Interns 2006

In 2006 HRCP’s International interns produced four quality research reports that are listed below 

1. Jon Sherman, Columbia Law School, New York
   • Trying Terrorism, Protecting Rights: Counter terrorism and Human Rights In Pakistan’s Criminal Justice System Since 9/11
2. Emilie Paquin-Holmested, McGill University, Montreal
   • Juvenile Justice in Pakistan – a study of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (JJSO)
3. Amber Haque, Fletcher Law School, Boston
   • Hudood Ordinance – Argument for repeal, current events, the amendments, and the Women Protection Bill
4. Aisha Hussain, Fletcher Law School, Boston
   • Freedom of Press in Pakistan – Press in Pakistan, with emphasis on the current political environment under military rule

 Local Interns worked on a variety of projects some of which were:

• Acid Burn Victims
• Contaminated water – Lahore & Manga mandi
• Teacher/student awareness program
• Database updating

We have decided to publish, in the form of monographs, studies and reports prepared by interns during their stay with us. Two such studies have just been issued as monographs.

 1. Jon Sherman, Columbia Law School, HRCP Intern 2006 - ‘Trying Terrorism, Protecting Rights: Counter Terrorism and Human Rights in Pakistan’s Criminal Justice System since 9/11’

2. Emilie Paquin-Holmested, McGill University, HRCP Intern 2006 - ‘Juvenile Justice In Pakistan’

****************************************************

Trying Terrorism, Protecting Rights: Counter Terrorism and Human Rights In Pakistan’s Criminal Justice System Since 9/11  

Jon Sherman, Columbia Law School - HRCP Intern-Summer 2006 

This project was originally conceived as a comparative analysis of legal and extralegal counter terrorism tactics used by the Pakistani government, courts, police, and military. However, given the realities of military action in the North-West Frontier Province and Waziristan, which pose severe security and information access problems for human rights researchers, there was little to no chance of acquiring a wealth of accurate information, testimony, and statistics on the Pakistani military and Interservices Intelligence (ISI) anti-al-Qaeda and anti-Taliban operations in Miranshah and Wana in Waziristan among other areas. Reports have circulated of widespread property destruction, principally home demolitions and extrajudicial killings of civilians in the pursuit of transnational and domestic militant organizations in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), particularly North and South Waziristan. The collective responsibility clauses of the Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR) surely provide the military some “legal” cover for its allegedly indiscriminate, poorly targeted violence in the area; however, the military’s reported conduct falls squarely outside the bounds of respected international legal norms. One point every journalist, lawyer, judge, and researcher in Pakistan concedes is that extralegal tactics dominate Pakistani counterterrorism strategy. As Adnan Adil, a BBC correspondent, explains, “99.9% of counterterrorism has been dealt with outside [the] pale of law.” (Interview with Adnan Adil, BBC Terrorism Correspondent) This introductory qualification is to suggest at the outset that the background to this report is nothing less than the global war on terrorism (GWOT): national borders ignored, international legal norms ignored or defied, the global public denied access to information on potential human rights violations by denying journalist access, extraordinary renditions and enforced disappearances into U.S. custody of high-value al-Qaeda captures, extrajudicial killings, and other intergovernmental military strategies and tactics which are executed in a legal black hole, pushing victims beyond the scope of any legal protection. 

This report has largely avoided the black hole and instead considered “legal counterterrorism,” alternatively referred to here as “counterterrorism as criminal justice,” which for the purposes of this report is defined as any terrorism tactic that is at least purportedly subject to the scrutiny, review, and counteraction of Pakistan’s court system, namely civilian law enforcement operations. In short, legal counterterrorism is marked by law enforcement and the mechanisms of the criminal justice system, not military and covert intelligence agency actions committed without statutory authorization, beyond the scrutiny of judicial review, and without due process afforded the captured and accused. Since 9/11, much of the international community of policymakers, policy think tanks, legislators, academia, military officials, and others have focused on the extralegal side of counterterrorism, which is to be expected in light of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and stunningly persist in thinking military action holds a solution to the problem of terrorist violence against civilians. The striking absence of a robust academic debate on the possibilities for using the legal systems and mechanisms of criminal justice for combating terrorism reveals much about the flaws in both American and Pakistani counterterrorism policy. 

This project puts the previous section’s two hypotheses to work by analyzing Pakistan’s criminal justice system as a counterterrorism tool, identifying strengths and weaknesses, human rights defects, and the practical difficulties law enforcement agencies, ministries, and courts face in countering terrorism effectively and preserving a legal, transparent, and judicially accountable anti-terrorism process.

****************************************************

JUVENILE JUSTICE IN PAKISTAN 

Emilie Paquin-Holmested, McGill University - HRCP Intern-Summer 2006 (In collaboration with HRCP and AGHS) 

The treatment of children has raised questions in jurisdictions around the world: Should children be accountable for their actions?  Should they have a special legal immunity, and if so, at what age should they lose it?  Is it beneficial for society to offer such immunity to children?  If a jurisdiction gives immunity to children on the basis that they are unable to differentiate right from wrong, then does it entail that children should be excluded completely from the legal process?  For example, should a child’s testimony be held at equal value to that of an adult?  As products of the society they grow up in, are child offenders the corresponding responsibility of that same society?  These are some of the questions that are at the root of the debate surrounding juvenile justice.  This report will only touch upon a few of these elaborate issues in its attempt to portray the current state of juvenile justice in Pakistan.    

To improve the state of juvenile justice in Pakistan and to comply with the government’s international responsibilities, President Musharraf promulgated the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance in 2000.  This ordinance established significant procedural and substantial protective measures for juveniles who come into conflict with the law, but it was drafted hastily, has errors, and therefore needs to be revised.  The JJSO has been successful in highlighting the issues of juvenile justice and has helped increase public awareness on these issues.  Since the promulgation of the JJSO, the state of juvenile justice has slightly improved but numerous aspects of the law remain poorly implemented, if implemented at all.  

In its attempt to portray the current state of juvenile justice in Pakistan, this report will first look at the international standards relating to juvenile justice, the Pakistani laws relating to children and the remaining judicial loopholes that exist in Pakistan that maintain its children in a state of vulnerability when they come in contact with the legal system.  It will then depict the current situation of juvenile justice and compare it to the previous state of juvenile justice where it differs.  Facts, figures and particular issues such as female juvenile detention, privacy, detention and the death penalty will be discussed to demonstrate the alterations that have taken place since the implementation of the JJSO. It will also show that many aspects of the law remain poorly implemented.  This report will conclude with counter-arguments to the Lahore High Court decision which suspended the JJSO in 2004 and will provide drafting proposals to improve the JJSO and add suggestions to better the state of juvenile justice in Pakistan. 

This report was researched and written over a three month period.  Its aim is to portray the current state of juvenile justice in Pakistan in order to pinpoint its strengths and weaknesses.  The debate on juvenile justice is elaborate and complex and this report does not intend to discuss every issue relating to this topic.  Further research on juvenile justice is strongly encouraged and could include topics such as human rights theory in relation to juvenile justice.