Military Court
The Foreign Office (FO) of Pakistan has defended recent verdicts issued by military courts, stating that these judgments were made under a law enacted by parliament and in accordance with the ruling of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
The FO’s remarks came in response to concerns raised domestically and internationally about the military courts’ role in sentencing civilians.
In a statement on Tuesday, FO spokesperson Mumtaz Zahra Baloch emphasized Pakistan’s commitment to upholding international human rights obligations.
“Pakistan’s legal system is consistent with international human rights law, including the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),” she said, adding that the system provides remedies through judicial review by superior courts and ensures the promotion and protection of fundamental freedoms.
Baloch reiterated Pakistan’s dedication to principles of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. She affirmed that the country remains committed to fulfilling its obligations under the Generalized Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+) and core international human rights conventions.
The FO also underlined its intent to engage constructively with international partners, including the European Union, to uphold human rights without discrimination or double standards.
The statements came after a military court sentenced 25 individuals for their involvement in attacks on state installations during the violent protests on May 9, 2023.
The protests erupted following the arrest of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan in a graft case. The military trials have been a source of significant controversy, with over 100 civilians reportedly facing such proceedings.
PTI has denied responsibility for attacks on military installations, including the General Headquarters (GHQ), and has called for a judicial inquiry into the events.
International criticism followed the sentencing, with the United States, United Kingdom, and European Union raising concerns about military trials of civilians.
The U.S. Department of State expressed “deep concern” over the lack of judicial independence, transparency, and due process in military tribunals. Spokesperson Matthew Miller urged Pakistan to ensure fair trials, as guaranteed by its constitution.
The UK echoed similar sentiments, emphasizing the need for adherence to ICCPR obligations. “Military courts lack transparency, independent scrutiny, and undermine the right to a fair trial,” a UK Foreign Office spokesperson stated. However, the UK also acknowledged Pakistan’s sovereignty over its legal proceedings.
The EU, as the first to react, highlighted potential inconsistencies between the military court verdicts and Pakistan’s commitments under the ICCPR.
The European External Action Service underscored that Article 14 of the ICCPR guarantees a fair and public trial, conducted by an independent, impartial, and competent court. It also mandates the public announcement of judgments in criminal cases.
Under the EU’s GSP+ framework, Pakistan and other beneficiary countries are obligated to effectively implement 27 international conventions, including the ICCPR, to retain trade benefits.
The EU’s concerns about these trials could impact Pakistan’s standing within the scheme, as compliance with international human rights norms is a critical requirement.
I am a dynamic professional, specializing in Peace and Conflict Studies, Conflict Management and Resolution, and International Relations. My expertise is particularly focused on South Asian Conflicts and the intricacies of the Indian Ocean and Asia Pacific Politics. With my skills as a Content Writer, I serve as a bridge between academia and the public, translating complex global issues into accessible narratives. My passion for fostering understanding and cooperation on the national and international stage drives me to make meaningful contributions to peace and global discourse.
