Source: http://www.criterion-quarterly.com/supreme-court-of-pakistan-the-case-of-missing-persons-2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 04:55:21+00:00

Document:
(The article reviews the role of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in dealing with the issue of missing persons. In that context, it discusses constitutional and human rights law and draws attention to the application of national criminal law for kidnappings and abductions. It reviews a person’s right to liberty, protection against arbitrary arrest and detention, and safeguards against preventive detention. It examines the emerging international law on forced disappearance of persons and highlights its notable features. It also points out the emergence of universal principles against extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions. It further indicates the remedies available internationally but suggests the need for providing effective remedy by national courts, in particular the Supreme Court. Author).
According to a conservative official estimate, at the end of 2008, there were ninety-four outstanding cases of missing persons in Pakistan reported by the United Nations.4 However, the Pakistan Government refuses to acknowledge the arrest or detention of these persons and has, despite the intervention by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, been either unable or unwilling to discover or disclose their fate or whereabouts. The missing persons, therefore, remain deprived of their liberty and do not have the protection of the law—a fundamental right granted to every citizen of Pakistan.
The Supreme Court’s intervention in the matter, which was considered highly sensitive ostensibly on account of the Government’s proxy war on terror, led to the unprecedented dismissal of sixty superior court judges in Pakistan pursuant to the proclamation of emergency in 2007.7 With the recent restoration of ousted judges, the Supreme Court is likely to resume the cases of missing persons with added vigor needed to protect the fundamental rights of citizens.
The purpose of this article is to examine the law regarding missing persons and the role of the judiciary in protecting their rights thereunder.
The missing persons have apparently neither been formally charged under any criminal law nor have they been detained as a preventive measure under any federal or provincial preventive detention laws. As such, none of the constitutional or other legal procedures for either arrest and detention or preventive detention appear to have been followed in case of missing persons. There has, therefore, been a clear negation of both constitutional norms and international human rights principles. Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court’s suo moto intervention at the behest of the family members of the missing persons is totally warranted.
The cases of missing persons not only involve a violation of constitutional law but attract the application of national criminal law and procedure as well. They furthermore fall within the ambit of the emerging international law regarding enforced disappearances.
Accordingly, it is kidnapping from Pakistan if someone conveys any person beyond the limits of Pakistan without the consent of that person;20 furthermore, it is abduction if someone by force compels any person to go from any place21 – as has been alleged by the families of the missing persons.
(a) Establish the conditions under which orders of deprivation of liberty may be given.
(c) Guarantee that any person deprived of liberty shall be held solely in officially recognized and supervised places of deprivation of liberty.
(d) Guarantee that any person deprived of liberty shall be authorized to communicate with and be visited by his or her family, counsel or any other person of his or her choice, subject only to the conditions established by law, or, if he or she is a foreigner, to communicate with his or her consular authorities, in accordance with applicable international law.
(iii) Failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his or her power to prevent or repress the commission of an enforced disappearance or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.
The initiation of the case of missing persons by the Supreme Court of Pakistan is an important milestone in the judicial history of Pakistan. It follows similar examples of court intervention in matters involving fundamental rights in other countries.
This situation is likely to persist unless the courts prosecute both those found guilty of the crime of enforced disappearance as well as those who aid and abet such a crime.
Article 18 (obligation not to adopt amnesty laws or similar measures that might have the effect of exempting perpetrators of enforced disappearances from any criminal proceedings or sanctions). Despite the fact that the emergency has been lifted and there is now a democratically elected government in place in Pakistan, the situation remains more or less the same. Pakistani authorities are still either unwilling or unable to bring perpetrators of enforced disappearances to justice. Even though there appears to have been a clear violation of international principles enunciated in the Declaration and in some cases breach of national and international laws as well, the prohibitive cost of instituting cases for the recovery of missing persons in foreign or international courts is prohibitive, making justice outside inaccessible for the missing persons and their families.
Pakistan’s legislative framework is fairly well developed to deal with the issue of missing persons. However, what is lacking is the administrative will to enforce the available and applicable laws perhaps because of the Government’s own complicity in the matter. Consequently, the only meaningful recourse that families of missing persons have is to rely on the courts in Pakistan, particularly the Supreme Court, to help find the whereabouts of all the missing persons and bringing the perpetrators of this crime to justice.
The Supreme Court needs to not only discover the whereabouts of the missing persons but also to ensure the restoration of their constitutional rights of security of person and protection of law through impartial and fair trials of these persons in accordance with established legal procedures. Public interest demands not only restitution in this grave matter but retributive justice as well to preclude such events from happening in the future. The Supreme Court should carry out impartial investigations against those government functionaries who are accused of ordering or carrying out enforced disappearances and mete out just punishment commensurate with the crime.
This article is generally dedicated to the missing persons, the families of the missing persons who are as much victims of enforced disappearance, an international crime against humanity, and to the determined saviors of these persons.
2 The issue of missing persons is neither unique to Pakistan nor a byproduct of the war on terror as is commonly perceived in Pakistan. It is a universal phenomenon which pre-dates the September 11 aerial attacks in the US which resulted in the so-called war on terror. It is perhaps a phenomenon that developed in modern times under military dictatorships in Latin American countries leading to the adoption of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons in 1994.
3 This was due to a “clean-up” operation conducted by the police, the paramilitary group rangers, and other law enforcement agencies, resulting in the arbitrary arrests, abductions and subsequent disappearances of members of the MQM, a political party allegedly involved in terrorism activities domestically.
4 See, para. 296, Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, UN Doc. A/HRC/10/9 dated 6 February 2009.
6 See, para. 302, Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, UN Doc. A/HRC/10/9 dated 6 February 2009.
reproduced in 2008 PLD 108 (Federal Statutes). The Proclamation, inter alia, provided the following reasons for proclaiming emergency and ordering the Pakistan Constitution to be held in abeyance: “… WHEREAS some members of the judiciary are working at cross purposes with the executive and legislature in the fight against terrorism and extremism thereby weakening the Government and the Nation’s resolve and diluting the efficacy of its actions to control this menace … there has been increasing interference by some members of the judiciary in government policy … the police force has been completely demoralized and is fast losing its efficacy to fight terrorism and Intelligence Agencies have been thwarted in their activities and prevented from pursuing terrorists … some hard-core militants, extremists, terrorists and suicide bombers, who were arrested and being investigated were ordered to be released. The persons so released have subsequently been involved in heinous terrorist activities, resulting in loss of human life and property. Militants across the country have, thus, been encouraged while law enforcement agencies subdued … some judges by overstepping the limits of judicial authority have taken over the executive and legislative functions … the Government is committed to the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law and holds the superior judiciary in high esteem, it is nonetheless of paramount importance that the Honourable Judges confine the scope of their activities to the judicial function and not assume charge of administration … an important Constitutional institution, the Supreme Judicial Council has been made entirely irrelevant and by a recent order and judges have, thus, made themselves immune from inquiry into their conduct and put themselves beyond accountability … the humiliating treatment meted to government officials by some members of the judiciary on a routine basis during court proceedings have demoralized the civil bureaucracy and senior government functionaries, to avoid being harassed, prefer inaction…” (emphasis added).
8 Art. 4(1)&(2)(a), Pakistan Constitution.
9 See, Article 3, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted and proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948): “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” See also, Article 9, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Pakistan, having assented to, is bound by both these international instruments.
10 For an exhaustive exposition of this article see, Hassan, “Article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Background and Perspective”, Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 153-183 (1973).
11 See, Article 10(1), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
12 Sec. 10(1) & (2). Pakistan Constitution.
13 Art. 10(3), Pakistan Constitution.
in its opinion, sufficient cause for such detention…”. This article does not apply to enemy aliens. See, Art. 10(9), id.
15 See, e.g., the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952, which provides for preventive detention in matters relating to defense, external affairs, and the security of Pakistan.
16 See, e.g., Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, which provides for preventive detention in the Province of the Punjab.
17 These legislations have been enacted pursuant to the Fourth Schedule of the Pakistan Constitution, which authorizes the legislature to pass various kinds of laws regarding preventive detention. See, e.g., para. 1 of Part I, Federal Legislative List (preventive detention for reasons of State connected with defence, external affairs, or the security of Pakistan or any part thereof; persons subjected to such detention); paras. 14 & 15 of the Concurrent Legislative List (preventive detention for reasons connected with the maintenance of public order, or the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community; persons subjected to such detention; and persons subjected to preventive detention under Federal authority). Members of the National Assembly have been exempted from preventive detention. See, Members of National Assembly (Exemption from Preventive Detention and Personal Appearance) Ordinance, 1963.
18 Sec. 3(6), The Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The authority making any such orders has, however, been granted the discretion to refuse to disclose facts which such authority considers to be against public interest to disclose. See, proviso to Sec. 3(6), id.
19 See, Chapter XVI-A regarding wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement, PPC.
20 Secs. 359 & 360, PPC.
22 See, e.g., secs. 363, 365 & 367 dealing with punishment for kidnapping, kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person, and kidnapping or abducting in order to subject person to grievous hurt etc.
24 Sec. 181(4), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
26 UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/47/133 dated 18 December 1992, reprinted in COLLECTION OF INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS AND LEGAL TEXTS CONCERNING REFUGEES by Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, at p.236 (2007).
27 Art. 1, Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
29 Fourth preamble, Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Later, the 1994 Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons reaffirmed “that the systematic practice of enforced disappearances of persons constitutes a crime against humanity” (Sixth preamble).
for Refugees, at p.223 (2007). Pakistan is not yet a signatory to the Convention. India signed the Convention on 6 February 2007. For an overview of the Convention see generally, McCrory, “The International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, 7 Human Rights Law Review 545-566 (2007).
32 Art. 7(1)(i), Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9 dated 17 July 1998. The Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002. It has been ratified by more than 100 countries.
35 Art. 3, Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
38 See Art. 6, Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
39 Art. 12, Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
40 Art. 9, Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
41 Art. 10, Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance. See also Art. 17(3), International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
45 Art. 4, Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance. States are required to (i) take the necessary measures to ensure that enforced disappearance constitutes an offence under their criminal law; and (ii) make the offence of enforced disappearance punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account its extreme seriousness (Arts. 4 & 7(1), International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance). This becomes all the more important given some of the shortcomings of the current international legal framework in holding individuals criminally responsible. See, Anderson, “How Effective is the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons From Enforced Disappearance Likely to be in Holding Individuals Criminally Responsible for Acts of Enforced Disappearance?,” 7 Melbourne Journal of International Law 245 (2006).
46 Art. 14, Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
52 Art. 16, Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
54 Art. 4, Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance. See also, Art. 7(2), International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
55 Art. 18, Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
56 Art. 5, Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
57 Art. 24(4), International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. This is in harmony with Article 9(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which enables anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention to have an enforceable right to compensation.
58 Art. 24(6), International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. This is similar to Art. 10(8) of the Pakistan Constitution, which requires the appropriate authority to fix a reasonable subsistence allowance for the family of the person held under preventive detention.
1989/65 of 24 May 1989.
60 Para. 1, UN ECOSOC Resolution 1989/65.
64 See, para. 181, Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, UN Doc. A/HRC/10/9 dated 6 February 2009.
65 See, Rasul vs. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004) and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006).
66 See commentary “Against Enforced Disappearance: the Political Detainees’ Case before the Nepal Supreme Court by Kishor Uprety in Chinese Journal of International Law (2008), Vol. 7, No. 2, 429–457.
67 See, para. 274, UN Doc. A/HRC/7/2 dated 10 January 2008. See also, paras. 211 & 213, UN Doc. A/HRC/4/41 dated 25 January 2007 citing the case of disappearance in 1994 of a criminal defense lawyer in India, who represented victims of human rights abuses, still pending in the Supreme Court of India in 2006!
68 See Para. 333, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1996/38 dated 15 January 1996.
69 Naz Bibi v. Station House Officer, 2006 P.Cr.L.J. 1447 (Karachi).
70 Para. 300, UN Doc. A/HRC/10/9 dated 6 February 2009.

References: Art. 4
 Art. 10
 Art. 10
 Art. 1
 Art. 7
 Art. 3
 Art. 6
 Art. 12
 Art. 9
 Art. 10
 Art. 17
 Art. 4
 Art. 14
 Art. 16
 Art. 4
 Art. 7
 Art. 18
 Art. 5
 Art. 24
 Art. 24
 Art. 10
 v. 
 v.