Judge Naeem Akhtar Afghan of the Constitutional Bank of the Supreme Court declared on Tuesday that international law does not explicitly prohibit the martial court of civilians.
The SC judge made these comments during the Intra-Court Appeals Hearing that challenges the declaration of civil judgments in military courts as null and without void.
During the process, Judge Jamal Khan Commandkhel asked about the implications if a country does not adhere to international regulations. The appeals were heard by a bank of seven members, led by Judge Aminuddin Khan.
Judge Naeem Akhtar Afghan, during the hearing of an Intra-Court appeal against the decision to prove civilians in military courts, commented that international principles do not indicate that civilians cannot be marked in court.
The lawyer of May 9 accused, Arzam Junaid, Salman Akram Raja, continued his arguments, saying that he would complete his arguments at 11 in the morning. Judge Jamal Commandkhel commented that it would be better if the arguments were completed in half an hour.
Salman Akram Raja responded by saying that he should be allowed to say what he wanted to end before 11. He stressed that in simple terms, the basic rights of civilians should not be completed to carry out a martial court.
Salman Akram Raja argued that the civilians of the Martial Court face international standards for a fair trial.
“International standards require judgments to be public, fair and transparent, with public decisions. The decisions of military courts worldwide are often appealed in court, and a ruling by a European court has forced many Countries to review its martial martial court procedures, “he said.
Judge Jamal Commandkhel asked: “What would happen if international principles are not followed?” To which Salman Akram Raja responded, “not complying with international principles means that the trial is not transparent.”
Judge Commandkhel pressed even more: “What happens if a country violates international principles?” Raja replied: “Some international principles are mandatory, while others do not.
Judge Naeem Akhtar Afghan commented: “Nowhere in international principles states that civilians cannot be marked in court.”
Salman Akram Raja said that in the United Kingdom, independent judges made, not military personnel. “In the FB Ali case, the principle of separation of powers was not in its place. At that time, the attachments and Tehsildars made criminal trials. It was argued that if an attached commissioner could make a criminal trial, a colonel could also do it. .
Raja continued: “All countries present their compliance with international principles to the United Nations. The UN Human Rights Committee reviews these reports and gives their opinion.” He added that last year, in October and November, the UN Human Rights Committee reviewed Pakistan’s military justice system and expressed concern for the Martial Civil Court.
“The Committee determined that Pakistan’s military courts are not independent,” he said, “and recommended giving bond to those who are in military custody.” Raja also mentioned that the European Commission had declared that the martial court of the nine protesters was incorrect and that the European Union had granted the status of Pakistan GSP Plus.
In addition, he stressed: “Judge Yahya Afridi raised these same concerns in his dissident note, asking why thousands could be tried in the courts of ATC but not in 105 in question.”
During the hearing, an interesting exchange between Salman Raja and Judge Naeem Akhtar Afghan took place.
Salman Raja said: “In the United Kingdom, there was a case in which a soldier named Fedley was a martial of the Court. The European Human Rights Court declared his military judgment invalid because Fedley, who suffered from mental stress, had shot a Weapon.
He continued: “The person who broke television during the events of May 9 was someone I met later. He was deeply ashamed of what had happened. He was an unemployed individual, with only four degrees of education. And I could not avoid feeling for He: he was a victim of society that gave as little people like him. “
Judge Amenuddin Khan intervened, advising against discussing personal issues, while Judge Jamal Khan Commandkhel asked Salman Raja if he had met Fedley.
Judge Naeem Akhtar Afghan, smiling, commented: “No, Salman Raja has encountered the Fedley Pakistani.”
Judge Hassan Azhar Rizvi commented: “You said your client used to play first -class Crick. He didn’t go to play the Cricket on May 9, right?”
Judge Mohammad Ali Mazhar questioned: “In which law was Kulbhushan the right to appeal? Is that law present before us?” To which the additional attorney general, Aamir Rehman responded, “I will carry that registered law.”
Judge Mohammad Ali Mazhar commented: “Was that law introduced only for Kulbhushan?”
Aziz Bhintari replied: “The spies that have permission from the International Court of Justice have the right to an appeal.”
Judge Jamal Khan Commandkhel then asked: “How many Kulbhushans are here?”
Additional attorney general AAMIR replied: “The classification is also allowed in FB Ali.”
Salman Raja then expressed his disagreement with the decision of Judge Muneeb Akhtar regarding the establishment of military courts, stating: “No judge should be allowed to include words in the Constitution that are not part of the text of the Constitution. If this is allowed , It would be extremely dangerous.
Judge Jamal Khan Commandkhel replied: “Another example could be from Anarkali Bazaar, where it was written ‘Badhia Quality’ (good quality), but someone read it as ‘Badhia Ko Ulti’ (the old man is vomiting). This It also caused the court room to explode in laughter. “
SALMAN RAJA made reference to the decision of practice and procedure and the decisions to review article 63-A, emphasizing that no court in the world will be free unless it guarantees the right to a fair hearing. He argued that even without article 175 (3) of the Constitution, section 2 (d) of the Army Law could be declared void and without voice based on article 10-A.
Judge Mohammad Ali Mazhar commented: “Judge Muneeb Akhtar, in the majority decision, considered military courts as a parallel judicial system.” Salman Akram Raja replied: “Judge Muneeb Akhtar made this interpretation of the Constitution when considering history. He wrote that the military courts have historical background, and interpret the constitution based on history could lead to extremely dangerous results. This is an extremely dangerous to interpret the Constitution. “
In addition, he argued: “When the Constitution is clear, it cannot be self-interpreted, as was the case in the interpretation of article 63-A, but in the revision of article 63-A, the interpretation was correct.”
With that, Salman Akram Raja concluded his arguments, and the Supreme Court postponed the hearing of the case of the military courts until tomorrow. The founder of PTI’s lawyer, Azir Bhintari, will begin his arguments tomorrow.
