Why terrorists get acquitted – by Chaudhry Fawad Hussain
Published in The News:
Hundreds of people arrested on terrorism charges during the army operations in Swat and other areas remain in custody without being produced in court. This is in violation of Article 10 of the Constitution relating to safeguards against wrongful arrest and detention. The 18th Amendment added Article 10-A to the Constitution, which recognises “the right to fair trial” as a fundamental right of every citizen. At the same time, the authorities’ failure to produce arrested persons before magistrates within 24 hours of the arrest is in violation of Sections 61, 167 and 344 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
But there are problems related to trials under the Anti-Terrorism Law.
Trials of persons accused of terrorist activities are governed by the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (ATA), and the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). Section 13 of the ATA establishes anti-terrorist courts and Section 14 provides for the qualification of persons who can be appointed presiding officers in these courts. An anti-terrorism court (ATC) has the exclusive jurisdiction to try an offence mentioned in the schedule of the ATA. Under Section 19 (7) of the ATA, after taking cognisance of the case, an ATC must proceed with the trial on a day-to-day basis and is bound to decide the case within seven days. However, trials linger on for months and years without verdict.
The main obstacles in the workings of the ATCs is created by past judgments by the Supreme Court. Through these judgments, the Supreme Court changed the nature of the ATCs from anti-terrorism courts to courts for trials of heinous offences. Cases ranging from child molestation to murder were transferred to ATCs. Anti-terrorism courts are now being used as replacement for regular courts and thus their role overlaps with that of the regular judicial system. This has effectively made ATCs dysfunctional.
In my view, the first measure required is to stop using the ATC mechanism as a parallel judicial system to override and replace the regular courts. ATCs must adhere to the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act in letter and spirit and trials in terrorism cases must proceed daily without undue adjournments.
The conviction ratio by ATCs in important cases of terrorism is really low. In the majority of cases, many under-trial prisoners who could otherwise be convicted of terrorism go scot-free due to lack of evidence. Individuals involved in cases such as those related to attempts on the lives of Gen Pervez Musharraf and Shaukat Aziz to the Marriot Hotel attack and the Aabpara bomb blast were acquitted because of lack of direct evidence, on which the courts rightly insist. Lack of direct evidence is usually the result of fearful witnesses refusing to come forward to testify. The ATA Section 21 prescribes a comprehensive procedure for the protection of judges, counsels, public prosecutors and other persons concerned with the court proceedings. However, protection is either not provided, or is inadequate and ineffective.
In the absence of direct evidence the prosecution is then forced to rely on circumstantial evidence. The quality of such evidence is extremely low, with investigators not even trained to collect indirect evidence. This is one reason for many undeserved acquittals.
Under ordinary criminal law, the primary agency responsible for investigation is the local police. Section 19 of the ATA prescribes joint investigation teams consisting of a police officer not below the rank of inspector. Alternatively, the services of an officer of an investigating agency may be enlisted, including one belonging to an intelligence agency, whom the federal or provincial government may nominate. However, my interviews with prosecutors and interrogators show that joint investigation teams are constituted only on occasions, and that it is only the police that file the final investigation report in terrorism cases. In most cases, a joint investigation team is constituted not legally under the ATA but unofficially, or under the directive of some high-profile official. A joint investigation team thus constituted is not recognised under the ATA. Intelligence agencies such as the ISI, Military Intelligence and the Intelligence Bureau carry out investigations on their own and never share information with the police, which lacks resources, authority and training.
This creates a huge vacuum between investigation and prosecution because the prosecution then ceases to have the assistance of actual investigation. This vacuum enormously affects a trial. Police investigators lack scientific skills and resources and modern technology for collection of evidence. The result is that presiding officers, already working under great pressure and fearing for their lives, take the safe option of releasing the accused.
I suggest the following steps:
• The anti-terrorism courts should try cases specifically related to terrorism.
• The Anti-Terrorism Act should be fully adhered to, with daily trials so that the prescribed one-week deadline can be met.
• Joint investigation teams should consist of investigators who probe the incident regardless of whether or not they are affiliated with a given agency.
• Quality training of investigators and introduction of modern technology in the investigation process.
• Provision of effective and credible protection to individuals connected with the cases’ proceedings.
• Presiding officers and prosecutors should be hired on merit and receive continuous training.
While the accused should receive fair trials, actual offenders must receive the punishments they deserve.
The writer is a Lahore-based lawyer and columnist. Email: fawadch@hotmail.com
The trails of captured terrorists are highly important as the masses need to see justice being dispensed. While it is important that everyone gets a free trail it is also pertinent the culprits are brought to justice. The delay in the process of justice makes the public lose their faith in judicial system and it encourages mob violence and will lead further chaos in the country. We must give some closure to those families who have lost their loved ones
I hope you have a good day! usawii.com
Must work on the judiciary ..and the executive office that treat people like goats ..
sabhi deshon (nations) ko bavakoofon ki zaroorat hai………., nahi to ladega kaun.? agar bevkoof zyada nahi honge to itane hindu itane musalman ,isai – catholic aur bhi dharmon ke log kaise milenge?……..
system to ye hai ab ki “thode” se log, sabko yaani “zyada” logon ko janvaron ki tarah haankege
hamara sara SYSTEM INSANIYAT KE KHILAF HAI. YAH hame khilne hi nahi deta.
Why Can’t We Keep Terrorists In Jail?
September 4th, 2011
by Mahmood Adeel
A new report in a British newspaper terms Pakistan ‘incapable’ of prosecuting terrorists. The report makes this claim based on a new US State Department report, so it is sure to be dismissed as evidence of American anti-Pakistan propaganda. But we should take this claim seriously, not because the Americans are saying it, but because of who else is.
I wrote last year about our topsy-turvy justice system in which terrorists have more rights than honest citizens. I wrote this piece after a report in Daily Times found that 75 per cent of anti-terrorism cases were acquitted.
Whenever there’s an acquittal, like the revolving door that Hafiz Saeed uses to get in and out of jail, militant sympathisers say, ‘if there was evidence, they would have convicted so he must be innocent’. In a properly functioning judiciary, this would be true. But anyone who believes that Pakistan has a properly functioning judiciary probably lives in UK or Dubai and has never actually had to deal with Pakistani courts.
Just to play the ‘devils advocate’, let’s assume they are right. The fact that there are 75 per cent acquittals means that one of two institutions is failing badly – either the courts or the police. If the courts are properly functioning and all these innocents are being brought up on terrorism charges with no evidence, why are the police arresting the wrong people? And what can we do to improve the police competencies so that they start arresting the right ones?
But let’s also consider the possibility that the police are arresting the right people, and that revolving doors for terrorists are built into the courts. I suggest that we consider this not because the US State Department says it’s a problem, but because China does. As I noted before, Chinese media reports that militants are getting acquittals by threatening witnesses, the police and courts themselves.
Militants groups in Pakistan are being proven so strong that they manage the acquittal of their colleagues from cases and proceedings against them in courts by threatening the families of judges, witnesses and police officers, local media reported on Tuesday.
and
“This is a common practice in Pakistan, not only Taliban even small criminal groups use these tricks to get their friends free from the courts, when there is no proof or witness, the court will have to free them,” said Khalid Mahmood, a former police office in Punjab Province.
“Now in some cases, judges’ names are kept secret and they hear the case proceeding in jail with covered faces to avoid any recognition by the accused,” Khalid told Xinhua.
Xinhua is China’s official state media which represents the official line of the Chinese government.
I said last year that for honest citizens who only want to get some small amount of justice in their lives, the wait can be forever. For militants, though, it is always a speedy trial and ‘get out of jail free’. What kind of a topsy-turvy legal system is it that gives more rights to terrorists than to honest citizens?
It’s time to stop the revolving doors that spin terrorists in and out of the courts. Not because America says so or China says so, but because our inability or unwillingness to prosecute terrorists results in the deaths of innocent people. Seal the revolving door. No more excuses.
http://new-pakistan.com/2011/09/04/why-cant-we-keep-terrorists-in-jail/
Why every Terrorist get acquitted in Punjab (6 posts)
Ghundagard
Almost all terrorists arrested so far has been acquitted in Punjab. Even those about whom TV stations ran live programs for hours and there is plenty of evidence and witnesses.
Chief Justice Lahore High Court claims that police investigation is poor and evidence insufficient. As a matter of fact he himself is pro-extremism and very sympathetic to terrorists.
If believed that police is not doing sufficent to get terrorists punished as CJ blames to prosecution then Rana Maqbool, a proclaimed offender and person having closed links with extremists can be blamed as he heads the prosecution branch in Punjab Police.
Police claims that Judges are sympathetic towards terrorists and some time they acquit them under threat as well, if believed then what Punjab government is doing to provide protection to judges.
Chief Minister Punjab claims there are no militants in Punjab, if so, then who threatens judges and who judges favour because of close links.
What can be real cause? Judges, Prosecution or Punjab Government?
POSTED 1 YEAR AGO #
Anonymous
Great point. Although I agree that the judges seem sympathetic towards terrorists, I have to admit that there is a general difficulty in dealing with terrorism through civilian criminal proceedings. In the US, special laws have been passed to make it easier to collect admissible evidence against terrorists. Even then, foreign terrorists may be subjected to military tribunals rather than civilian courts, such as the Guantonamo Bay detainees, or transported to other countries with looser protections.
I guess it comes down to which side you want to err on. I think having a separate set of standards for terrorists is fine as long as strict oversight is maintained to ensure that the standards are applied only to terrorists and not to others. Unfortunately that’s difficult to do. In the US, new laws that were supposed to be used to prosecute people using weapons of mass destruction are being massively abused. For instance, I’ve read about people being charged with possession of a WMD — for having a sawed-off shotgun, since it was modified to do more damage than a normal shotgun. Utterly ridiculous.
POSTED 1 YEAR AGO #
Laila Ebadi
ghundagard did you see these two articles about the federal governments appeal against the marriott bombing case acquittal. It raises a lot of questions about the ATC of justice malik muhammad akram awan:
http://criticalppp.com/forum/topic.php?id=66
POSTED 1 YEAR AGO #
Ghundagard
Whatever Laws, these courts and prosecution cannot convict the simple Ghunda of our class. If some judge/police office doesn’t want to take money, then pay same money to high ups and buy pressure. Even if that doesn’t work, then threat always work.
But that is not an issue here while we have broken institutions.
Question is are these broken institutions being allowed to function in their already deteriorated capacity.
Police prosecution even want to do their best, still head of prosecution Rana Maqbool has close ties with extremists. The Law minister from same family of Rana Maqbool, Chief prosecutor wouldn’t let police do the job. Every second Lawyer has his picture with Chief Justice, and top judges are openly pro-militants.
And still there is a good case, then few threats to judge work!
Why should judge of ATC take risk while he knows that Khawja Sharif will free them. In this situation, as per my criminal experience, unless federal government, judiciary and provincial governments are on board, a top class Ghunda like me can not be convicted.
Agree? And if so, Bhai ke han mein han milao, agar jan piyare hey tu !
POSTED 1 YEAR AGO #
Ahmed Iqbalabadi
It is all but ironic that “encounters” are the best option due to the inability of the courts to punish the terrorists. Apologies for my extreme idea.
POSTED 1 YEAR AGO #
Secular-Pakistan
Ahmed,
It’s really sad to note that no steps are being taken to amend PPC in order to deny bail or acquittal of terrorists associated with TTP/SSP/LeJ !!!
http://criticalppp.com/forum/topic.php?id=69
Acquittal of Marriott attack accused challenged (3 posts)
Laila Ebadi
from Dawn
RAWALPINDI: The federal government filed an appeal on Monday in the Lahore High Court against the acquittal of four men in the Marriot hotel suicide attack case. The federal government has requested the court to direct the trial court to decide the case only after hearing arguments of the prosecution.
ATC-I Judge Malik Muhammad Akram Awan, in his May 5 verdict, had acquitted Dr Mohammad Usman, Rana Ilyas, Tehseenullah Jan and Mohammad Hameed Afzal, citing lack of evidence and witnesses against the accused.
Challenging the judgment of the ATC-I under section 265-K of criminal procedure code, the government maintained in the appeal that the case was decided without going through full material available against the accused.
The government said the trial court had decided the case in haste in the absence of the prosecutor as he had been pursuing cases in other anti-terrorism courts. A request of the investigation officer, DSP Altaf Aziz Khattak, for an adjournment was not accepted by the ATC judge, according to the government.
Underlining legal shortcomings in the verdict of the ATC, the government said that the judge, instead of accepting the submission of the investigation officer for an adjournment, treated as a deposition that he did not want to record his statement.
It said that the prosecution moved an application with the court about recording the statement of the investigation officer, but the application was turned down on April 28.
The government said that the prosecution cited 128 witnesses against the accused and 84 of them deposed before the court and before others got their statements recorded, the trial court acquitted the accused.
The appellant said that the court, while acquitting the accused, did not consider the gravity of the case and accepted the plea of the accused without hearing the prosecution.
The government prayed to the LHC to remand back the case to the ATC for retrial and direct the judge to decide the matter after allowing the prosecution to put up evidence, which, according to the petition, was enough for getting a guilty verdict.
POSTED 1 YEAR AGO #
Laila Ebadi
http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=249118
Challenging the May 5 decision of the anti-terrorist court (ATC) in the acquittal of four men in the case of suicide attack at Marriot Hotel, the federal government Monday filed an appeal before the Lahore High Court (LHC), Rawalpindi Bench, for retrial of the case.
The federal government in its appeal through federal ministry of law has prayed before the court to direct the ATC to decide the matter after hearing the prosecution. The appeal has been filed against the acquittal of Dr. Muhammad Usman, Rana Ilyas, Tehseenullah Jan and Muhammad Hameed Afzal while the deputy attorney general (DAG) will pursue the matter before the LHC. The federal ministry has maintained that the case was not so simple to be decided without taking into consideration the full material available against the arrested accused. The ministry further stated that the ATC judge instead of accepting the submission of the investigation officer for adjournment converted it into his deposition that he did not want to record his statement.
On April 28, 2010 the court also turned down another application of the investigation officer who wanted to submit his statement, the petitioner told the court.
The government in its appeal has said that the trial court decided the case in haste in the absence of the relevant prosecutor who was busy in the other anti-terrorist court. The appellant said the court while acquitting the accused did not considered the gravity of the case and accepted the plea of the accused without hearing the prosecution. The government prayed to the LHC to remand back the case to the ATC for retrial and direct the judge to decided the matter after allowing the prosecution to put up the available evidence.
The ATC-I Judge Malik Muhammad Akram Awan in his verdict had cited lack of evidence and witnesses against the arrested accused as the cause of acquittal. It may also be mentioned here that the relatives of the four men had also moved the high court alleging the jail administration and the federal government for not handing over the men to them and intelligence agencies took them away from the jail.
POSTED 1 YEAR AGO #
rafi
Prosecutor must do proper due diligence with concrete evidence to convict them. Sometimes Judges know that the accused is guilty but if they do not see proper proof to prove their guilt then they have to let them loose. It is the responsibility of prosecution to built strong case.
There is a second option and it was used in Karachi operation during 1990’s. It was extra judicial in nature.
http://criticalppp.com/forum/topic.php?id=66
Faisal Raza Abidi exposing once again pro taliban courts and politicians (2 posts)
truthseeker
http://www.zemtv.com/2011/06/04/eight-terrorists-planned-to-attack-zardari-arrested/
8 terrorists made a plan to kill president Zardari but arrested, abidi exposing collaboration between terrorists and courts
POSTED 8 MONTHS AGO #
javedsheikh
It is really a serious concern where most of murderers and criminals are acquitted by the Courts in Pakistan.
Even persons caught red handed, are not executed.
I guess Judges, in Pakistan are not courageous enough and are much scared of the consequences to impart justice.
They are loyal to their life, service and salary.
http://criticalppp.com/forum/topic.php?id=1439
70 suspects in Gojra incident acquitted (1 post)
Hasan
A special Anti-Terrorism Court in Faisalabad acquitted all 70 suspects nominated responsible for the tragedy in Gojra on Tuesday.
http://tribune.com.pk/story/184048/70-suspects-in-gojra-incident-acquitted/
Accused released on bail: Gojra carnage case deferred for a year
By Shamsul Islam
Published: June 8, 2011
Decision taken due to absence of five witnesses who were not in the country.
FAISALABAD:
A special Anti-Terrorism Court in Faisalabad on Tuesday deferred criminal proceedings on the Gojra carnage for a year. It also released on bail the remaining suspects nominated responsible for the tragedy for want of evidence and continuous absence of complainants and eyewitnesses.
On July 31 2009, a Christian Colony was set ablaze by a mob, resulting in the death of eight Christians. Sixty houses were also set on fire. So far, none of the accused have been convicted.
The order was announced by Justice Chaudhry Muneer Ahmed of Anti Terrorism Court-II Faisalabad. According to court prosecutors, two applications were moved before the court, each from the accused and prosecutors, suggesting the issuance of a stay order on the case.
During the inquiry, 185 witnesses submitted written statements but five witnesses had already left the country.
Two cases had been registered in the aftermath of the Gojra incident.
In the first case, 70 people were nominated by the complainant of which 68 had been granted bail before arrest by the court. The remaining two – Atif alias Neeru and Ghulam Abbas – were detained.
Atif and Abbas’ lawyers pleaded for cancellation of the case on grounds of complainants’ failure to pursue the case on Tuesday.
The lawyers filed an application, claiming that the complainant and eyewitnesses are now settled abroad and not appearing in the case.
The court ordered to close the case for one year and ordered the release of Abbas and Atif on surety bonds worth Rs100,000 each.
The court observed that “prosecution has filed an application stating that the government is making efforts to bring back the complainant, the three injured and the witness, assuring their protection … it is expected that the attendance of the said witness will be procured within two to three months.”
The accused and the prosecution filed similar pleas in the second case.
The court, asking the prosecution to ‘make strenuous efforts to bring the witnesses to court … within one year,’ ordered the release on bail of the three accused.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 8th, 2011.
……….
Mukhtaran Mai case: 5 of 6 accused acquitted (43 posts)
12Next »
lota6177
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan (SC) on Thursday upheld an earlier judgment of the Lahore High Court (LHC) and acquitted five out of the six accused in the Mukhtaran Mai rape case.
The apex court ordered the immediate release of the five accused, unless other cases were registered against them.
The sentence of one of the accused, Abdul Khaliq, has been upheld. Khaliq is serving a life sentence.
Mukhtaran Mai expressed her disappointed with court’s verdict, stating that she no longer trusted Pakistan’s judicial system.
In 2002, Mukhtar Mai, a woman from a remote district of Southern Punjab Muzaffargarh, was allegedly gang-raped by order of her tribal council as punishment for her younger brother’s alleged relationship with a woman from a powerful clan.
The Anti-Terrorism Court in Dera Ghazi Khan had heard the case and sentenced the perpetrators to death.
An appeal was later filed in the LHC, which stated that five of the six accused are innocent. Mukhtaran had then filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.
NGOs have protested the decision, saying the verdict proves that no woman is safe in Pakistan. Human rights activist Farzana Bari said the judicial process regarding rape is flawed.
.
http://tribune.com.pk/story/153641/mukhtaran-mai-case-5-of-6-accused-acquitted/
The judicary of Pakistan is a disgrace. Salute to azad adliya.
POSTED 9 MONTHS AGO #
Secular-Pakistan
Another great judgement by ‘Azad’ Adaliya !
POSTED 9 MONTHS AGO #
Zalaan
سپریم کورٹ شاید سمجھتی ہو کہ مختارا مائی کے تعلق حکومت سے ہے ، سپریم کورٹ نے کہا ہے کہ جب تک جیو سپر نہیں کھلتا ایک بھی فیصلہ حکومت کے حق میں نہیں ہوگا .کر لو جو کرنا ہے
POSTED 9 MONTHS AGO #
Zalaan
POSTED 9 MONTHS AGO #
Zalaan
POSTED 9 MONTHS AGO #
Secular-Pakistan
Received via email ……
“””The National Commission on the Status of Women (NCSW) and members of Insani Huqooq Ittehad, including PODA, Mehergargh, Aurat Foundation, Rozan, Sungi, Bedari, Ethno Media, Pattan and SPO convened an emergency meeting to express deep shock and disappointment at the verdict given by the superior court in the Mukhtara Mai gang rape case today. Although the judgment did prove that Mukhtara was raped because one accused did get life imprisonment, while others were acquitted. We are surprised to see why only one accused was punished and others were acquitted on a charge of ‘gang rape’.
The Commission and members of civil society felt that this was the reflection of a biased and inefficient criminal justice system. This case has been a classic example of how the facts were distorted and documentation of the evidence was tampered with at all levels.
The group expressed concern at the long delays to dispense justice. The victim was raped in 2002 on the instructions of the local Panchayat. In 2005 the chief justice of the superior court took suo moto notice of the case. Despite the intervention it took more than nine years to come up with this decision, which is a source of concern for the women of Pakistan. It is feared that this decision might further strengthen the anti women parallel legal and judicial systems and mechanisms in the country. We feel that the criminal justice system too is not pro women and is patriarchal in nature. Impunity is the order of the day.
In cases of complaints women victims are burdened to provide series of evidences which is not possible for them. It is the responsibility of the police to do the investigation and come up with the requisite evidence. Currently, methods of recording evidence by police are biased against women; and that is one reason that they do not get justice from the courts.
There is also a need to look at the women’s representation in all those systems and mechanism dealing with matters of crimes and justice. Women’s lack of proportionate representation in lower and upper judiciary is paving the way for verdicts against women victims. There is dire need to start a rational discourse on the lack of women’s representation within the courts.
Today’s judgment has shaken the confidence and sense of security of women of Pakistan to stand up for their rights. It reflects a faulty investigation of the police and the loop holes that are left intentionally to side with the power brokers. The outcome of Mukhtara case discourages survivors of rape and gang rape to report. However, we are proud of Mukhtara Mai, who stood bravely against all intimidation and harassment and has refused to buckle under life threats. She has given a message of courage and hope to all women victims of our country. We consider her a role model for women of Pakistan.
At the end we also condemn the insensitive and pathetic attitude of some sections of media, who were grinning at the verdict and clapped after they recorded the responses on the judgment. The owners and editors of these media houses are urged to inculcate responsible and sensitive attitude in the practices of such chauvinistic reporters. “””
POSTED 9 MONTHS AGO #
Zalaan
کہاں ہیں یہ مفتی ،عالم ،جماعتی،منور حسن ،رفی عثمانی،انصار عباسی یا اس جیسے مذہبی ٹھیکیدار جو عافیہ صدیقی کو تو قوم کی بیٹی کہتے تھے اور مختارا مائی کے لیہ ان پانچ سالوں میں ان کے منہ سے ایک لفظ بھی نہ نکلا ، فرق یہ ہے کہ مختارا مائی نکا تعلق القاعدہ یا اس جیسے کسی دہشتگرد گروپ سے نہیں تھا اور اس پر ظلم کرنے والے غیر مسلم یا امریکی نہیں تھے اس لیہ مختارا مائی کے لیہ کچھ کہ کر ان کی مذہبی دکان نہیں چمک سکتی ہے
POSTED 9 MONTHS AGO #
pejamistri
Mukhtara Mai should be happy that the supreme court was better than punchayat in her village !!
POSTED 9 MONTHS AGO #
Mulla Nafz e Zakkiya
insaaf kon karay ga ?
Mulla!
POSTED 9 MONTHS AGO #
zia m
I am very much upset with this decision but it is not fair to blame the judges.
The problem is at a much lower level, the police dept responsible for registering the case.The FIR can make or break the case.
We need honest cops more than the honest judges.
POSTED 9 MONTHS AGO #
lota6177
A women was gang raped. She is telling the names of all involved in the deed. What more is needed? Can one person do a gang rape? These judges are a disgrace.
This woman has been gang raped again by these judges in the name of justice.
POSTED 9 MONTHS AGO #
rafi
Big Disappointment
POSTED 9 MONTHS AGO #
pejamistri
@zia m
There is no problem at all at lower level , as a matter of fact the lower level judge (Anti Terrorist Court) has given the verdict against six culprits, the problem lies at very high level. Today’s supreme court is fully responsible for all the judgements, even if there was any question of faulty evidence and improper investigation , the supreme court judges would have fired and in fact instituted a case against the investigation officers for incompetence. This case was taken as suo moto by the CJ in 2005, the supreme court kept the case lingering for over 6 years and then they arrived at the same judgment that LHC had given.
Personally I am absolutely gutted by this judgment , I consider “Justice” Saqib Nisar and “Justice” Nasir-ul-mulk as the real rapist of Mukhtara Mai.
I am no sure I can control my anger against these two judges but honestly such judges are even worse than the “Punchayat” of Mukhtaran Mai’s village.
POSTED 9 MONTHS AGO #
zia m
Did the police collect DNA evidence from the crime scene?
If not, why not?
Otherwise it is your word against my word kind of situation.
http://criticalppp.com/forum/topic.php?id=1048
Seven terror suspects released (1 post)
zia m
RAWALPINDI, June 30: Seven suspected terrorists charged with possessing explosive, attacking the Danish embassy and abetting the killing of Army Surgeon General Mushtaq Baig were released from Adiala Central Jail on Thursday night, official sources said.
The suspects had been acquitted by the trial court on May 29 due to lack of evidence but on the directive of the deputy commissioner Islamabad, the capital police detained them. However, they challenged their detention in the Islamabad High Court which set aside the detention orders on Tuesday
http://www.dawn.com/2011/07/01/seven-terror-suspects-released.html
http://criticalppp.com/forum/topic.php?id=1629
…….
Seven terror suspects releasedFrom the Newspaper | Metropolitan > Islamabad | By Our Staff Reporter July 1, 2011
RAWALPINDI, June 30: Seven suspected terrorists charged with possessing explosive, attacking the Danish embassy and abetting the killing of Army Surgeon General Mushtaq Baig were released from Adiala Central Jail on Thursday night, official sources said.
The suspects had been acquitted by the trial court on May 29 due to lack of evidence but on the directive of the deputy commissioner Islamabad, the capital police detained them. However, they challenged their detention in the Islamabad High Court which set aside the detention orders on Tuesday.
I’ll immediately snatch your rss feed as I can’t to find
your email subscription link or e-newsletter service.
Do you’ve any? Kindly permit me recognize in order that I could subscribe.
Thanks.
Check out my webpage; Astuce kamas Dofus