International standards clarify that laws related to terrorism must be clearly and precisely formulated.
Some aspects of the judicial accountability framework appear inconsistent with international standards.
Under international standards, pretrial detention should be the exception.
Courts in Pakistan have warned that “speedy trial should never be at the cost of the procedure”.
Extending the military courts’ jurisdiction will not help counter the very real terrorist threat.
Speedy justice has come at the cost of a fair trial.
The Indian Supreme Court verdict on Section 377 has implications far beyond LGBT rights
A law is needed to criminalise disappearances.
Article 184(3) is a powerful mechanism to be used judiciously.
Human rights have not improved.
Will Pakistan retain its GSP Plus status?
UN experts have called enforced disappearance “a tool for repression” and a “technique of terror”.
The NCHR’s work has been subjected to a number of constraints.
Pakistan’s election to the Human Rights Council in itself is no victory for human rights in the country.
No perpetrators of enforced disappearances have ever been brought to account.
Courts have failed to interpret the Anti-Terrorism Act in a consistent manner.
The judiciary has sometimes appeared dismissive of international human rights treaties.
The renewal of ‘military justice’ is in some ways even more alarming than when it was introduced in 2015.
The claim that these courts have helped reduce the threat of terrorism is weak.
People continue to go missing.