issues
with reference to Pakistan. An effort has been made to ascertain the extent of problem and the legal andpractical steps taken by the government to combat this growing menace. Bottlenecks and obstacles in theprocess and infrastructure already in place have also been identified.

II. PERSPECTIVE ON CYBERSPACE USE AND ABUSE IN PAKISTAN
It is very difficult to gauge the actual number of people using information and communication technology
in Pakistan. The figures available from various sources, only on the number of Internet users in Pakistan,vary from 3 million to 17.5 million online users. However, all the major commercial institutions are making
use of information and communication technology and use cyberspace to conduct their businesses, including
all commercial banks. Most of the universities in Pakistan and many educational institutions in the major
cities have online access and provide students access to computers and the Internet. The reason forestablishing a legal framework to regulate electronic transactions and crimes was the dramatic rise in thenumber of Internet users in the country (almost 9,000%) from 2000 to 2008.
The legal apparatus to regulate electronic transactions and combat cybercrime was established throughthe Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002 and the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance, 2007.
The laws established a regulatory mechanism for the conduct of electronic transactions and provided penal
sanctions for the violation of the legal parameters established under these laws. The Prevention of Electronic
Crimes Ordinance also provides the infrastructure for the investigation, prosecution and adjudication of
cybercrimes along with the procedures for the same. On the abuse of cyberspace, the cybercrime figures
may be quite misleading. In all, only 98 complaints have been received in the National Response Center forcybercrimes during the last year, since the promulgation of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance.
Of these complaints, only 21 cases have been registered and all of the cases are still under investigation.
The majority of the complaints received were from corporate bodies and public institutions, mostly relating
to fraud and unauthorized access. Almost all the cases required trans-border investigations and co-operation* Superintendent of Police, Islamabad Capital Territory Police, Pakistan.

70

140TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

from international organizations, which is the main reason for delayed prosecution.
Internet Statistics Asia
ASIA
Afghanistan
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
BhutanBrunei Darussalem
Cambodia
China *
East Timor
Georgia
Hong Kong *India
Indonesia
Japan
Kazakhstan
Korea, North
Korea, South
Kyrgystan
Laos
Macao *
Malaysia
Maldives
Mongolia
Myanmar
Nepal
Pakistan
Philippines
Singapore
Sri Lanka
TaiwanTajikistan
ThailandTurkmenistan
Vietnam
TOTAL ASIA

Population(2008 Est.)
32,738,376
2,968,586
8,177,717
153,546,901
682,321381,371
14,241,640
1,330,044,605
1,108,777
4,630,841
7,018,636
1,147,995,898
237,512,355
127,288,419
15,340,533
23,479,089
49,232,844
5,356,869
6,677,534
460,823
25,274,133
379,174
2,996,081
47,758,181
29,519,114
167,762,040
92,681,453
4,608,167
21,128,773
22,920,946
7,211,884
65,493,298
5,179,571
86,116,559
3,776,181,969

Internet Users, Internet Users,
Penetration(Year 2000)
Latest Data(% Population)
1,000
580,000
1.8 %
30,000172,800
5.8 %
12,0001,035,600
12.7 %
100,000
500,000
0.3 %
500
40,0005.9 %30,000176,02946.2 %
6,000
70,0000.5 %
22,500,000
253,000,000
19.0 %
1,200
0.1 %
20,000360,000
7.8 %
2,283,000
4,878,713
69.5 %
5,000,000
60,000,000
5.2 %
2,000,000
25,000,000
10.5 %
47,080,000
94,000,000
73.8 %
70,0001,400,000
9.1 %---19,040,000
34,820,000
70.7 %
51,600750,000
14.0 %
6,000
100,000
1.5 %
60,000238,000
51.6 %
3,700,000
14,904,000
59.0 %
6,000
33,0008.7 %30,000320,000
10.7 %
1,000
40,0000.1 %50,000337,100
1.1 %
133,900
17,500,000
10.4 %
2,000,000
14,000,000
15.1 %
1,200,000
2,700,000
58.6 %
121,500
771,700
3.7 %
6,260,000
15,400,000
67.2 %
2,000
19,5000.3 %2,300,000
13,416,000
20.5 %
2,000
70,0001.4 %
200,000
20,159,615
23.4 %
114,304,000
578,538,257
15.3 %(%) Users
in Asia
0.1 %
0.0 %
0.2 %
0.1 %
0.0 %
0.0 %
0.0 %
43.7 %
0.0 %
0.1 %
0.8 %
10.4 %
4.3 %
16.2 %
0.2 %-6.0 %
0.1 %
0.0 %
0.0 %
2.6 %
0.0 %
0.1 %
0.0 %
0.1 %
3.0 %
2.4 %
0.5 %
0.1 %
2.7 %
0.0 %
2.3 %
0.0 %
3.5 %
100.0 %Use Growth( 2000-2008 )
57,900.0 %476.0 %
8,530.0 %400.0 %
7,900.0 %486.8 %
1,066.7 %1,024.4 %0.0 %1,700.0 %113.7 %
1,100.0 %1,150.0 %99.7 %
1,900.0 %0.0 %82.9 %
1,353.5 %1,566.7 %296.7 %
302.8 %
450.0 %
966.7 %
3,900.0 %574.2 %
12,969.5 %
600.0 %
125.0 %
535.1 %
146.0 %
875.0 %
483.3 %
3,400.0 %9,979.8 %406.1 %

III. LEGAL FRAMEWORKThe laws related to information and communication technology follow the separation of the e-commerceand cybercrime model. There are separate laws governing both the aspects of the information andcommunication technology, nonetheless, the laws supplement each other in the regulation of all electronictransactions. The laws relating to electronic transactions provide the legal basis for evidence and giverecognition to electronic documents and electronic communications. The laws governing electronic andcybercrime in Pakistan cover both crimes that are traditional in nature, i.e. theft, fraud, forgery, mischief
and terrorism in which computers or any other electronic device is used to commit these crimes, as well
as misuse of computers that is criminal in nature, or what we call content-related crimes, e.g. damage andaccess to electronic devices and data with criminal intent.

A. Penal Sanctions for Cybercrime in Pakistan
The first law promulgated in Pakistan regulating all electronic transactions is the Electronic Transactions
Ordinance, 2002. The Electronic Transactions Ordinance provides a comprehensive legal infrastructure tofacilitate and give legal sanctity to electronic documents as well as protection to e-commerce locally andglobally. This law also penalized the misuse of electronic communication and charts the boundaries forcertification of service providers. The more recent law, the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance,

71

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.79

2007, relates to cybercrime and has been framed specifically to criminalize the misuse of electronic media.
Furthermore, the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance creates the structure required for theinvestigation and adjudication of cybercrimes.
1. Electronic Transaction Ordinance 2002
The Electronic Transactions Ordinance was promulgated in 2002, primarily to provide for the legal
recognition and facilitation of documents, records, information, communications and transactions inelectronic form. The law gives legal recognition to documents, information and records and allows theiradmissibility in a court of law without the requirement of a witness. The maintenance of documents inphysical terms is also satisfied under this law if the document or record is accessible and retrievable.
Moreover, the Ordinance delineates the rules on compliance and retention of documents in electronic
form. The law also establishes the parameters for electronic communications and thus creates rules
for associating documents with the recipient as well as the sender. Rules are also designed for legal
acknowledgement, time and date of sending, along with establishing the place of sending and dispatch ofelectronic communication.
The Electronic Transactions Ordinance also formulates the principles that are required for any document,
record, or communication and information to be deemed legally secure, thus setting up a digital signature
regime whereby electronic signatures and electronic applications provide the legal security required forany electronic transaction. The Ordinance also establishes the criteria for the authenticity and integrityof advanced digital signatures provided by the certification service providers. The certification service
providers extend certifications to websites and digital signatures.
The law does not criminalize most of the offences as supported by different international forums; however,the law does provide legal cover for the evidentiary value of all electronic transactions by amending Pakistan’s
evidence laws. The law recognizes the authenticity of all electronic transactions and brought these at par withother documentary transactions. Moreover, the Electronic Transactions Ordinance provides the foundation
for the subsequent penal law, the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance, 2007. As an interim measure toprevent the misuse of now legally acceptable documents and to restrict the misuse of incentives granted in thelaw, certain offences are penalized. The penal sections of the law relate to false information from the subscriber
to the certification service provider, issuance of false certificates, violation of privacy of information and damage
to information systems or data.
2. Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance 2007
The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance, 2007 was enacted against crimes related to theconfidentiality and integrity of electronic systems, networks and data, as well as the misuse of such
systems, networks and data. The law, apart from providing penal sanctions against the abuse of electronictransactions, also provides the procedural regime for the investigation, prosecution and adjudication of
cybercrime. The following chart represents the survey responses of Internet users in Pakistan on Internet
Governance, showing their top five concerns.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Dissatisfied
Satisfied
No View

Virus Attacks

72

Spam

Online Fraud

IllegalContent

Local
Software140TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

The chart above not only represents the concerns of Internet users in Pakistan, but also gives aninformed opinion about the state of affairs in the field of combating cybercrime in Pakistan. The huge rateof growth of Internet users and the opinions of Internet users, both corporate and individual, have been the
key drivers for the creation of the electronic regime in Pakistan. The ordinance based on such feed-backpenalizes the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Criminal access or damage to electronic data or systems
Electronic fraud or electronic forgery with wrongful intent
Misuse of electronic system or device with criminal intent
Unauthorized access to codes or passwords with wrongful intent
Encryption of incriminating communication or data
Spamming, spoofing or use of malicious codes
Cyber stalking, especially against minors
Unauthorized interception by technical means
Use of electronic system with ‘terroristic intent ’A detailed scrutiny of the law shows that its framers intended to adopt a very broad interpretation in
the definitions and explanations of the crimes. This point is evident from the title and definitions as wellas the penal sections of the law. Instead of using the terms “cyber” or “computer” crimes, the emphasis
is on “electronic” crimes. As far as possible all definitions and interpretations are kept open with the useof phrases like ‘including but not limited to ’, etc. The broad interpretation may have been adopted keeping
in view the common law tradition of prosecutorial discretion providing protection against inappropriate
application of the law. Furthermore, in-depth interpretation and setting up of the limits of the application oflaw is left to the thorough scrutiny of judicial decisions during court proceedings.
A noticeable omission in the law is the non-differentiation of “negligent” and “intended” misuse oftechnology. The law is criticized for not making any distinction between what is unethical and what is illegal.
In the Ordinance the sections relating to spamming, spoofing and unauthorized interception allow criminal
proceedings without requiring criminal intent of the person involved in such acts. Without giving due
consideration to criminal intent there is a possibility of misapplication of the law either by mistake or abuse.
Therefore, the intent of the offender must be considered in all circumstances before any criminal sanction
is applied against that person. Only when the criminal intent of a person is established, penal proceedings
should be initiated against the person. There is a need to remedy this omission by establishing criminal
intent in the forefront before the application of any penal sanction.
The law has been criticized for a number of other reasons. First, the law has been condemned as a curbon the freedom of expression, especially the part relating to cyber-stalking. Distribution of photographsof persons without their consent/knowledge and display/distribution of information are issues that needclarification in this section. This explanation amounts to censorship and can prove to be a hurdle for sharing
of information, healthy criticism, or even common gossip over blogs. Moreover, the definition of cybercrime
as given in the law is quite vague and includes terms prone to a wide multitude of interpretation e.g. vulgar,
profane, indecent, immoral, etc. Such words have an extremely wide interpretation even in dictionaries
and can have different connotations for different cultures, regions, or even individuals. The law, while
establishing penal sanctions, should be clear so that any person coming under the jurisdiction of the law
knows what limits the law has established and what constitutes an offence.
Secondly, section 11 of the law against the misuse of encryption has been censured for coercing selfincrimination which is contrary to fundamental civil rights. This section penalizes any person who encrypts
any incriminating communication or data contained in an electronic system. However, this section is against
Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, which provides protection against self incrimination. As thissection provides a criminal penalty for concealing incriminating evidence, it coerces an offender to decrypt
such evidence, which may be self-incriminating. Hence, the law violates the right of protection against selfincrimination granted by the Constitution of the country.
Thirdly, section 18 has been disapproved for putting the burden of proof on the person accused of theoffence under that section. This section deals with the offences involving sensitive electronic systems and73

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.79

provides greater punishment if such systems are accessed. Although the burden of proving the crime initself, i.e. illegal access to the system, lies with the prosecution, the law presumes that the accused had therequisite knowledge that the system accessed was a sensitive electronic system. This presumption shifts theburden of proof on the accused which is against the basic norms of criminal jurisprudence, which requires thecrime to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by those who bring the charges against the accused.
Finally, the most vociferous denunciation has been directed against the term ‘terroristic act’ and thepenal section associated with it. The evidently broad definition and explanation of this section is vulnerable
to misinterpretation as well as manipulation. It is pertinent to note that the definition and explanation ofterrorism is much more restricted and specific in the Anti-terrorism Act; as such many offences that may
not attract the Anti-terrorism law can be prosecuted under this law. Use of malicious code against a public
entity or computer network operated by the government and “violence” against the sovereignty of the state
has been included in the definition of terrorism. “Violence” has further not been elaborated and is left to thediscretion of the person applying and therefore interpreting the law. In addition to this, the explanation ofterroristic intent has similar flaws and is open to misapplication.

B. Comparison with Convention on CybercrimeWith regard to the definitions of offences against confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer
data and systems, these have been criminalized in Pakistan as explained in the Convention on Cybercrime of
the Council of Europe. Comparable criminal sanctions are available in the Prevention of Electronic Crimes
Ordinance 2007 for illegal access, interference, misuse and interception of electronic data or systems. The
definitions in Pakistan are comparable with the convention and have rather been kept broad to take accountof any offence related to the illegal use of all electronic devices, including computers or computer data.
Computer-related fraud and computer-related forgery has also been amply covered in the laws in Pakistan.
The same principle has been followed that all electronic devices have been included which may be used tocommit any fraud or forgery.
Regarding the content related offences, the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance has limited
application. Spamming, spoofing, cyber-stalking and malicious codes, which include viruses and Trojans,etc., have been criminalized. However, these do not cover all content-related offences as enumerated in
the Convention. Moreover, the laws in Pakistan do not provide any sanctions against offences describedin the Additional Protocol relating to racism, hate crimes and xenophobia. The issue of child pornography
is not penalized in the law, but it is argued that the sanction against cyber-stalking provides protection tominors against abuse. The section on cyber-stalking does provide protection to the extent of soliciting
illegal acts, which may include sexual acts; but the section does not criminalize production, transmission orpossession of child pornography. A relevant observation in this regard is that all pornography, whether childpornography or otherwise, is illegal in Pakistan.
Protection of Intellectual Property Rights is another omission in the cybercrime laws in Pakistan. Again,
it is contended that Intellectual Property is protected by laws particularly drafted for the protection of thesame, and the cyber laws provide protection against accessing codes and passwords for the purpose of any
illegal use of electronic data.

IV. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CYBERCRIME REGIMEA National Response Center for Cyber Crimes has been established under the Federal Investigation
Agency to deal with all issues related to cybercrimes. The functions of the National Response Center as
declared by law are to ensure the enforcement of cyber laws, and to prevent, investigate and prosecute
electronic crimes. The law also envisages a tribunal for the adjudication of all crimes under the Prevention
of Electronic Crimes Ordinance. The National Response Center, apart from being the primary investigation
agency against cybercrime, performs the following functions:
•
•
•
•
•

74

Co-ordination with international organizations to handle trans-border cases;
Technical support to government organizations for data and network security;
Real-time network traffic patrolling and collection of data;
Capacity building of law enforcement agencies in cybercrime;
Provision of forensic services for cybercrime.

140TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

The tribunal for the adjudication of cybercrime as proposed in the law is yet to be established. All cases
related to cybercrime are prosecuted in the normal penal courts as required by law until the tribunal isestablished.

A. Investigation
The National Response Center for Cyber Crime, which is the premier investigating agency against
cybercrime, has its head office in the national capital, Islamabad, with three regional offices across thecountry. The centre’s facilities consist of a Digital Forensic Laboratory and a cybercrime reporting andinvestigation centre. It provides special investigative services under the Telecom Act 1996, the Electronic
Transactions Ordinance 2002 and the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance 2007. The National
Response Center for Cyber Crime also provides technical support to the local police in investigations
involving the use of electronic devices. Such support is provided in investigations of ordinary crimes where
electronic devices or media is used in commission of the crime.

Victim ofCyber Crime

LEGEND

ReportingSequence of activities
Information flow

Internal
Authorising Authority

Authorisation

X

Investigative activity

X

EntityX

Information

Planning
Internal imposed
policies, regulationand legislation

Notification

Request and response
Information flow
through activities

Search/Identify

Collection

Transport

Storage

Internal
Challenges toHypothesis

Examination

Hypothesis

Presentation

Proof Defence

Court of
Law

Court of Law

Dissemination

The proposed model of cyber crime investigation

A waterfall model is used for investigation of cybercrime. All activities follow each other in sequence.
The model progresses from crime reporting to authorization of investigation. The next step in the process
is the collection and storage of evidence. Finally evidence is examined, a hypothesis established regarding
the incident and the case is prepared for prosecution in a court of law. In fact, the investigation steps
require several repetitions before the case is finally prepared for prosecution. The last step of examinationhypothesis-presentation may be reiterated a number of times as the understanding of the evidence grows inconnection with other relevant evidence.
However, as the whole structure established against cybercrime is still in its infancy and the processes
are not formalized, The National Response Center will come across many practical and proceduralchallenges in due course. Experience in handling electronic crimes will help the Center to determine its
future course of action in combating cybercrime. Interaction with other international agencies and further

75

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.79

research and development will educate those involved in this endeavour to chart out the best methods toprobe electronic offences. Apart from the lack of experience in handling electronic offences, there is a lackof awareness regarding the handling of such cases, not only in the general public but also amongst thoseaffiliated with the criminal justice system.
1. Reporting System
Electronic crimes are reported to the National Response Center, which after initial inquiry and internal
authorization approves the registration of a criminal case under any of the laws governing electronic
offences. The cases are registered with the police stations of the Federal Investigation Agency, which has anestablished network around the country and deals with a number of other specialized crimes.
The major issue with the reporting mechanism is the lack of awareness amongst victims. Electronic
crimes are normally not reported for the reason that it is assumed that such crimes cannot be traced andthe criminals are faceless. Moreover, the victims of electronic crimes do not know where and how to reportelectronic crimes. Most electronic crimes go unreported till they have reached an alarming stage, whereby
the investigations are conducted on the initiative of either the National Response Center or anothergovernment agency. In certain instances, electronic crimes have been initiated in response to requests fromlaw enforcement agencies of other countries.
2. Digital Forensics
The increasing problems of cybercrime have enhanced the importance of digital evidence and digitalforensics. Digital forensics includes the preservation, identification, extraction, documentation andinterpretation of digital data. As electronic evidence presents special challenges for its admissibility incourts, proper procedures are required for collection, examination, analysis and reporting of evidence. The
National Response Center has established its procedures based on the above mentioned objectives.
The collection phase involves search, recognition and documentation of electronic evidence. The
examination phase includes the documentation of the content and state of evidence. This phase also involves
the search of any information that may be hidden or obscured. Analysis differs from examination in that
it looks at the evidence for its significance and probative value to the case. Examination is the technicalreview that is the province of the forensic expert, while analysis is performed by the investigation team.
The process is completed with a written report outlining the examination process and the pertinent data
recovered. Examination notes are also preserved for purposes of discovery and testimony. The examiner
may be required to testify about the conduct of the examination, the validity of the procedure and his or her
qualifications to conduct the examination. In this regard, the digital forensic laboratory provides technicalsupport for examination of evidence for prosecution of electronic crimes.
The digital forensics laboratory has the facilities for the collection, validation, identification, analysis,
interpretation and documentation of data as well as its preservation as digital evidence. It has the capacity
for reconstruction of corrupt data which may have evidentiary value. The laboratory is equipped with thenecessary software and equipment to achieve these ends. Although the Digital Forensic Laboratory has
successfully supported the investigations conducted so far, there is room for further improvement withregard to technical expertise and equipment. An issue with evidence collection from cyber space is themaintenance of traffic data by service providers. In many instances, traffic data is not available from theservice providers to identify criminals or the origin of the crime.
3. Co-operation and Liaison
The National Response Center is the focal point for all cases relating to electronic crimes and electronic
security. Government departments liaise with the Center for their network and data security. Pakistan
Telecommunication Authority, which regulates service providers and network traffic data, also co-ordinateswith the Center for the enforcement of electronic laws. The Center is the central repository for research on
network security and electronic crimes. To increase awareness and understanding of electronic offences theCenter also conducts training and seminars for different agencies related with the criminal justice system.
The National Response Center aids local law enforcement agencies in investigations where electronic media
is used in the commission of crimes. Support is provided in the examination of electronic evidence andtracing criminals through electronic media.

76

140TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

International co-operation for detection of cybercrime is also routed through the Center, which has
established liaison with Interpol. However, international co-operation is not very forthcoming for a numberof reasons. First, electronic crimes are not criminalized in many jurisdictions and network traffic data is
not available in many jurisdictions. This helps cyber criminals establish spoof network addresses, whichmakes it difficult to detect the actual perpetrators of the crimes. Secondly, international co-operation is
not very forthcoming because the victim is in another jurisdiction, therefore less importance is attachedto such investigations. There is also animosity and doubt about the credibility of investigations carriedout in other jurisdictions and at times problems arise due to the admissibility of evidence collected in aforeign jurisdiction by a foreign investigation agency. Furthermore, priorities differ amongst states on
the prosecution of certain offences. It is for these reasons that the cybercrime law in Pakistan is based onreciprocity as far as international co-operation is concerned. Furthermore, it does not make international
co-operation mandatory. Rather it allows ample discretion in assisting investigations and sharing information
regarding electronic crimes and data with other jurisdictions.

B. Prosecution and Adjudication
As the infrastructure against electronic offences is in its early stages and investigations in some cases
have only recently been initiated; none of these have reached the prosecution or adjudication phase. The
law requires setting up a Tribunal for the adjudication of electronic crimes, which has not been establishedyet. Until the Tribunal, ordinary courts are empowered to adjudicate electronic crimes; the Tribunal isempowered to take cognizance of offences under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance.
1. Jurisdiction
The law allows for a wide application of jurisdiction covering the principles of territorial, extraterritorial as well as personal jurisdictions. However, such a wide interpretation of jurisdiction of the law is
not advisable and practically unrealistic. The principle of territorial jurisdiction is accepted in all criminal
offences, based on the principles of respect for the sovereignty of other states. Jurisdiction is applied if theoffence is committed within the territory of the state or if the offence produces its effects in the territory of
the state. Even such application of limited jurisdiction leads to conflict of laws. Extraterritorial jurisdiction
may result in the non-availability of evidence which may be present in the jurisdiction where the actual
offence was committed. Moreover, even if, through international co-operation, evidence and the suspect arebrought to the jurisdiction of the victim, the cost of numerous such investigations and prosecutions would
lead the system to failure. Another issue with extraterritoriality is that an act performed in one jurisdiction
may not be an offence but it may be criminalized in the jurisdiction where the act effects. Such a system
is also prone to abuse, as it may be used to prosecute public officials or extraterritorial investigations may
form an excuse for espionage. There is a need to establish a mechanism to settle jurisdictional conflicts
through recognition of the investigative processes and evidence in other jurisdictions around the world andto standardize the priority of exercising jurisdiction.
2. Electronic Evidence Admissibility and Evaluation
The evidential issues, as already discussed, have been sorted out through the Electronic Transactions
Ordinance, which has made amendments in the existing evidence laws to provide legal recognition to allelectronic transactions. In addition to this, for the purpose of evaluation of evidence, the Prevention ofElectronic Crimes Ordinance allows the tribunal to appoint and take assistance in technical aspects fromamicus curiae having knowledge, experience, expertise and qualifications in information and communication
technology, of which the government is bound to maintain a list.

V. CONCLUSION
In the final analysis, it is concluded that although Pakistan has taken a number of steps towards
controlling electronic offences, there is room for much needed improvement. The government has shown its
interest in finding solutions for recognition of electronic transactions and criminalizing electronic offences
through promulgation of laws in this context. Although practical measures have also been taken to counterelectronic crimes, there is a need for a more proactive approach. The enforcement of law, especially inthe field of maintenance of electronic traffic data, is one aspect that requires special attention, as most of
the investigations have reached dead ends due to the lack of data. Consequently, investigations remain
incomplete. Another obstacle in the path of investigations is the issue of jurisdiction and international

77

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.79

co-operation. Till the time these issues are settled on an international level the problems will continue toobstruct the combating of electronic crimes.
Practical issues in prosecution and adjudication are yet to be encountered as none of the investigations,
initiated so far, have reached that stage. As the criminal justice system in Pakistan is based on Common Law,decisions by the courts would help in interpreting and elucidating the essence of the law. Nevertheless, thelegal framework needs certain clarifications, and modifications. It is hoped that practical application of thelaws and further research will help in developing the legal structure and remedying its flaws.

78

140TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

BIBLIOGRAPGHY
Commonwealth Secretariat. (2002, October). Model Law on Computer and Computer Related Crime .
Retrieved August 3, 2008, fromhttp//:commonwealth.live.poptech.coop/shared_asp_files/uploadfiles/%7BDA109CD2-5204-4FAB-AA7786970A639B05%7D_Computer%20Crime.pdf
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. (1973). Pakistan.
Council of Europe. (2003). Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime, Concerning the
Criminalisation of Acts of a Racist and Xenophobic Nature Committed through Computer Systems (ETS189) . Retrieved August 15, 2008, fromhttp://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/189.htm
Council of Europe. (2001). Convention on Cybercrime (ETS 185) . Retrieved August 15, 2008, from http://
conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/189.htm
Electronic Transactions Ordinance. (2002). Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary, Part-I of 2002 . Pakistan.

Internet World Stats . (2008, June 30). Retrieved August 21, 2008, fromhttp://www.internetworldstats.com/stats3.htm
Jamil, Z. U. (2002, September). E-COMMERCE LAW IN PAKISTAN . Retrieved August 20, 2008, fromwww.jamilandjamil.com/publications/pub_reports/IBP%20Paper%20151004.pdf
Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance. (2007). Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary, Part-I of 2007 .
Pakistan.
United Nations. (2000). Tenth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatement of
Offenders . Retrieved August 10, 2008, fromhttps://www.asc41.com/10th%20un%20Congress%20on%20the%20Prevention%20of%20Crime/013%20
ACONF.187.10%20Crimes%20Related%20to%20Computer%20Networks.pdf
United Nations. (1994). The International Review of Criminal Policy: United Nations Manual on thePrevention and Control of Computer-related Crime . Retrieved August 7, 2008, fromhttp://www.uncjin.org/Documents/irpc4344.pdf
Zinnbaur, D. (2005). Internet Governance Priorities and Practices : Pakistan. Islamabad: United Nations
Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme.

79