Terrorism Convictions

[seekers]

Its elitest system
what is law if there is no Justice?????

Hazrat Ali (AS) Said

Zulm or un justice is that things are not where they are ment to be

when a Public servent becomes Public master

then where is Justice

Their is nothing is on where it should be, just saying about Public servant is the one end of injustice.

 

[Bill Longley]

Their is nothing is on where it should be, just saying about Public servant is the one end of injustice.

yes in our society no one is in his place

from President to Begger no one is in his place


we all are insecure and as excuse of our criminal acts we say ISLAM is in Secure, system is Insecure or Pakistan is insecure and because of that not on place where we should be

I think ISLAM, Pakistan was and will never be Insecure its us who are feeling insecurity

 

[seekers]

yes in our society no one is in his place

from President to Begger no one is in his place


we all are insecure and as excuse of our criminal acts we say ISLAM is in Secure, system is Insecure or Pakistan is insecure and because of that not on place where we should be

I think ISLAM, Pakistan was and will never be Insecure its us who are feeling insecurity

Certainly CJ. learn the security measures and keep whole nation insecure by freeing the terrorist and secure their own political agenda move on every street of country.
He is also insisting to keep power of judges selection to keep freely releasing the terrorist.

 

[seekers]

Bravo Pakistani keep silent over Holy cow of justice and keep paying !

 

[GUNNER]

Prosecutor, IG called by court after Manawan acquittal

By Ahmad Fraz Khan

Sunday, 20 Jun, 2010

LAHORE: An anti-terror court on Saturday acquitted Hijratullah, an accused in the Manawan attack case, after giving him the benefit of doubt as the prosecution failed to prove charges against him.

Seven recruits and a civilian were killed and 93 injured in an eight-hour siege at the police training centre in the Lahore suburb on March 31 last year after seven terrorists stormed it.

Police had arrested Hijratullah from the spot while he was allegedly trying to blow up a helicopter parked behind the centre. A grenade, a wireless set and a passport showing him to be an Afghan national were recovered from him.

Later he was identified as Hijratullah. After that police had registered two cases against him.

Lahore High Court Chief Justice Khawja Muhammad Sharif took suo motu notice of the acquittal late in the night, asking the Inspector General, Prosecution Secretary and the Prosecutor General to appear before the court on June 22.

“It is an alarming state of affairs that (a number of) accused have been acquitted by trial courts due to defective investigation and lack of sufficient evidence and as such failure of the prosecution to prove cases.

“The judiciary, being an important limb of the state, is under a constitutional obligation to see state functionaries perform their duties according to law of the land. The acquittals have mainly been because of failure of the prosecution,” an LHC press release quoted the LHC chief justice as saying.

The court has summoned all officials concerned have been asked to appear before the court and explain their position. The Advocate General would assist the court on June 22.

On March 31, the terrorists had attacked three symbols of national security – Police Training School, provincial headquarters of the Federal Investigating Agency (FIA) and Elite (police) Training Centres at Badian Road – and held the city hostage for the entire day.

The law enforcement agencies produced Hijratullah before the court of Masood Arshad amid tight security and cordoned off the premises. The court after hearing the arguments of defence counsel (advocate) Ali Zia Bajwa and recording statements of witnesses exonerated Hijratullah from the charges, as prosecution was failed to prove charges against him. As many as 22 witnesses recorded their statements during the proceedings.

Last month, Hijratullah denied the allegations, saying he had nothing to do with the terror act as he was a garbage collector. He claimed that he had nothing to do with the attack and just happened to there to collect garbage from the school premises, when security agencies picked him up. He also denied links with Baitullah Mehsud or any other terror network in the region.

It may be mentioned that the banned Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan chief late Baitullah, who claimed the responsibility of attack on April 1, 2009, had claimed responsibility for carrying out attack on the Police Training Centre but denied that the “man arrested from the spot belonged to his outfit.”

The ATC had already awarded 10 years sentence to Hijrat for keeping hand grenades and arms. Hijratullah has also been acquitted in another case, involving a blast at a shrine (Pir Makki) in Lahore.

 

[sparklingway]

While the op-ed is welcome, it is unfortunate that the writer, himself a lawyer, is in the dark about the new legislation and does not take into context the change in burden of proof and admissibility of extrajudicial confessions which point out to the lack of credible evidence among many things highlighted in the first post of this thread.

Why terrorists get acquitted​

Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Chaudhry Fawad Hussain

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

 

[GUNNER]

LHC dismisses suo moto notice of Hijratullah acquittal

June 22, 2010

Lahore High Court (LHC) on Tuesday disposed of the suo moto action on the release of Hijratullah, the key suspect in the Manawan attack case.

The court ordered all appeals related to Hijratullah’s release to be transfered to the Lahore High Court.

Chief Justice Lahore High Court, Justice Khwaja Sharif chaired the divsional bench of the LHC which heard the case today. Prosecutor Punjab Zahid Hussain Bhukhari also appeared in the court.

Talking to media outside the court, he said appeals in the case will be heard by the divisional bench chaired by the LHC chief justice.

The prosecutor said Hijratullah has not been released as he has already been sentenced to ten years imprisonment for the possession of weapons.

Earlier, the LHC took up the case hearing regarding the acquittal of the Hijratullah. The court took suo moto action over the dismissal of a case against Hijratullah.

An anti-terrorism court judge had earlier exonerated Hijratullah and declared insufficient the evidence presented by the prosecution against him.

The LHC chief justice said that it was the responsibility of the high court to establish the reasons, due to which terror accused were being released.

 

[sparklingway]

Haunting acquittals​

Legal eye

Saturday, July 03, 2010
Babar Sattar

The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad.

The Lal Masjid brigade brought life to a standstill in Islamabad. Its vigilante missions caused harm and nuisance. But that paled into insignificance when over a hundred lives were lost in the security operation executed to regain control of the mosque and clear it of weapons and militants. Fourteen security officials lost their lives during the operation. They did not have the authority to decide whether or not an operation was to be carried out. They died in the line of duty. Likewise the young students holed up in the mosque were themselves victims of bigotry and the loss of their lives in the crossfire was a tragedy. But now that Maulvi Abdul Aziz is back in the mosque preaching intolerance once again, will anyone be held responsible for the crimes committed and the precious lives lost?

The Marriott bombing not only claimed many innocent lives, but also transformed Islamabad the beautiful into a barricaded city at war. An antiterrorist court recently released all those accused of facilitating the heinous crime for want of evidence. Similarly the accused held for planning, aiding and abetting the suicide attack that claimed Surgeon General Mushtaq Baig and several others a stone's throw away from the GHQ have also been let go. Equally significant is the release of the prime accused in the Mumbai-style siege of the Manawan Police Training School in Lahore.

Does the existence of a criminal justice system remain meaningful if criminals cannot be tried and convicted in accordance with due process of law? Why are we consistently failing to bring to justice those who are responsible for violence and terror? Are the courts being too timid or lenient? Are investigation agencies conniving with the terrorists? Are they simply incompetent? Or does a fundamental contradiction in the distribution of power and authority between civil and military agencies lie at the heart of our failure to combat internal security threats and secure convictions?

Some judges might get intimidated when they receive missives from terror groups. But are they to blame for wishing to live out their natural lives? Is it not the responsibility of the state to guarantee the physical safety of its judicial officers and enable them to carry out their official responsibilities without considerations of fear? But intimidation aside, we must remember that in the realm of criminal law the prosecution has to establish a case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. And to the extent that there is lingering doubt, its benefit must go to the accused. Innocent, until proven guilty, after all is a corner stone of rule of law.

In our desperation to clasp convictions we must not succumb to the temptation of diluting our standards of justice and removing safety valves. For justice doesn't demand conviction of the accused, but that of the guilty. It is true that the police and civilian investigation agencies are incompetent, ineffectual and suffer from a crisis of credibility. But what kind of financial and human resource investment is the state making to buttress civilian law enforcement agencies at a time when the country is confronted with its gravest internal security challenge?

Even more fundamentally which state agency is responsible for internal security? Is it the civilian police and investigation departments or the army and its affiliate agencies? It has been argued over the last decade or more that the foremost national security challenge confronting Pakistan is internal and not external. So then if the army is the de-facto guardian of our national security and the paramount threat is emanating from within and not outside our frontiers, can the army automatically assume responsibility for managing internal security?

This is not a theoretical question about our lop-sided civil-military balance. The military's help with internal security duties might even be temporarily desirable in view of our current exigencies. But there is no legal authority backing the role being performed by agents of the military and the power being exercised by them. And this singular fact largely cripples the ability of our criminal justice system to deal with terrorism. When civilian security agencies exercise police powers of the state, they are authorized and aided in that regard by an entire framework of substantive and procedural laws such as the Pakistan Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code.

Any arrests made or evidence gathered by the police in accordance with these laws can be used in a court of law to seek a conviction. But when it is military agencies carrying out internal security duties, arresting people, interrogating them and gathering evidence, they fail to satisfy due process requirements of the law, as our legal framework doesn't envisage the armed forces performing such role. When the accused is actually arrested by military agencies, and recovery of weapons and other evidence takes place during interrogations, such facts cannot be presented before a court of law.

This gap between the requirements of the law and our evolving practice of military agencies taking a lead role in investigating terror attacks then gets bridged by fabricating a bogus story about backdated arrest of the accused by the police and consequent recovery of weapons. The aim of such exercise is to satisfy the procedural requirements of the law. But it doesn't work. A trial, simply put, is the story of a crime being told by the prosecution. The arrest or the accused and recovery of evidence linking the accused to the crime are the two foundational pillars of the prosecution's case.

But when the story weaved by the police and the prosecution is simply not true, as it has to camouflage actual facts and the role played by military agencies, even a half decent defense attorney is able to poke holes in it and create doubt. The benefit of this doubt caused by the procedural impropriety practiced by state agencies then goes to the accused who walks away scott-free. And the rest of us keep scratching our heads and wondering why our judges and our criminal justice system fail to put the bad guys behind bars.

How will anyone ever be punished for the murder of the fourteen security personnel killed during the Lal Masjid operation when the military didn't bother to conduct postmortems and document the cause of death for legal purposes? How can any of the weapons recovered from the mosque be linked directly to any accused in a court of law when the crime scene and the evidence was not preserved as it should be? How will the militants arrested in Swat be prosecuted for their crimes without any documented record of their lawful arrests, recovery of weapons and other evidence that could link them to violent crimes?

We are pursuing a mindless strategy against a torrent of terrorism and violent crime. The solution to an underequipped, underperforming and corrupt police force is not to use military agencies as a stop-gap arrangement when the army personnel are neither trained to shoulder internal policing responsibilities nor authorized by our legal framework to execute such mandate. It is shocking that no meaningful steps have been taken by the government so far to revamp our shambolic civilian security agencies with proper authority, equipment, training and human resources.

If enhancing national security and enforcing law and order are priorities of the government, all responsible civil and military agencies presently involved in internal security duties must sit together and devise an operational strategy that allows them to collaborate their efforts while functioning within the confines of our legal framework. It is the absence of a comprehensive internal security strategy and lack of concern for due process of the law that is tearing apart our criminal justice system and letting terrorists off the hook. Any delay in fixing all constituent parts of our criminal justice system is at our own peril.

Email: sattar@post.harvard.edu

 

[sparklingway]

LHC moved for retrial of 4 men​

Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Faisal Kamal Pasha

Rawalpindi

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.

 

[Slides]

Good thing they were at least not released.

 

[sparklingway]

Army, agencies ‘not cooperating in terror attacks probe’​

Wednesday, July 07, 2010

By Umar Cheema

ISLAMABAD: The Punjab government has made a damning indictment of the Pakistan Army and intelligence agencies, holding them mainly responsible for court acquittals of those accused in suicide attacks on Lt-Gen Mushtaq Baig and on an Army bus, and said the Army “neither assisted nor showed any interest in the trial of the accused”.

The intelligence agencies have been accused of overstepping their mandate and also of not sharing information with the police, as the accused remained in their custody for a year though they don’t have any legal power to keep any person in detention.

“The role of the complainant department (Army) and the investigation agencies was deplorable,” said an inquiry report. The prosecution department of the Punjab has furnished this report, a rare official document of its nature charge-sheeting the security outfits. Although the report has also blamed the police and prosecution for poor performance, the Army and intelligence agencies have largely been accused of misconduct.

The inquiry related to two terrorist attacks: first hit an Army bus carrying trainees of the Armed Forces Post-Graduate Medical Institute (AFPGMI) killing a lieutenant-colonel, a major and six others on February 4, 2008; second, a suicide attack which killed surgeon general, Mushtaq Baig, his guard, driver and three pedestrians on February 24, 2008.

In both cases, FIRs were registered by the police through its own officials, and from backdates when the accused were handed over by the intelligence agencies after one-year detention. The Army neither had neither registered the FIRs nor its officials volunteered to stand in witness box and this job too was done by the police. No one from the Army represented the department in the court. “No one from any agency facilitated nor any liaison was made from any person to pursue the prosecution in the court of law.”

The report has proposed action against all those responsible for negligence, no matter which department they belong to. The ISPR didn’t offer any comment to a list of 11 questions sent to it late Saturday.

Rana Maqbool, secretary prosecution, confirmed having furnished the report fixing responsibility on all concerned but declined to discuss its contents point-wise. A reading of 52-page inquiry report and background discussions with officials in Lahore and Rawalpindi reveal how the law is overstepped in the absence of any strict mechanism and suspected terrorists managed to secure release due to internal conflicts of the department and distortion of evidence.

“Neither the complainants (Army officials) appeared or have any contact with them (police) nor any representative of department (Army) ever assisted them (police) or showed any interest in the trial of the accused,” said the inquiry report quoting the statement of a police official, ASI Bostan Khan of RA Bazaar Police Station, who was deputed as inquiry officer. The report says: “They (Army) remained aloof throughout, from the day one of the chargesheet to the accused till the conclusion of the trial.”

According to the report, no police official was exclusively deputed for investigation of these two high profile cases as Bostan Khan, the investigation officer, was tasked to “pursue all the criminal cases in the courts”. The report said: “The concerned agencies didn’t exhibit any interest in the follow-up of the cases regarding prosecution...The role of the complainant department (Army) and the investigation agencies was deplorable.”

Nine accused, believed to have carried out the two attacks, were picked up, seven without any evidence. “Without an iota of evidence, seven accused were challaned out of nine,” the report said, and the remaining two were challaned on the statements of the police officials “whose statements were recorded after the lapse of one year”. The police officials privy to the matter told The News the accused were handed over to them after one year, the FIRs number 75 and 114 from February diary, were reserved to be filled on the receipt of the accused and hence it was done in backdate a year later. As none from the Army was ready to become a witness, two police officials were listed as witnesses.

The inquiry report, while confirming that the accused remained in the custody of the intelligence agencies, has also accused the agencies officials of not sharing any finding with the police, only handing them the accused for trial. “It is a fact that the accused remained under probe with the agencies prior to the arrest (by police), but no positive information was passed onto the local police and thus the role played by the agencies couldn’t be availed to probe the guilt of the accused,” said the inquiry report furnished by district public prosecutor of Rawalpindi, Malik Asghar. According to police officials, no technical evidence was handed over to the police like forensics, NADRA record, mobile record, findings of polygraphic machines, etc. They say acquiring such things is not possible without excellent personal relations with the intelligence officials as it is done only through the sweet will of the keepers of such record and there is no legal force for pressuring them. The police even don’t have free access to NADRA record as they pay Rs 25 for verification of a computerised record, they say.

There is no provision in law empowering the intelligence agencies to detain any accused or keep him in custody. In case of suspicion, it can be done by keeping them in police custody and after the passage of 24 hours, court’s permission is required for remand, say the police and prosecution officials.

The report, besides questioning the role of Joint Interrogation Team (JIT), has also raised alarms about the agencies’ overstepping of their mandate. The JIT was headed by the then CPO, Saud Aziz, and had representatives from all the agencies, the report said. It further adds: “It is a matter of great concern that no one from the members of JIT bothered to record their comments or have even meeting for this purpose...Surprisingly, the investigation was conducted by the persons who were neither vested with the powers nor were members of the JIT, hence they were unauthorised, and were incompetent to investigate and finalise the investigation.” The report further notes: “It is time to think about the behaviour of all concerned, their non-cooperative attitude and to take action against the negligent officers in such high-profile case.”

Apart from the police, the report said, the prosecutor concerned was also not provided any assistance from the department concerned.” At the same time, the report has questioned the role of the prosecutor, saying it was his responsibility “to check and analyse all the flaws and defects of the investigation and that if it was not found fit for submission, he should not have forwarded it against the accused persons in the court of law”. The report has also criticised five police inspectors deputed as SHOs in RA Bazaar who also did nothing. “Every SHO attempted to show just efficiency (karwai) and tried to get rid of the cases.”

A set of 11 questions sent to ISPR is being reproduced below:

1) A Punjab government inquiry report blames the Complainant Department (Army) for lack of interest and non-assistance in the trial of the accused arrested in connection with attacks on Gen. Mushtaq Baig and NLC bus near RA Bazaar. Do you agree?

2) None from the Army offered to become witness in the cases. Is it true?

3) There was no senior level representation during the hearing of the cases by Anti-Terrorist Court. Is it true?

4) The accused remained under probe with the intelligence agencies but no information was shared with the local police. Is it true?

5) Is it true that the Army even didn’t register the FIRs in both cases and the police had to do it on its own?

6) Is it true that no technical evidence was shared with the police? If yes, then why sophisticated gadgets have been provided to the intelligence agencies if they can’t be of use for other departments?

7) The investigation was conducted by persons who were neither vested with the power nor were the members of Joint Interrogation Team (JIT). Is it true?

8) Is it true that the accused were handed over to police after one year and FIR registered from backdate?

9) The inquiry report proposed action against those held responsible (the officials who overstepped their duty and those who under-performed). Has any action been taken against them? 10) Could you please explain if the agencies/Army has any legal power to detain and arrest any person?

11) May I know what rules govern the working of intelligence agencies, other than their SOPs that don’t have any legal importance?

 

[sparklingway]

This should be read in light of the first paragraph of my post regarding the problems pertaining to the lack of successful prosecutions. Read here.

Although the journalist who filed this report does not mention the GHQ attack case the military did not register a FIR in that case either and a backdated FIR was filed by the concerned thana. The principal accused caught from the scene Dr. Usman was acquitted in the Marriott Case (new report concerning appeal by Federation is visible above on this very page). The intelligence agencies however are yet to cooperate with the prosecution department of the police and Special Anti-terrorism Public Prosecutor of Punjab in this regards. The lack of cooperation has led to the state where the challan filed is almost void of any admissible evidence and the case is pending trial.

The lack of cooperation can be seen in another light i.e the intelligence agencies are looking to extra judicially exterminate the alleged terrorists or keep them in detention forever. That is not conducive to establishing the rule of the law and only goes to say that the intelligence agencies neither respect the law, nor abide by it and unless they learn to respect it, they won't be willing to prosecute people in it's light as well.

Any "this is anti-army", "to defame army" posts are not welcome/

 

[RescueRanger]

82 terrorists arrested this year


Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Our crime correspondent

Islamabad: Islamabad Police have arrested 82 terrorists while curbed the street crime through effective patrolling this year, police spokesman said.

Security and vigilance committees were constituted to involve the people in ensuring comprehensive security arrangements in particular areas while police SMS service was started seeking police help in case of any emergent situation.

Steps to bring improvement in the department were taken, which include reduction of working hours of police officials, providing them refreshment at the police pickets, installing special boxes and umbrellas at the pickets.

For security of the citizens, new patrolling plan has been devised assigning duties to eagle squads, lady commandos, police commandos, falcon squads and officials of police station. Women police station has been given authority to register FIRs while many policemen were awarded for their brilliant performance.

82 terrorists arrested this year

 

[GUNNER]

Prosecuting terrorists with success


By Brig (r) G M Mohatarem

July 07, 2010

The writer is a security analyst and former home secretary, Sindh.
(gm.mohatarem@tribune.com.pk)


In recent weeks, there have been several instances where the courts have acquitted people involved in terrorism-related cases. The situation eventually became such that the Lahore High Court took suo motu notice of the series of acquittals. This happened perhaps because suspects accused in the attempted assassinations of General Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, the Islamabad Marriott bombing, the PAF Base Kamra and the Aabpara Market bombings as well as Maj-Gen Faisal Alvi’s murder were acquitted by the courts. In this eventuality, those who are released quickly regroup and go back to the business of spreading terror.

Suspects acquitted in the attempted assassination of Shaukat Aziz are believed to have been behind the recent attack outside Islamabad on a convoy of trucks carrying supplies to Nato forces in Afghanistan. And in Sindh, the home minister the other day informed the provincial assembly that those let off in such cases were behind target killings in the city.

The numbers of those arrested on suspicion of being involved in terrorism are staggering. In Malakand alone, approximately 3,500 extremists have been arrested. In most cases, particularly in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Fata, the judicial process has yet to start.

Nationally, the conviction rate of even those few who have gone on trial is very low. And there are several factors for the criminal justice system’s failure to convict such suspects. The Anti Terrorism Act (ATA) of 1997 and Evidence Act are simply inadequate for the current ground reality. Anti-terrorism courts (ATCs) appear to have lost their bearing because incompetent investigators fail to properly investigate and prepare cases before bringing them to court and public prosecutors are generally incompetent and fail to establish guilt. Also, there is a clear lack of political on the part of the government to prosecute terrorists.

Both the ATA and the Evidence Act need to be overhauled through new legislation. The international trend is towards deterrence and to admit technical and circumstantial evidence in cases of terrorism and for this we can take help from the US Homeland Security Act and India’s Tada (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act). The ATCs were set up for the speedy disposal of cases but they are anything but that. These courts should be reconstituted and headed by senior judges awaiting elevation to the high courts. As for improving the rate of prosecution, the government needs to hire the best criminal lawyers engaged in their own practice. A competent prosecutor will also assist the police in case preparation and this increases chances of winning the case. Also, prosecution of terrorist cases needs to be made time-bound, from presentation of the initial police challan to the delivering of the verdict.

On a related note, the police is not professional in the handling and preservation of the crime scene, with the result that crucial evidence vital for prosecution is more often than not lost in the first few minutes of chaos following a terror attack. This means that the capacity of investigators to collect and record evidence using modern forensic tools needs to be developed. Interrogation should be adopted along scientific lines and investigators should be trained to record fingerprints, collect samples for DNA testing, to scrutinise call records and carry out voice data analysis. This investment by the government is crucial to ensuring higher conviction rates. A large number of terror suspects are awaiting trial — mainly in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa — and this is because of reluctance of judges out of fear of retaliation by the extremists. The recent case of an attack by terrorists on the home of ATC Judge Asim Imam hearing Sufi Muhammad’s case in Malakand is just one example. This means that the government must provide security to judges and prosecutors involved in such cases, and also to witnesses who by and large are extremely reluctant to appear for a court. This is precisely why the law needs to be amended to allow circumstantial and technical evidence.

The government appears to have left counter-terrorism entirely to the military and law-enforcing agencies. This is flawed because success will come only if all pillars of state are working together. The administration has to be equipped to take over where the military’s task ends.

 

[sparklingway]

He raises no new points and fails to note the lack of cooperation from intelligence agencies, both with the police and prosecution lawyers and ignoring that illegally acquiring evidence makes it useless as it is inadmissible in court.