45 Lubato v. Zambia, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/55/D/390/1990/Rev.1 (1995). In that case, the defendant was convicted and sentenced to death for aggravated robbery involving the use of firearms. A concurrence noted the sorts of serious crimes for which punishment would not constitute a per se violation under article 6. For instance, “bombing of busy quarters, destruction of reservoirs, poisoning of drinking water, gassing in subway stations and probably espionage in war-time . . . create a grave danger which may result in death or irreparable harm to many and unspecified persons.”Id. In its Concluding Observations on Iraq, the Human Rights Commission indicated that “non-violent” infringements are not serious enough to warrant the death penalty. Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Comm.: Iraq, ¶ 10 ,1997, U.N. Doc. CCPR/79/Add.84; see also Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Comm.: Kuwait, ¶ 14(b), 2011, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/KWT/CO/2. 46 Pakistan Arms (Amendment) Ordinance, § 13-A(1) (1996). 47 Pakistan Army Act of 1952 (XXXIX of 1952), § 24(b). 48 PAK. PENAL CODE, § 194. 49 See Tariq Khosa, Agenda for Reform, in ASIA SOCIETY, REPORT BY THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION ON PAKISTAN POLICE REFORM: STABILIZING PAKISTAN THROUGH POLICE REFORM 29-35 (Hassan Abbas ed., 2012), http://asiasociety.org/files/pdf/as_pakistan_police_reform.pdf [hereinafter STABILIZING PAKISTAN]; Shoaib Suddle, Obstacles to Reform, in STABILIZING PAKISTAN 36-40. For a detailed discussion of reform efforts over the past several decades, see Justice Project Pakistan & Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic, Policing as Torture: A Report on Systematic Brutality and Torture By the Police in Faisalabad, Pakistan, 23-27 (2014) [hereinafter JPP-Lowenstein, Policing as Torture]. In December 2015, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif established a committee to work on legal reforms including an overhaul of the criminal justice system. PM Sets up Committee for Legal Reforms, THE NEWS, Dec. 1, 2015, https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/77981-pm-sets-up-committee-for-legal-reforms. 50 ICCPR, art. 6(2). 51 ICCPR, art. 6(1). 52 RODLEY & POLLARD, supra note ; see also Human Rights Comm., General Comment No. 6, ¶ 7, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 (1994) (stating that “[t]he procedural guarantees . . . prescribed [in article 14] must be observed” for the purposes of article 6). 53 Human Rights Comm., General Comment No. 32, ¶ 59, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007); see also Gunan v. Kyrgyzstan, ¶ 6.5, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/102/D/1545/2007 (2011) (“[T]he imposition of a sentence of death upon conclusion of a trial, in which the provisions of article 14 of the Covenant have not been respected, constitutes a violation . . . of article 6 of the Covenant. In light of the Committee's findings of a violation of article 14, it concludes that the author is also a victim of a violation of his rights under article 6, paragraph 2, read in conjunction with article 14, of the Covenant.”). 54 U.N. Econ. & Soc. Council Res. 1984/50 (May 25, 1984). 55 Human Rights Comm., Views of the Human Rights Committee Under Article 5, Paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Concerning Communication No. 1421/2005, 87th session, ¶ 7.11, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/87/D/1421/2005 (2006) (“[T]o impose a death sentence on a person after an unfair trial is to subject that person wrongfully to the fear that he will be executed. In circumstances where there is a real possibility that the sentence will be enforced, that fear must give rise to considerable anguish. Such anguish cannot be dissociated from the unfairness of the proceedings underlying the sentence. Indeed, as the Committee has previously observed, the imposition of any death sentence that cannot be saved by article 6 would automatically entail a violation of article 7. The Committee therefore concludes that the imposition of the death sentence on the author after the conclusion of proceedings which did not meet the requirements of article 14 of the Covenant amounts to inhuman treatment, in violation of article 7.”). The European Court of Human Rights has similarly held that “the imposition of the death sentence . . . following an unfair trial by a court whose independence and impartiality were open to doubt amounted to inhuman treatment in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights.” U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2006/83 at 7, http://daccessods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=E/CN.4/2006/83&Lang=E (discussing Ocalan v. Turkey, 2005-IV Eur. Ct. H.R. 282). 56 World Bank, Worldwide Governance Indicators, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#reports. 57 World Justice Project, Rule of Law Around the World (2015), http://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-law-around-world. The Rule of Law Index compiles country-specific public and expert surveys for 44 indicators organized around 8 themes: constraints on government powers, absence of corruption, open government, fundamental rights, order and security, regulatory enforcement, civil justice, and criminal justice. A “MOST SERIOUS CRIME”: PAKISTAN'S UNLAWFUL USE OF THE DEATH PENALTY 46