7 Section 7 of the ATA sets out the available punishments. The punishment of ‘death or imprisonment for life’ is available for three of these actions: causing the death of any person (Section 7(a)); kidnapping for ransom or hostage-taking (Section 7(e)); and hijacking (Section 7(f)). This report focuses on only those cases which resulted in death sentences; there will, of course be numerous further individuals who were tried and convicted under the ATA. Criticisms of broadness or vagueness can, of course, be levelled at much domestic anti-terror legislation. However, as examined below, in the case of Pakistan this broad definition of the offences, coupled with the failure to introduce clear guidelines or administrative policies to prevent its arbitrary application, has contributed to the overuse, misuse and abuse of this legislation. CONCERN NO. 2: THE GROSS OVERUSE OF THE ANTI-TERRORISM ACT “THERE ARE CURRENTLY MORE THAN 17,000 CASES PENDING UNDER THE ATA.” Al Jazeera article, July 2014 4 The fact alone that, as of July 2014, there were over 17,000 pending ‘terrorism’ cases – adding to the 800+ ‘terrorists’ already on death row – strongly indicates that the Anti-Terrorism Act is being greatly and inappropriately overused. As revealed in our statistical analysis below, there is evidence that defendants charged with ‘ordinary’ crimes such as robbery or kidnap are being tried as terrorists without justification for this. As a result, not only do these defendants face infringement of their rights and arbitrarily harsh punishment, but it also undermines any claim that the Pakistani justice system is targeting and prosecuting terrorism cases in a way that is having a meaningful deterrent effect. One such individual is Shafqat Hussain (see Case Study on page 16). Far from being a terrorist responsible for instilling fear across Pakistan – the profile of prisoner whose executions the Government had announced it was prioritising – he had been just 14 years old when he was arrested and brutally tortured by police until he confessed to a crime he insists (and the evidence indicates) he did not commit. Even discounting the evidence of Shafqat’s juvenility and torture, on the analysis of the Sindh High Court itself, Shafqat was guilty of a botched kidnapping in which he accidentally caused the death of his victim. Whilst we do not dispute the seriousness of such crimes, it is very clear that they are far from being ‘terrorism’ as this term is usually understood. TERROR ON DEATH ROW THE ABUSE AND OVERUSE OF PAKISTAN’S ANTI-TERRORISM LEGISLATION