B. Pakistan's Overbroad Anti-Terrorism Laws Undermine Fundamental Protections Procedural safeguards are even weaker for terrorism suspects. The Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA),80 passed in 1997, established a parallel system for the prosecution of terror-related crimes. The ATA governs the procedures for the arrest, detention, prosecution, and sentencing of terrorism suspects in Pakistan. The Act's broad scope funnels large numbers of non-terrorist defendants into a parallel anti-terrorism court system with even fewer judicial protections than Pakistan's ordinary criminal justice system. At least 800 of the prisoners currently on death row were convicted by special Anti-Terrorism Courts (ATCs).81 In July 2014, there were more than 17,000 cases pending in ATC courts across the country.82 Although the ATCs were originally established for the purpose of prosecuting terror-related crimes, in practice, they have issued death sentences for crimes including murder and kidnapping that have nothing to do with terrorism. Under the ATA, terrorism entails “the use or threat of action designed to coerce and intimidate or overawe the Government or the public or a section of the public or community or sect or create a sense of fear or insecurity in society.”83 The definition covers any such actions “made for the purpose of advancing a religious, sectarian or ethnic cause, or intimidating and terrorizing the public, social sectors, media persons, business community or attacking the civilians,” and lists examples as broad as “damaging property by ransacking, looting, arson or by any other means. . . .”84 This description of terrorism is so expansive that it could be interpreted to cover virtually any crime or public disturbance, apart from its vague and rarely used carve-out for “a democratic and religious rally or a peaceful demonstration.”85 The failings of the legal system are compounded by an outdated Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which has remained virtually unchanged since its enactment in 1898, when it was adapted—with only minor revisions—from the British Indian Penal Code. A former civil judge said of the CrPC, “[w]hile living in 2014, we are centuries old in terms of legislations.” Ijaz Ahmad, a Pakistani judicial magistrate, has described the code as “prehistoric,” pointing out that Section 46(2) “has given a free hand to the police to summarily kill the accused if wanted under an offence punishable with death or a life term.” Furthermore, the CrPC's failure to define the term “accused” permits warrantless arrests on the basis of a “reasonable complaint” or “reasonable suspicion.” Like ordinary courts, the ATCs are “severely understaffed, underfunded, and lack essential resources,” leading to huge backlogs of cases.86 But whereas these backlogs have created severe delays in ordinary courts, the ATCs are legally required to complete trials within seven days. In order to process cases quickly, ATCs were designed with procedural shortcuts, including a de facto shift in the burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused;87 loosened standards of admissibility for confessions;88 removal of any warrant requirement for police searches or arrests in connection with ATC trials;89 and even the potential trial of the accused in abstentia, in certain circumstances.90 The result is a hasty process that has A “MOST SERIOUS CRIME”: PAKISTAN'S UNLAWFUL USE OF THE DEATH PENALTY 9