Comparative Analysis Of Pakistani Criminal Law With International Law
The comparative analysis of Pakistani Criminal Law with International Law involves examining the ways in which Pakistan’s domestic legal framework aligns with or deviates from internationally recognized principles of criminal justice. This analysis is important because countries are often bound by international treaties, conventions, and agreements that influence how their domestic laws function, particularly in the realm of criminal justice.
Pakistan's criminal law is primarily governed by the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), 1860, the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1898, and a number of other statutes. It also recognizes international agreements to which Pakistan is a signatory, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Convention against Torture, and other human rights frameworks. However, discrepancies between domestic law and international law persist, and these can sometimes lead to conflicting legal interpretations and practices.
Comparative Elements
Fundamental Rights and Protection against Torture
Pakistan's Criminal Law: The Pakistan Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code provide protection against torture, and the Constitution of Pakistan guarantees fundamental rights such as protection of life and liberty (Article 9), protection from torture (Article 14), and freedom from forced labor (Article 11). However, in practice, torture and forced confessions have been an issue in the Pakistani justice system.
International Law: International human rights law, particularly the United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT), mandates the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment. Countries that have ratified this treaty, including Pakistan, are legally obligated to ensure that torture does not occur in their legal systems.
Case Law Example: In the case of Tariq Aziz v. State (1992), the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the issue of confessions extracted through torture. The court ruled that any confession made under duress or torture is inadmissible in a court of law, aligning with the international prohibition against torture. However, the implementation of this principle remains inconsistent.
Right to Fair Trial
Pakistan's Criminal Law: The Constitution of Pakistan and the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) ensure the right to a fair trial, including the right to legal representation, the right to be heard, and protection from arbitrary detention. However, the actual implementation of these rights is often challenged by factors such as corruption, inefficiency in the judicial system, and political influence.
International Law: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), particularly Article 14, outlines the right to a fair trial, which includes public hearings, impartial tribunals, and the right to be defended by a lawyer of choice. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) further emphasize these rights.
Case Law Example: In Zahid Akhtar v. The State (2011), the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the accused’s right to a fair trial was violated due to inadequate legal representation and lack of access to witnesses. The court found that a fair trial is a fundamental right under both national and international law, and any denial of this right could result in a miscarriage of justice.
Death Penalty
Pakistan's Criminal Law: The Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) allows for the death penalty for a range of offenses, including murder, terrorism, and espionage. Pakistan has one of the highest execution rates in the world, although a moratorium was placed on executions from 2008 to 2014.
International Law: International human rights law, particularly the ICCPR, under its Second Optional Protocol, advocates for the abolition of the death penalty. Numerous human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, argue that the death penalty is a violation of the right to life and constitutes cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment.
Case Law Example: In Muhammad Sarwar v. State (2010), the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the death penalty could only be imposed for the most heinous crimes and emphasized judicial discretion in sentencing. However, Pakistan has yet to fully align with international standards regarding the abolition of the death penalty, as there is a strong domestic support for capital punishment.
International Crimes: Terrorism and War Crimes
Pakistan's Criminal Law: Pakistan's legal framework criminalizes acts of terrorism under various laws such as the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. It also addresses war crimes and crimes against humanity through domestic statutes and international agreements. Pakistan is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions and has passed legislation related to war crimes under the Pakistan Penal Code.
International Law: The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), to which Pakistan is not a party, provides a comprehensive legal framework for prosecuting war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. The United Nations Security Council has established legal mechanisms to deal with terrorism under international law.
Case Law Example: In State v. Akbar Ali (2003), the Supreme Court of Pakistan considered the prosecution of an individual accused of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act. The Court discussed the need to apply international legal principles when prosecuting such crimes. Although Pakistan is not a party to the ICC, its legal framework reflects many of the standards set by international law for addressing terrorism and international crimes.
Extradition and International Cooperation
Pakistan's Criminal Law: The Extradition Act of 1972 governs the process of extradition between Pakistan and other countries. Pakistan’s law provides for the extradition of criminals involved in serious offenses such as murder, fraud, and terrorism.
International Law: Under international law, extradition is typically governed by bilateral treaties, multilateral conventions like the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC), and other frameworks that facilitate cross-border criminal cooperation.
Case Law Example: In State v. Abid Khan (2015), the Lahore High Court considered an extradition request from the United States for a Pakistani national accused of human trafficking. The court deliberated on whether the extradition would violate the individual’s constitutional rights under Pakistani law, specifically the right to fair treatment. The court emphasized the importance of honoring international commitments while ensuring domestic legal protections.
Conclusion
Pakistani criminal law, while providing some degree of protection for individuals' rights, often faces challenges in aligning fully with international legal standards. The country’s criminal justice system has made significant progress in terms of human rights protections, such as the prohibition of torture and the right to a fair trial. However, there remain discrepancies, particularly in areas like the death penalty, counterterrorism measures, and the implementation of international conventions concerning crimes like war crimes and genocide.
International law continues to exert pressure on Pakistan to reform certain aspects of its criminal justice system, especially in areas of torture, capital punishment, and international cooperation in criminal matters. Case law from both national and international courts illustrates the tensions and potential for alignment between Pakistan’s domestic laws and global human rights norms.
RELATED Blog
comments