• Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan says no global ban on military attempts.
• Lawyer argues for military litigation basically violates and int’l rights.
• The UN report claims that Pakistan’s military courts are not independent.

Islamabad: The Supreme Court’s righteousness naeem Akhtar Afghan has observed that the Court of Court is not excluded under international principles.

His remarks came during the hearing of an intra-court appeal against military lawsuits with civilians.

A seven-member constitutional bench, led by justice Amin-out-Din Khan, heard the intra-court appeal against the military lawsuits for civilians, where senior lawyer Salman Akram Raja presented arguments on behalf of the convicted defendan Arzam Junaid.

Last year, the APEX court’s constitutional bench gave a conditional permission for military courts to communicate judgments in cases involving 85 suspects – allegedly involved in May 9, 2023, riots.

In its order on the hearing of the appeals against civilian military trial, the constitutional bench had said that judgments from military courts would be conditional on the supreme court decision on the cases pending it.

Then, the military courts sentenced 85 PTI activists for two to 10 years of “string prison” for their involvement in the protests on May 9, marking the end of trials for those held in military sustainers over the attacks on army installations and monuments.

Later in January, the military accepted Mercy Pleas of 19 out of the 67 criminal sentences convicted in the May 9 riots on “Humanitarian Grounds,” said Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR).

The supreme court declared in its unanimous judgment with a five-member bench on October 23, 2023 civil lawsuits in military courts invalid after it admitted the petitions who challenged the trial against civilians involved in the riots on May 9.

During today’s hearing, Raja claimed that military lawsuits violate civilian fundamental rights and contradict international standards for fair trials that require open, independent and transparent procedure.

He also declared that the military court sentences could be challenged globally by civil courts with reference to a European judicial ruling that forced several countries to reform their military trial processes.

During the hearing, justice Jamal Mandokhail questioned the consequences of violating international principles. In response, Raja declared that failure to comply with international standards meant that the trial was not fair. Justice Mandokhail further asked about the effect of such violations from states that Raja responded that some international principles are binding, while others are not.

With reference to Article 10-A of the Constitution, Raja claimed that the right to a fair trial was included in the Constitution based on international principles. However, Justice Afghan maintained that there is no explicit ban on civilians in the Court of Justice in international law.

Raja also declared that in Britain, military litigation is monitored by independent judges rather than military staff. He remembered former court practice in Pakistan, where civilian officials as Deputy Commissioners and Tehsildars were allowed to carry out criminal litigation, which led to the argument that if they could carry out litigation, then military officers could.

In addition, Raja referred a report on the United Nations Human Rights Committee, which claimed that Pakistan’s military courts lack independence and called on the government to provide bail to individuals held in military custody.

Later, the hearing was postponed after the lawyer ended his arguments.