physical appearance in a high number of cases. In practice, police are inclined to record the age of the accused as much higher than it appears. Based on JPP’s experience dealing with cases of juvenile offenders, in cases where the appearance of the accused leaves little doubt of his juvenility the police invariably record his/her age as “16/17” whereas where an accused’s physical appearance does not make his/her juvenility obvious the police records it as “22/23.” 45 “The police station is the first step where most of the problems of age determination start. To save themselves from complexities, they do not write proper ages.” - Tayyaba Javed, Project Director, Sanjog According to jail authorities, the medical examination conducted when an accused person enters a jail is also based primarily on visual observation. Similarly, even the age of the prisoner recorded in their statement before the court under S. 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is also based on an assessment of his/her physical appearance. Even though the prisoner formally signs these statements, they are usually unaware of their contents on account of a majority being illiterate. The problematic nature of relying upon the age of the accused under S. 342 was highlighted recently by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Muhammad Raheel v. State (PLD 2015 SC 145) in the following words: “Recording of an accused’s person’s age under S. 342 Cr. PC. is invariably based upon a cursory visual assessment which can substantially be off the mark, as proverbially, appearances can be deceptive” 46 Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, trial and appellate courts continue to attach presumptions of correctness on visual assessments by police of age.47 This becomes particularly problematic as courts inevitably put the burden of proof upon the juvenile offenders who are not extended any benefit of doubt.48 As a result, juvenile offenders, particularly those lacking documentary evidence of age, are in a virtually impossible position to challenge the falsified and/or arbitrary assessments. Even in instances where juvenile offenders are in possession of official documentary record supporting their juvenility, such record is dismissed in favour of arbitrary visual assessments by police.49 Reliance upon arbitrary age assessments is in violation of Pakistan’s international human rights obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC Committee) has made clear in its General Comment No. 10 that in the absence of proof of age “the child is entitled to a reliable medical or social investigation that may establish his/her age.” 50 In its List of Issues (LOI) issued to the Government of Pakistan during the review of the fifth periodic state report, the CRC Committee accordingly asked: “Please explain to what extent visual assessments of a child’s age by the police or other law enforcement officials in the process of issuing an arrest or jail certificate complies with a child’s entitlement to a reliable medical or social investigation into his or her age.” 51 The Government of Pakistan in its reply to the LOI failed to furnish any adequate response. See Case Study of Ansar Iqbal on pg X Para 7 “..the age of the appellant was recorded as 21 years in the statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C, which is part of the judicial record, and presumption of correctness is attached to it unless rebutted. Both the documents mentioned above [i.e. Form-B and School Leaving Certificate] are not reliable to rebut the age recorded in the statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C.” (para 8) Niaz Muhammad v. Umar Ali (2009 PCr.LJ91)[Peshawer] 48 “Claim of Juvenility was based upon an assertion of fact and the onus to prove such fact was upon the accused person and if he failed to establish such fact through positive evidence then no advantage could be taken by him on such score and no benefit of any doubt regarding his age could be extended to him” ( para 7) Muhammad Raheel v. The State (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 145) 49 Supra note 40 50 Comm. On Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 10, para 39, U.N. Doc CRC/C/GC/10 (2007) 51 Comm. On Rights of the Child. List of Issues in relation to the fifth periodic report of Pakistan, para 25, CRC/C/PAK/Q/5 (2015) 45 46 47 DEATH ROW’S CHILDREN 22