2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Reducing the threat from terrorism against the civilian population of
Pakistan is a problem that has plagued and polarised Pakistan’s
society for many years. Over the course of 2014 alone, we have seen
numerous terrorist attacks on civilian targets. In response, we have
seen a hardening of the legislative frameworks used to combat acts of
terrorism, together with a widening of the definition of ‘terrorist’.
Whilst it is clear that measures must be taken, it is becoming
increasingly obvious that the current strategies are not working
effectively. As this report will set out, the imposition of progressively
arbitrary and draconian legislation does disproportionate harm to
certain sectors of society, whilst failing to deter or reduce real
terrorist activity.
The Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997 is one such piece of legislation. Under
the Act (analysed in more detail on pages 5-11 below), trials are
rushed through, often denying lawyers acting for the accused time to
present a full defence. There is also an increased likelihood of police
torture, and fundamental rights of defendants are explicitly
suspended. In short, the result of the overuse and abuse of this Act is
that whole swathes of defendants whose crimes bear no relation to
terrorism have been sentenced to death following extremely unfair
trials – whilst terrorist attacks continue unabated.
Using statistical analysis and individual case studies, this report by
JPP and Reprieve explores the use of Pakistan’s anti-terrorism
legislation over the past two decades, specifically in relation to death
penalty cases.
It is particularly concerning to note that the data we have obtained
suggests that over 10% of all those on death row in Pakistan were
tried as ‘terrorists’. In the province of Sindh, the proportion of
defendants tried as ‘terrorists’ rises to a full 40% of all death penalty
cases. The sheer numbers suggest that the anti-terrorism laws are
being overused, and studies of the individual cases further illustrate
the problem.
Investigation conducted by JPP and Reprieve into individual cases of
those sentenced to death by anti-terrorism courts over the past two
decades likewise shows that instead of being reserved for the most