to apply basic constitutional laws on an international platform to protect their citizens. One of the most well-known cases is that of Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen detained in Guantanamo Bay for 10 years on suspicion of terrorist activity as a 15-year-old. The Canadian government did not demand his return, thus enabling his detainment and failing to uphold his constitutional rights under the Canadian Charter.10 Pakistan took a similar approach as other nations, and the reasons for this are two-fold. On a global political stage, the government wanted to demonstrate that it was cooperatively committed to the eradication of terrorism, without drawing attention to the emergence of militants from its frontier regions bordering Afghanistan – earlier known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) – who were crossing to join the post-9/11 Afghan jihad against US forces. The time period of abduction by US and Afghan forces, between 2003 and 2010, broadly coincides with internal military operations across FATA meant to combat Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan’s (TTP) takeover of the region, and to wipe out homegrown militancy and radicalization. Here, Pakistan wanted to be seen as a victim of terrorism that supported the United States while disavowing its own history of contributing to instability in Afghanistan through the support of militant groups (see page 12).11 JPP’s 2010 Bagram litigation, then, was aimed at safely returning detainees to their homes as well as raising national awareness of the Pakistani government’s abject lack of interest in protecting its citizens. While this was the primary site of the organization’s advocacy work, another was to bring attention to the human rights violations taking place in DFIP. The 2015 report, ‘Closing Bagram: The Other Guantanamo’, documents how Pakistani detainees were tried as Third Country Nationals (TCN) before a tribunal known as the Detainee Review Board (DRB). TCN was a special classification the US created to identify and denote non-Afghan citizens held on suspicion of terrorism, just as it also created the DRB run by American military officials to investigate and try detainees for their alleged crimes. The Bagram petition asked the high court to compel government officials to visit and identify the detainees in Bagram as a firsth step in fulfilling its obligation to provide its citizens with diplomatic and legal assistance.12 In conversation, Sarah Belal, JPP’s head and lead barrister, noted that the Pakistani government altogether avoided protecting its citizens under the country’s constitutional rights. In response to the petition, the deputy head of the Pakistan mission in Afghanistan wrote that, unfortunately, the detainees who were not suspected of terrorism were caught up in a “complicated US detention” policy.13 Over several years of litigation, Belal wrote numerous articles in national English language newspapers14 – part of a media strategy, including press conferences and documentaries – to raise awareness within the country about the ways in which the government allowed its citizens to fall prey to American impunity.  Sahi, Ahmed. “Finally getting it right on Omar Khadr,” The Star. Mar. 28, 2019. https://www.thestar.com/opinion/ contributors/2019/03/28/finally-getting-it-right-on-omar-khadr.html. 11  Hussain, Zahid. Frontline Pakistan: The Struggle With Militant Islam. New Delhi. Penguin Group. 2007. 12  JPP. “Bagram Petition.” 2010. 13  Khan, Mansoor, Ahmed, Deputy Head of Mission. “Fax Message.” Jun. 5, 2011. 14  Belal, Sarah. “Forgotten Pakistanis at Bagram,” The Express Tribune. Jun. 29, 2012. https://tribune.com.pk/story/401184/ forgotten-pakistanis-at-bagram/ 10 6