8 From investigations conducted by JPP and Reprieve is it clear that Shafqat’s case is far from unique. When his and the other case studies in this report are taken in conjunction with the sheer number of death penalty cases tried in the antiterrorism courts (see pages 12-15 below) they suggest a systemic and potentially fatal overuse of the ATA. CONCERN NO. 3: EXPLICIT SUSPENSION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN ANTITERRORISM TRIALS One of the purposes of the ATA was to introduce and govern special anti-terrorism courts for use in terrorism trials. These courts were intended to promote speedy justice and enforce law and order by ensuring that terrorism suspects were tried swiftly and efficiently. In order to achieve this, however, the anti-terrorism courts explicitly impose multiple curtailments on a defendant’s right to a fair trial, many of which represent a major departure from standard judicial procedure. They include, amongst others: 5 Police do not require a warrant in order to conduct arrests or searches Police risk punishment for failing to conclude an investigation within seven working days Judges likewise face pressure to conclude trials within seven working days Regular safeguards against the use of evidence obtained by torture are discarded Trials may be held without the defendant being present There are severe restrictions on the possibility of a defendant being granted bail The victim’s right to Qisas and Diyat under Sharia law is suspended