Each subsequent amendment to the ATA, between 1998 and 2002, broadened its scope, increasing the offences that could be tried under it. For example, in 2000 during the regime of General Musharraf, the offence of hijacking was included in the ATA, and the Act was prominently used to try the case of “hijacking” against former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. This case exemplified the contrast the ATCs provided to the regular legal system by convicting Nawaz Sharif of the offence on evidence that was tenuous at best and would not have been so easily proven, and resulted in such a speedy conviction in a regular court26. Following the 9/11 attacks, General Musharraf’s government was put under international scrutiny and pressure to respond to the menace of terrorism in the country. Pursuant to a UN Security Council resolution, which “obligated all states to amend their anti-terrorism legal regimes to include measures prohibiting and punishing financing to terrorists,” the ATA was amended again27. The ATA was later amended in 2004, 2005, 2010 and twice in 2013, the last three under the new democratically elected government. In 2004, two new sub-sections were included in the ATA, which gave “right of the appeal” to “the victims or the legal heirs of the victim” against the judgment of the ATC, to be filed in the High Court within thirty days of the ATC decision28. In 2005, there were “further modifications” in the ATA 1997- the word ‘14-years’ was replaced by ‘imprisonment for life’ as far as the maximum jail term for the convicted militants was concerned29. ‘Special Benches’ of High Courts were also established, to hear the appeals of the victims or heirs of the victim30. Terrorism-related cases could also be “transferred from one province to another.”31 ATCs could now try offences related to the “abduction or kidnapping for ransom” as well as “use of fire-arms or explosives by any device, including bomb blast, in a place of worship or court premises.”32 In 2009, the government promulgated the Anti-Terrorism Amendment Ordinance (2009) which contained new provisions for new terrorism-related offences to facilitate placing charges against the hundreds of suspected militants in detention33. The Ordinance also extended the detention period from 30 days to 90 days while the onus of proof was shifted to the suspect34. Moreover, it made “extra-judicial confessions” recorded by security personnel admissible as evidence in ATCs.35 26 Id at 14 27 Kamran Adil, “Amendments to Anti-Terrorism Law of Pakistan: An Overview”, Pakistan Journal of Criminology; Peshawar5.2  (Jul-Dec 2013): 140 28 Naeem Ahmed, “Combating Terrorism: Pakistan’s Anti-Terrorism Legislation in the Post-9/11 Scenario”, JRSP, Vol. 52, No. 2, July-December, 2015: 121 29 Naeem Ahmed, “Combating Terrorism: Pakistan’s Anti-Terrorism Legislation in the Post-9/11 Scenario”, JRSP, Vol. 52, No. 2, July-December, 2015: 122 30 Ibid 31 Ibid Ibid 32 33 Sitwat Waqar Bokhari, “Pakistan’s Challenges in Anti-Terror Legislation”, Centre for Research & Security Studies: 15 34 Ibid 35 Ibid