139 ICCPR, art. 14. 140 RODLEY & POLLARD, supra note (summarizing Reid v. Jamaica, ¶¶ 11.3-11.5, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/39/D/250/1987 (1990)). 141 Id. (summarizing Little v. Jamaica, ¶¶ 8.4 & 3.2, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/43/D/283/1988 (1991)). 142 Smith v. Jamaica, ¶ 10.4, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/47/D/282/1988 (1994). 143 McLawrence v. Jamaica, ¶ 5.10, CCPR/C/60/D/702/1996 (“Where a capital sentence may be pronounced on the accused, sufficient time must be granted to the accused and his counsel to prepare the trial defence.”). 144 U.N. Econ. & Soc. Council Res. 1989/64 (May 24, 1989) (emphasis added). 145 Death Penalty Worldwide, Pakistan Death Penalty in Practice: Comments on Quality of Legal Representation, http://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/country-search-post.cfm?country=pakistan#f41-6. 146 PAKISTAN: A COUNTRY STUDY 310 (Peter R. Blood ed., 1996). 147 PAK. PENAL CODE, § 124-A. 148 PAK. PENAL CODE, § 121. 149 Jon Boone, Pakistan Executes Man Who Was 15 When Convicted of Murder, GUARDIAN, June 10, 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/10/pakistan-executes-aftab-bahadur-sentenced-to-death. 150 Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997 (XXVI of 1997) § 19(1). This provision resulted from a set of 2013 amendments specifically designed “to grant more leverage to the law-enforcement agencies while dealing terrorism related cases.” Ordinance Issued to Amend Anti-Terrorist Act, NATION (Oct. 11, 2013), http://nation.com.pk/islamabad/11-Oct-2013/ordinance-issued-toamend-anti-terrorist-act. 151 Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997 (XXVI of 1997) § 19(7). Specifically, the provision states: “The Court shall, on taking cognizance of a case, proceed with the trial from day-to-day and shall decide the case within seven days, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned for appropriate directions for expeditious disposal of the case to meet the ends of justice.” Id. 152 An estimated 17,000 cases were pending in July 2014. Asad Hashim, Pakistan Activists Upset By New Security Law, supra note . 153 International Crisis Group, Building Judicial Independence in Pakistan 27 (Nov. 2004), http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/asia/southasia/pakistan/086%20Building%20Judicial%20Independence%20in%20Pakistan.pdf. 154 ICCPR, art. 14(1). 155 Human Rights Comm., General Comment No. 32, supra note , ¶ 30. 156 U.N. Econ. & Soc. Council Res. 1984/50 (May 25, 1984). Rodley and Pollard suggest that this is a “gloss on Covenant article 14.” RODLEY & POLLARD, supra note , at 312. 157 Periodic Report of the Human Rights Comm.: Pakistan, ¶131, Oct. 2015, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/PAK/, https://documents-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G15/267/96/pdf/G1526796.pdf?OpenElement. 158 The State (through Advocate-General, Sindh, Karachi) v. Salman Hussain, PLD 1995 SC 1. 159 FIDH, Slow March, supra note , at 34. 160 In 1999, the Karachi High Court ruled that a defendant charged under the ATA bore the burden of proof: “When any person accused of having committed as scheduled offence is found to be in possession of, or to have under his control any article or thing which is capable of being used for, or in connection with the commission of such offence, or is apprehended in circumstances which lead to raise a reasonable suspicion that he had committed such offence, he shall be presumed to have committed the offence unless he can prove that he had not in fact committed the offence.” FIDH, Slow March, supra note , at 40 (quoting Khawaja Hasanullah v. The State, 1999 MLD 51). 161 Protection of Pakistan Act of 2014 (X of 2014), § 15. A “MOST SERIOUS CRIME”: PAKISTAN'S UNLAWFUL USE OF THE DEATH PENALTY 51