The analysis looked at the way four different types of evidence (statement under S. 342, medical evidence, birth certificate/Form-B and school leaving certificate) had been considered across these cases, noting where judges had placed reliance on each, and where they had rejected each: 7 of the cases analyzed included a decision on whether a defendant’s statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (i.e. the defendant’s statement at trial) should be relied on as primary evidence of age. In two cases the statement was refused while in five it was accepted. The Section 342 statement is the statement made by the accused at trial. Often, accused persons will not expressly mention their age if they are not aware that it may have relevance to criminal proceedings, and the age may be inaccurately recorded, or may not even be recorded at all. Based on JPP’s experience, during the trial, the court officer often just copies the police records regarding the age into the statement without questioning the accused and/or giving him a chance to rebut. 49 of the cases analyzed included a decision on whether a medical board report should be relied on over and above documentary forms of evidence. In 12 of these cases, the opinion of the board was rejected in favour of the documentary evidence, but in 37, it was accepted despite contradictory documentary evidence. Overreliance on medical tests can be dangerous, however, and experts in the field have made it clear that there is no “‘silver bullet’ method that will give government and agencies an ‘objective’ and ‘scientific’ answer as to the precise chronological age of an individual.” 57 As explained later in the report, results of medical tests such as ossification tests of the kind used in Pakistan are not reliable when used on persons with ethnic backgrounds from Asia, Africa, and Middle East. 44 of the cases analyzed included a decision on whether the defendant’s birth certificate should be relied on. In 28 cases the certificate was not accepted, while in 16 cases it was. Where birth certificates are not relied on, it is usually because the courts believe that such certificates are false or fabricated, despite the fact that these are government-issued documents. In the Supreme Court case of Ali Hasan alias Jamshed v the State it was held that so far as the National Database and Registration Authority's record is concerned, there is no objection that the entry made therein may not be conclusive proof of the age of petitioner.58 If even government-issued identity documents can be ignored by the courts in determining juvenility, then the defendant is placed in an impossible position if they are to be required to prove their age. 36 of the cases analyzed included a decision on whether the defendant’s school leaving certificate should be relied on. In 23 cases it was not accepted, while in 13 cases it was. As with birth certificates, courts frequently refuse to rely on these documents on the basis that they may be fabricated, despite the fact that these are government issued documents. In addition to analysing the cases in which different types of evidence were relied upon, JPP also analysed the cases to determine whether or not the courts of Pakistan recognised the principle that where there was doubt as to the age of the accused this should be interpreted in favour of the accused. In 8 of the cases, the court considered whether the burden of proof should be on the defendant to prove juvenility, or whether the JJSO should be interpreted liberally. In 5 of these cases, the court held that the law should be interpreted liberally. In three others, they held that the burden of proof should be placed squarely on the defendant. In practice, however, the lower courts most frequently require the defendant to prove the issue of juvenility, a burden which is difficult to dispel. This lack of consistency and clarity has already resulted in the execution of a number of people who were under 18 at the time of their alleged offence and has also resulted in lengthy custodial sentences and other punishments being imposed on juvenile offenders in violation of domestic and international law. Aynsley-Green, T.J. Cole, H. Crawley, N. Lessof, L.R. Boagi and R.M.M Wallace, Medical, statistical, ethical and human rights considerations in the assessment of age in children and young people subject to immigration control,British Medical Bulletin (2012). Ali Hasan alias Jamshed v. The State (2012 SCMR 242) 57 58 DEATH ROW’S CHILDREN 26