The ATA has come under considerable criticism from various stakeholders regarding its inability to effectively try, convict and punish terrorists. In August, 2017, Justice Dost Muhammad Khan authored a Supreme Court judgment10 criticising the broad application of the ATA in ordinary crimes. In his judgement, he noted that the ATA was a “harsh law” and should not be extended liberally to include the crime of murder or attempted murder for any reason or motive that has no connection with terrorism of militancy. The international human rights community has repeatedly highlighted the lack of conformity of the ATA with Pakistan’s international legal commitments. The United Nations Human Rights treaty bodies have expressed serious concerns regarding the failure of trials under the ATCs to abide by international human rights standards and urged the Government of Pakistan to introduce significant legal and policy reforms in successive state reviews. One of the ATA’s most problematic aspects is that juvenile offenders charged under the ATA are deprived of the special procedural safeguards accorded to them under Pakistan’s special regime for trying juvenile offenders (the Juvenile Justice Systems Ordinance, 2000) and guaranteed for all juvenile offenders under international law. ATCs continue sentencing juvenile offenders to death despite the existence of credible evidence in favour of their juvenility. This was evidenced in the case of Muhammad Iqbal, who was sentenced to death by an ATC in Gujranwala on 5 July, 1999 under the provisions of the ATA. His death sentence was upheld by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court on 20 March, 2002 and a subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 11 September, 2002, despite his birth certificate confirming that he had been a juvenile at the time of committing the offence. This had been confirmed by the results of an ossification test, upheld by the trial court. Following the 2001 Notification, the Government of Punjab issued a letter to the Registrar of the Lahore High Court setting out the eligibility criterion for the special remission for juveniles under the Notification on 18 August, 200311. Stating that all juvenile offenders were automatically entitled to remission if their death sentences were confirmed by the High Court before 17 December, 2001, the letter included a list of juveniles whose claims the Home Department was directed to forward to “the concerned District and Sessions Judge/Juvenile Court through the concerned Superintendent Jail.” Despite the existence of the Notification and the letter by the Government of Punjab, juveniles sentenced prior to the enactment of the JJSO continue to be denied its protections12. Requests by prisoners and/or family members for an inquiry regarding their juvenility under the Presidential Notification, including those identified by the provincial government, continue to be denied by the provincial Home Departments and the Courts. 10 See, for example, Dawn, SC warns against use of Anti-Terrorism Act over ‘non-terrorist actions’, 15 August 2017, Accessed at: https://www.dawn.com/news/1351635 11 Government of the Punjab, Home Department, Grant of Special Remission Under Article 45 of the Constitution to Condemned Prisoners, (Aug 19,2003) 12 See Death Row’s Children, 19. TRIAL AND TERROR 03