Pakistan SC Investigates Military Court Convictions Following International Backlash

The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan raised concerns about the evidentiary processes in convictions and requested detailed records from military courts. The seven-member constitutional bench reviewed appeals against civilian trials under the Army Act. The court scrutinized how evidence was handled in these cases, questioning whether the accused were allowed to call witnesses and if the standards of evidence adhered to legal norms. The transparency of military courts was also called into question, with the court noting it had previously been denied access to military trial records.

This development followed international criticism of Pakistan’s trial processes. Reports indicated that military courts sentenced several individuals to prison terms ranging from two to 10 years for involvement in protests after the arrest of former Prime Minister Imran Khan in May of the previous year. Many international organizations condemned these convictions, including the European Union, which expressed concern over the sentencing of 25 civilians by a military court on December 21. The European External Action Service (EEAS) in Brussels stated, “The European Union notes with concern the sentencing of 25 civilians by a military court on December 21 in Pakistan.” They emphasized that the verdicts appeared inconsistent with Pakistan‘s commitments under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Following the EU’s statement, the US Department of State also expressed its concerns over the military tribunal sentencing civilians and urged Pakistani authorities to respect the right to a fair trial and due process. Additionally, the UK criticized the lack of independent oversight and transparency in such trials. A spokesperson from the Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office stated that, while respecting Pakistan’s sovereignty over its legal processes, the practice of trying civilians in military courts lacked transparency, independent scrutiny, and compromised the right to a fair trial.