Human Rights in Pakistan - Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions

The record of correspondence for 2007 is excerpted from the official United Nations report, A/HRC/4/20/Add.1.

Pakistan: Death Sentences of Four Men

Violation alleged: Non-respect of international standards relating to the imposition of capital punishment

The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of Pakistan has failed to cooperate with the mandate that he has been given by the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights.

I would like to bring to the attention of Your Excellency’s Government the situation of Mr. Shahzad, Mr. Muhammad Ashraf, Mr. Umer Hayat and Mr. Mubarak Ali who are reportedly scheduled to be hanged on 21 December 2005 in Faisalabad District Jail, Punjab province.

According to the information I have received, the four men were found guilty by the Faisalabad Anti-Terrorism Court of gang-raping a Christian girl in Faisalabad in 1999. They have exhausted all possibilities of appeal that were available to them.

I have been informed that the laws relevant to this case are currently being challenged in a petition pending before the Federal Shariat Court. The legal challenge reportedly relates both to the validity of a death sentence imposed pursuant to Section 10(4) of the Zina Ordinance VII and to the competence of Anti-Terrorism Courts over charges of rape.

I urge your Excellency's Government to stay these executions pending a final judgment on the petition. Especially when the right to life is at stake, the strictest attention must be given to the due process of law. It was to that end that the international community formulated Safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty in Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/50 (25 May 1984). As you know, these Safeguards affirm that “[c]apital punishment may only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court” (paragraph 5) and that “[c]apital punishment may be imposed only for a crime for which the death penalty is prescribed by law at the time of its commission” (paragraph 2). I understand that a final judgment was rendered in the cases of Mr. Shahzad, Mr. Muhammad Ashraf, Mr. Umer Hayat and Mr. Mubarak Ali. However, inasmuch as both the competence of the court that rendered those judgments and the validity of their statutory basis within the domestic legal order are currently being challenged, respect for the norms of due process and the right to life dictates that these men should not be executed prior to a final judgment on the pending petition.

It is my responsibility under the mandate provided to me by the Commission on Human Rights to seek to clarify all cases brought to my attention. Without in any way wishing to pre-judge the accuracy of the information received, I would respectfully request your Excellency’s Government to provide me with details regarding the measures taken with respect to Mr. Shahzad, Mr. Muhammad Ashraf, Mr. Umer Hayat and Mr. Mubarak Ali.

The Special Rapporteur appreciates the preliminary information provided by the Government of Pakistan with respect to the cases of Shehar Banu, Ali Nawaz Brohi, and their children. The SR would request that he be informed of the results of the Government’s investigations into these cases.

Letter of allegation dated 3 February 2006 sent with Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences

We would like to bring to your Government’s attention information we have received concerning the murders of Shehar Banu, her husband Ali Nawaz Brohi, her 5-year old son Liaquat Ali and her 3-years old daughter Hanifa. According to information received,

Shehar Banu and their two children were shot and killed in their home village of Mohammad Bux Odhu, Taluka Garhi Khero, District Jacobabad, Sindh Province on 4 January 2006. The murders were allegedly committed by Shehar Banu’s brothers Sikandar and Qaisar and their accomplices Sain Bux, Ghulam Rasool, Qalandar Bux and Niaz. The alleged perpetrators also shot and severely injured Ali Nawaz Brohi. He was taken to Larkana Hospital where the same perpetrators later allegedly attacked Ali Nawaz Brohi again and killed him.

Eight years earlier, Shehar Banu had married Ali Nawaz Brohi against her family’s will. Subsequently, the married couple fled their hometown of Ratodero, District Larkana to live in Mohammad Bux Odhu. Sources allege that Sikandar and Qaisar committed the murders with the intent to restore their family’s “honour,” which they considered tarnished by Shehar Banu’s decision to exercise her right to choose her husband and marry.

Reportedly, neither Sikandar, nor Qaisar nor any of their accomplices have been arrested and all six men remain at large.

Without in any way implying any conclusions as to the facts of the case and while appreciating that the alleged murders may still be under investigation, we call on your Excellency’s Government to ensure that the perpetrators of this and other so-called “honour killings” are prosecuted and appropriately punished taking into account the grave nature of their crimes.

We would also like to refer Your Excellency’s Government to the fundamental principles set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Articles 3 and 6 of these instruments, respectively, provide that every individual has the right to life and security of the person; that this right shall be protected by law and that no-one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life. We would also like to refer Your Excellency’s Government to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, which calls on States Parties to take all appropriate measures to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women (Art. 5(a)). Furthermore, and in accordance with developing standards of international law and human rights protection, the United Nations General Assembly adopted by consensus the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women in its resolution 48/104 of 20 December 1993. The Declaration stipulates that all States Parties should exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate and, in accordance with national legislation, punish acts of violence against women, whether those acts are perpetrated by the State or by private persons (Art. 4(c)).

We urge your Government to take all necessary measures to guarantee that the rights and freedoms of the aforementioned persons are respected and accountability of any person guilty of the alleged violations ensured. We also request that your Government adopts effective measures to prevent the recurrence of these acts.

Moreover, it is our responsibility under the mandates provided to us by the Commission on Human Rights and reinforced by the appropriate resolutions of the General Assembly, to seek to clarify all cases brought to our attention. Since we are expected to report on these cases to the Commission, we would be grateful for your cooperation and your observations on the following matters:

The Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan accredited to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva presents its compliments to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and has the honour to refer to its letter No. AI G/SO 214 (33-23) G/SO 214 (89-11) PAK 3/2006 dated 3 February 2006. The information received from the concerned authorities on the case is given below:

The case was duly registered under Crime No.01/2006 U/S 302-324 Pakistan Penal Code of Police State Muhammad Pur Odho, District Jacobabad. Detailed investigation is under process. Police has conducted many raids to arrest the accused who have absconded.

Violation alleged: Deaths due to attacks or killings by security forces; death threats and fear of imminent extrajudicial execution

Subject(s) of appeal: 31 persons (killed) ; 1 male, journalist (threats to life)

The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of Pakistan has failed to cooperate with the mandate he has been given by the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights.

Letter of allegation dated 7 March 2006 sent with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism

We would like to bring to your Excellency’s attention information we have received regarding three incidents of air strikes by United States unmanned aircraft against targets in Pakistan, each of them resulting in the death of several civilians. We have written to the Government of the United States of America in this matter as well.

On 5 November 2005, an unmanned aircraft operated by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) fired a missile at a house in North Waziristan, Pakistan (no further details of the location reported). The CIA had received information that al-Qaeda operative Hamza Rabia, a citizen of Egypt alleged to have been involved in an attempt on the life of President Pervez Musharraf in December 2003, was staying there with his wife and children. While an overall eight persons, including his wife and children, were reportedly killed in the attack, Hamza Rabia managed to escape with an injured leg.

On 1 December 2005, an unmanned drone operated by the CIA fired a missile at a house in the village Haisori, near the town of Mir Ali, North Waziristan, about 30 kms from the Afghani border, killing five persons. It would appear that the dead are Hamza Rabia, two other foreign men, and the 17-year-old son and an eight-year-old nephew of the owner of the house. While officials of your Excellency’s Government stated that the blast resulting in the deaths was caused by explosives handled or stored in the house, reports indicate that residents of the area saw an unmanned aircraft fire a missile at the house and recovered fragments of the missile.

In the early morning hours of 13 January 2006 a remote-piloted Predator aircraft of the United States security services launched a strike with “Hellfire” missiles on the village of Damadola in the Bajaur Agency, North Western Pakistan, close to the border with Afghanistan. Reports indicate that US Predator drones were circling the area of Damadola village during the three days preceding the missile strike. The attack is reported to have killed 18 persons, including women and children. The target of the strike reportedly was Ayman al-Zawahri, who is commonly referred to as the “number two” of al-Qaeda. He was reportedly expected at a dinner in Damadola on the evening of 12 January 2006. However, he appears not to have been in the village at the time of the attack. Your Government is reported to have stated that 5 senior al-Qaeda figures were among those killed, including a chemical and explosives expert, Midhat Mursi al-Sayed alias Abu Abu Khabab, Abu Obaidah al-Misri, allegedly al-Qaeda chief of operations for Afghanistan’s eastern Kunar province, and Ayman al-Zawahiri’s son-in-law Abdur Rehman al-Maghribi. However, the reports we have received indicate that the bodies of the five “Arab fighters” killed in the strike were pulled out of the rubble and taken away from the scene soon after the strike, so that only the bodies of 13 Pakistani victims could be identified.

It is our understanding that the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is authorized to operate such Predator operations under presidential authority signed after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. As to your Government’s position, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions noted in his letter to you of 1 September 2005, concerning the death on 8 May 2005 of Mr. Haitham al-Yemeni, that his understanding is that your Government's Information Minister, Sheik Rashid Ahmed, reportedly denied at the time that any such incident had ever happened near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. In a similar vein, your reply to the mentioned letter, dated 17 October 2005, states that “a car blew up with an explosion … resulting in the killing of a local and an unidentified foreigner” without further elaborating on the causes of that explosion. With regard to the incident in Haisori of 1 December 2005, as noted above your Government’s position reportedly was that the deaths were caused by the explosion of explosives stored in the house. With regard to the incident in Damadola on 13 January 2006, however, media reports suggest that your Excellency’s Government attributes the deaths to a missile fired by a US aircraft. Your Government’s Prime Minister, Mr. Shaukat Aziz, is reported to have publicly stated that such attacks are not acceptable to Pakistan.

In connection with these conflicting reports, we would also express our concern at information received regarding Mr. Hayatullah Khan, a reporter for the Urdu-language daily "Ausaf" and photographer for the European Press Photo Agency, who reportedly found and reported evidence that the deaths in Haisori village on 1 December 2005 were caused by a US air strike, thus contradicting your Government’s official version of the events. He was abducted by armed men on 5 December 2005, in Mir Ali, North Waziristan, and has since then remained unaccounted for. An official at the Governor's House in Peshawar, however, is reported to have recently told journalists who were protesting in favor of Hayatullah Khan’s release: “The more noise you make, the more you prolong Hayatullah's captivity”. We urge your Excellency’s Government to clarify the whereabouts of Mr. Khan and to ensure that his rights to life, physical integrity, personal freedom and freedom of expression are respected.

We wish to remind you that while Governments have a responsibility to protect their own citizens and those of other States against the excesses of non-State actors or other entities, the UN GA Resolution 59/191, in its paragraph 1 stresses that “States must ensure that any measure to combat terrorism complies with their obligation under international law, in particular international human right, refugee and humanitarian law”. In this respect, we wish to stress our concern that empowering Governments to identify and kill “known terrorists” places no verifiable obligation upon them to demonstrate in any way that those against whom lethal force is used are indeed terrorists, or to demonstrate that every other alternative has been exhausted. (See the Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions to the 61st Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/2005/7, at par. 41).

Without in any way wishing to pre-judge the accuracy of the information received, we would be grateful for a reply to the following questions.

1. Are the above reports accurate? In particular, does your Excellency’s Government accept that there were three air strikes by unmanned CIA drones on targets in Pakistan on 5 November 2005, 1 December 2005, and 13 January 2006, as described above?

2. On what basis was it decided to kill, rather than capture, Ayman al-Zawahri? On what basis was it decided to kill, rather than capture, Hamza Rabia?

3. What rules of international law does your Excellency’s Government consider to govern these incidents? If your Excellency's Government considers the incidents to have been governed by humanitarian law, please clarify which treaty instruments or customary norms are considered to apply.

4. What procedural safeguards, if any, were employed to ensure that these killings complied with international law?

5. Did the Government of Pakistan agree to the killing of Hamza Rabia and Ayman al-Zawahri? More in general, does the Government of Pakistan agree to the United States carrying out air strikes against targets in Pakistan in order to kill terrorism suspects?

6. In case your Excellency’s Government did not consent to these air strikes, what steps were taken to investigate the incidents and hold those responsible accountable?

7. Does your Excellency’s Government intend to provide compensation to the families of the persons killed in these air strikes? If so, what steps have been taken in this direction?

Subject(s) of appeal: 36 females (at least 15 minors); 49 males (at least 16 minors)

The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of Pakistan has failed to cooperate with the mandate he has been given by the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights.

I would like to draw the attention of your Government to information I have received regarding the killing of civilians in allegedly indiscriminate military attacks by security forces in the Dera Bugti district of Balochistan.

On 17 March 2005, at least 43 non combatants were killed by Frontier Corps forces in Dera Bugti town. Reports vary as to what caused the outbreak of violence, but it would appear that it was triggered by a group of armed tribesmen blocking a military convoy at a crossing outside Dera Bugti town. Thereafter, Frontier Corps forces stationed in Dera Bugti launched an attack lasting several hours on the town, including a neighbourhood inhabited mostly by Hindus, with rocket launchers and machine guns, killing at least 43 non combatants (a list of their names is in the annex to this letter). Reports indicate that among the combatants the casualties might have been eight on the Government side and around 20 among the armed Bugti tribesmen. None of the reports received identify any military necessity underlying the attack on the neighbourhoods where the civilian deaths occurred, and according to my knowledge, your Excellency’s Government has not provided any explanation of a military rational underlying the attack.

While unique in its gravity, the attack of 17 March 2005 appears not to be an isolated incident. On the contrary, reports indicate that since 30 December 2005 the use of rocket launchers, gunship helicopters and other heavy weaponry by the Frontier Corps against civilian targets has become regular. From 31 December 2005 to 10 January 2006, such attacks have reportedly killed 11 men, 11 women and 19 children in Dera Bugti, Loti, Jori, and other places in the area (a list of the alleged victims is in the annex). As a result of these attacks, 85 percent of the population of Dera Bugti town (approximately 25,000) have left the town, there is no water or electricity except in very few locations and schools are closed.

I would further like to draw the attention of your Government to allegations of retaliatory extrajudicial execution of persons held captive by security forces in Dera Bugti. On 11 January 2006, at the Pattar Nala the Frontier Corps raided a hamlet and burnt down several dwellings. On their return, three Frontier Corps soldiers were injured by the explosion of a land mine. While the soldiers were transported to Sui hospital, a raid was conducted on the same hamlet. The Frontier Corps apprehended 12 local men (names in the annex) and took them to the Frontier Corps headquarters in Dera Bugti. Around 4 p.m., news reached the headquarters that the three soldiers had died of their injuries at the hospital. In reaction thereto, the Frontier Corps soldiers summarily executed all 12 persons in their custody. They then sent for their families to collect the dead bodies. Some women went but were sent back by the Frontier Corps and asked to send their male family members. On 15 January 2006, two old men of the tribe (names in the annex) went to the Frontier Corps headquarters. They did not return. The next day all 14 bodies were handed to an official in Dera Bugti, who delivered the bodies to the families.

In raising my concerns with regard to the killing of civilians by rocket fire and other forms of military action, I am aware of the existence of armed tribal militias in Balochistan which carry out attacks against governmental forces and infrastructure. I am also aware that a compound of the Nawab Akbar Bugti, a tribal leader accused by your Government of commanding substantial militia, is located in the town of Dera Bugti.

I would like to recall, however, that international humanitarian law requires parties to an armed conflict to distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians, and to direct attacks only against combatants (Rules 1 and 7 of the Customary Rules of International Humanitarian Law identified by the International Committee of the Red Cross); acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited (Rule 2); attacks by bombardment which treat as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects are prohibited (Rule 13); launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited (Rule 14).

I have drawn your attention to applicable rules of international humanitarian law because the reports received suggest that your Government is currently waging an armed conflict against rebel forces in some parts of Balochistan, including Dera Bugti district. Assuming, however, that the situation in Dera Bugti district was a question of “law and order” and did not constitute an armed conflict, as reportedly argued by your Excellency’s Government, the lack of any justification for the reported lethal attacks against civilians with rockets and other heavy military equipment would appear all the clearer.

As to the alleged shooting of 14 men in custody of the security forces in retaliation for the death of three soldiers on 11 and 15 January 2006, it would appear that there cannot be any possible justification for the killings under either international human rights or humanitarian law. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, applicable in the case of armed conflict not of an international character, prohibits the killing of any person taking no active part in an armed conflict, such as persons in captivity.

Whether the legal framework is that of law enforcement or that of an internal armed conflict, in order to assess whether the use of lethal force was proportionate and thus justifiable, there must be a “thorough, prompt and impartial investigation” (Principle 9 of the Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions). This principle was reiterated by the 61st Commission on Human Rights in Resolution 2005/34 on “Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions” (OP 4), stating that all States have “the obligation … to conduct exhaustive and impartial investigations into all suspected cases of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions”. The Commission added that this obligation includes the obligation “to identify and bring to justice those responsible, …, to grant adequate compensation within a reasonable time to the victims or their families and to adopt all necessary measures, including legal and judicial measures, in order to … prevent the recurrence of such executions”.

It is my responsibility under the mandate provided to me by the Commission on Human Rights to seek to clarify all cases brought to my attention. Since I am expected to report on this case to the Commission, I would be grateful for your cooperation and your observations on the following matters:

(i) Are the facts alleged above accurate? If not so, please describe the investigations carried out to ascertain that the allegations are ill-founded.

(ii) Does your Excellency’s Government consider that it is engaged in an armed conflict with rebel forces in Dera Bugti district, Balochistan?

(iii) With regard to the rocket attacks or shelling resulting in the death of non-combatants, please describe the investigations carried out to determine whether the use of force was lawful, and if not so, the action undertaken to bring those responsible to justice.

(iv) With regard to the alleged summary execution of 14 men held in captivity by the Frontier Corps in Dera Bugti on 11 and 15 January 2006, please describe the action undertaken to investigate the matter and bring those responsible to justice.

(v) Have the families of the victims of the attacks described above received compensation?

Non combatants killed as a result of rocket and shell fire on civilian dwellings in Dera Bugti on 17 March 2005

Men executed at the Frontier Corps quarters in Dera Bugti on 11 January 2006

Two old men executed at the Frontier Corps quarters in Dera Bugti on 15 January 2006

Violation alleged: Non-respect of international standards relating to the imposition of capital punishment

The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of Pakistan has failed to cooperate with the mandate he has been given by the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights.

I would like to draw your attention to information I have received regarding Mr. Mirza Tahir Hussain, a man sentenced to death whose execution is reportedly scheduled for 1 June 2006.

According to the information received, the facts of the criminal case against Mirza Tahir Hussain involve the death of a taxi driver more than 17 years ago, on 17 December 1988. Some courts have found that Mirza Tahir Hussain murdered the taxi driver, while others gave credence to the defense version that the taxi driver was fatally injured when his gun went off in the scuffle that followed his attempts to sexually assault Mirza Tahir Hussain under the threat of his gun.

Mirza Tahir Hussain was sentenced to death in 1989 at the Sessions Court in Islamabad. Following an appeal, this sentence was quashed by the Lahore High Court. The case was returned to the Sessions Court where Mirza Tahir Hussain was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1994. Following a second appeal, the Lahore High Court dismissed this sentence in 1996, and Mirza Tahir Hussain was acquitted of all charges against him.

A week later, Mirza Tahir Hussain’s case was referred to the Federal Shariat Court on charges including robbery involving murder, which falls under Islamic offences against property. The case against Mirza Tahir Hussain was reopened, and in 1998, he was sentenced to death by the Federal Shariat Court. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment in 2003 and dismissed a further appeal in 2004. The President rejected a petition for clemency in 2005.

International law does not prohibit the death penalty, but it mandates that it must be regarded as an extreme exception to the fundamental right to life, and must as such be interpreted in the most restrictive manner. As a consequence, in capital punishment cases the “right to a fair and public hearing … in the determination of … any criminal charge”, enshrined in Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, must be observed particularly scrupulously. A hallmark of the right to a fair trial in criminal cases is the principle of ne bis in idem, i.e. – in the words of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – the principle whereby “[n]o one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country.” While I am aware that Pakistan is not a State party to the Covenant, this principle can be considered to be a general principle of international law which finds expression in Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan which provides that “No person (a) shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once …”.

I understand that the murder of which Mirza Tahir Hussain is accused has been characterized in a slightly different fashion in the charges formulated against him before the Federal Shariat Court. Nonetheless, it would appear that the Shariat Court did in effect try him anew for the same offence which had been the subject of the proceedings before the Sessions Court and the Lahore High Court. The legal defect would be all the greater if, as has been reported to me, the distinctive element of the charges brought against him in the Shariat Court was the accusation of “robbery”, which was later on dismissed entirely by that same court. To sum up, Mirza Tahir Hussain appears to be at risk of being punished again for an offence of which he has already been finally acquitted by Pakistan’s judicial system, in violation of the obligations of your Excellency’s Government under both international and Pakistani law.

In view of the irrevocable nature of the death penalty, I therefore urge your Government not to proceed with the execution. This question requires a thorough re-examination in order to ensure that the relevant laws have been complied with. In view of the urgency of the matter, I would appreciate a response on the initial steps taken by your Excellency’s Government.

Moreover, it is my responsibility under the mandates provided to me by the Commission on Human Rights and reinforced by the appropriate resolution of the General Assembly, to seek to clarify all cases brought to my attention. Since I am expected to report on this case to the Human Rights Council, I would be grateful for your cooperation and your observations on the following matters:

2. Please explain how the Government of Pakistan seeks to ensure that the principle of ne bis in idem, as recognized in both Pakistani and international law, is upheld in relation to the concurrent jurisdiction of the ordinary secular court system and the Federal Shariat Court.

I would like to refer to a communication I sent your Excellency’s Government on 10 May 2006 concerning Mr. Mirza Tahir Hussain, a man sentenced to death whose execution was, at the time, scheduled for 1 June 2006. I was relieved to learn that your Government has twice postponed the execution of Mirza Tahir Hussain, most recently until 1 September 2006, in order to allow his family more time to seek a pardon from and to offer monetary compensation to the family of the alleged murder victim.

These welcome efforts of your Government, however, do not address the serious legal concerns I raised in my communication of 10 May 2006, which has regrettably remained without a reply. As you will recall, these concerns relate to the preoccupation that the trial of Mirza Tahir Hussain before the Federal Shariat Court, which reportedly imposed the death sentence against him after he had been acquitted by the Lahore High Court, violates the principle of non bis in idem enshrined in both international law and the Pakistani Constitution.

I therefore again urge your Government to indefinitely suspend the execution of Mirza Tahir Hussain and to initiate a thorough re-examination of the case in order to ensure that the relevant domestic and international law has been complied with. In view of the urgency of the matter, I would appreciate a response on the initial steps taken by your Excellency’s Government.

The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of Pakistan has failed to cooperate with the mandate he has been given by the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights.

Letter of allegation dated 5 July 2006 with the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief.

We would like to draw the attention of your Government to information we have received concerning Mr. Abdul Sattar Gopang who was reportedly stabbed to death while he was on trial on blasphemy charges at the District and Session Court of Muzzafargarh on 16 June 2006.

According to the information received, his murder was instigated by Maulana Abdul Rasheed, and carried out by five members of his seminary. Two of the perpetrators were subsequently captured by bystanders and handed over to the police while two policemen who allegedly tried to overpower the attackers were injured.

Mr. Abdul Sattar Gopang worked as a tax collector for the union council in Jatoi town, Muzzafargarh. Mr. Rasheed, in charge of a seminary, had not been paying his toll tax and had verbally threatened Mr. Gopang when asked to do so. On 13 March 2006, Mr. Rasheed again refused to pay his toll tax. He then went to the police and filed a fabricated case of blasphemy against Mr. Gopang.

According to the information received, Mr. Rasheed allegedly told members of his seminary that they would go to heaven if they killed Mr Gopang for having committed blasphemy. Concerns have been expressed that fabricated blasphemy charges are possible as a consequence of the Blasphemy Laws (295-B, 295-C, 298-C).

To date, it is our understanding that the three remaining perpetrators remain at large and that no charges have been brought in connection with the murder of Mr. Gopang.

While we do not wish to prejudge the accuracy of these allegations, we should like to appeal to your Excellency to ensure that the death of Mr. Abdul Sattar Gopang is promptly, independently and thoroughly investigated in accordance with the United Nations principles on the effective prevention and investigation of extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions.

We urge your Government to take all necessary measures to guarantee that accountability of any person guilty of the murder of Mr. Gopang. We also request that your Government adopts effective measures to prevent the recurrence of killings such as the above described.

It is our responsibility under the mandate provided to us by the Commission on Human Rights and reinforced by the appropriate resolutions of the General Assembly, to seek to clarify all cases brought to our attention. Since we are expected to report on these cases to the Human Rights Council, we would be grateful for your cooperation and your observations on the following matters in relation to each of the cases referred to above:

3. What was the nature of the blasphemy charges brought against Mr. Gopang? What safeguards exist in the current law to prevent unfounded allegations from forming the basis of blasphemy prosecutions?

4. Please provide the details, and where available the results, of any investigation, medical examinations, and judicial or other inquiries which may have been carried out in relation to this case. If no inquiries have taken place or if they have been inconclusive please explain why.

5. In the event that the alleged perpetrators are identified, please provide the full details of any prosecutions which have been undertaken; Have penal, disciplinary or administrative sanctions been imposed on the alleged perpetrators?

6. Please indicate whether compensation has been provided to the family of Mr. Gopang.

Correspondence from 2006

The record of correspondence for 2006 is excerpted from the official United Nations report, E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.1.

Pakistan: Execution of Najeebullah Khan

Violation alleged: Non-respect of international standards of application of capital punishment

Subject(s) of appeal: 1 male

Character of reply: Cooperative but incomplete response

Observations

The Special Rapporteur appreciates receiving the information related to the execution of Najeebullah Khan but regrets that the Government of Pakistan has not responded to the alleged violation of his right to due process.

Urgent appeal sent on 16 June 2004, reproduced from E/CN.4/2005/7, par. 548:

548. Urgent appeal, 16 June 2004. Mr. Najeebullah Khan was detained at the central jail of Mianwali and was due to be executed on 23 June 2004. According to the information received, Mr. Khan was tried by the Sargodha Anti- Terrorist Court and was convicted on 17 March 1999 for killing Fida Mohammed on 31 January 1998. The SR brought to the attention of the Government that the Safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty have not been respected. Besides, it has been brought to my attention that the postponement of the execution would allow Mr. Khan�s family to raise the demanded amounted of Diyat to be paid to the aggrieved family.

Response of the Government of Pakistan dated 15 September 2005

The information received form the concerned authorities on the case is given below: Condemned prisoner Najeebullah was executed on 23^rd June 2004 at Central Jail Mianwali. It may be stated that his execution was stayed thrice by the President to provide time to parties to effect a compromise.

Pakistan: Deaths in Custody of Sifullah Kharal and Qari Mohammad Noor

Violation alleged: Death in custody

Subject(s) of appeal: 2 males

Character of reply: Largely satisfactory response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur appreciates the information Pakistan has provided concerning the death of Sifullah Kharal and would appreciate being informed when those responsible are arrested.� The SR appreciates the preliminary information Pakistan has provided concerning Qari Mohammad Noor and would appreciate updated information on the investigation into his death.

Allegation letter sent on 9 November 2004 with the Special Rapporteur on torture, reproduced from E/CN.4/2005/7/Add.1, parag. 575�576

575. Allegation sent with the Special Rapporteur on torture, 9 November 2004 Saifullah Kharal, aged 26, and Riasat Ali, Mangtanwala, Lahore. On 20 June 2004, they were arrested at a vegetable market by Mangtanwala (Nankana Sahib) police on suspicion of stealing a car, and detained at the station. Both men were severely beaten in custody by the Station House Officer, Assistant Sub-inspector, a constable, and a station clerk (whose names are known to the Special Rapporteur). Saifullah Kharal subsequently died in custody after being detained for 12 days. Two days before his death, his sister came to the station with his meal, and found the police beating him, threatening him to confess, including threatening to beat his sister if he did not confess. He died at 1am on 1 July. The body was sent for a post-mortem examination. A case was regis tered against the officials and reported to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.

576. Qari Mohammad Noor, a cleric. In August 2004, he was detained for alleged links to the al- Qaeda terrorist network in a raid on an Islamic school in Faisalabad. According to the police, he died in custody on 18 August 2004 from a heart attack. However, his post mortem reports have not been made public and it is alleged that he was beaten in detention and had nearly 180 marks on his body.

Response of the Government of Pakistan dated 15 February 2005

Concerning the death of Mr. Salaifullah Kharal and Riasai Ali: Investigations revealed that Mr. Saifullah and Riasat resident of Village Chockianwala, Police Station Mangtanwala, district Sheikhupura were arrested allegedly having involved in theft as nominated in FIR No 211/04 dated 1 July 2004. Mr. Saifullah reportedly succumbed to injuires on the day of his arrest. A case under Section 302/31 was registered against the concerned Police Officials, who absconded and went underground. Apart from registration against these officials, the DPO Sheikupura conducted departmental inquiry in their absence. On establishment of crime against the, they were dismissed. The culprit Police officials are still at large and every effort is made to arrest them for due process of law.

Concerning the death of Qari Muhammad Noor: Dead body of Qari Muhammad Noord was found by the police on 17 August 2004, from Chiniot Bazaar, circle road, Faisalabad. The police authorities registered a FIR against unknown persons. Subsequently, father in law of Qari Noor Muhammad submitted an application for lodging a FIR against Mr. Irfan Gill, Ch. Basher Ahmed and two other unknown persons. The case is under investigation by the police authorities. In view of the above response, the cases may be considered as settled.

Pakistan: Execution of Mohammed Yar

Violation alleged: Non-respect of international standards of application of capital punishment

Subject(s) of appeal: 1 male

Character of reply: Largely satisfactory response

Observations

The Special Rapporteur appreciates the information that the Government of Pakistan has provided regarding the execution of Mohammed Yar.� In light of these facts, it is essential that the Government take all measures necessary to prevent future executions from taking place prior to a final judgment.

Allegation letter sent on 21 July 2004, reproduced from E/CN.4/2005/7/Add. 1, at par. 571

571. Allegation, 21 July 2004. Mr. Mohammed Yar, of Chak 244 R.B, Kakarwala, Faisalabad, who was sentenced to death by a trial court for the murder of Mr. Allah Ditta. The Lahore High Court upheld the verdict of the trial court while the Supreme Court also disposed of Mr. Mohammed Yar�s appeal. He filed another appeal in the Supreme Court on 12 May 2004 for a further consideration on the verdict. Nevertheless, reports indicate that Mr. Mohammed Yar was hanged to death on 18 May 2004 at the Faisalabad prison. It is reported that both the prison authorities and the police were notified that an appeal was filed at the Supreme Court.

Response of the Government of Pakistan dated 22 August 2005

Muhammad Yar: �The counsel of accused/deceased led a criminal review petition No.21/2004 in the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 12.05.2004. The apex court admitted the appeal and issued notices to the Punjab Home Department and Superintendent, District Jail Faisalabad on 17.05.2004, but the lawful authority did not issue orders to stop his execution.�

Pakistan: Mohammed Ramazan, Dost Ali, and Haider Ali

Violation alleged: Death due to attacks or killings by security forces; Disappearance

Subject(s) of appeal: 3 males

Character of reply: Largely satisfactory response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur appreciates the information provided by the Government of Pakistan regarding Mohammed Ramazan, Dost Ali, and Haider Ali.

Allegation letter sent on 21 July 2004, reproduced fromE/CN.4/2005/7/Add. 1, at par. 572

572. Mr. Mohammed Ramazan, a laborer, along with his two friends, Mr. Dost Ali and Mr. Haider Ali who went to Bahiwal on 11 May 2004. On their way back, near Chak Sandhay Khan, they had a little quarrel with Mohammed Ashraf, an influential landlord. Mr. Ashraf accused Mr. Ramazan and his companions of a false case of dacoity and got them arrested by the Pakpattan police. Police officials opened fire at the men, killing Mr. Mohammed Ramazan and Mr. Dost Ali and injuring Mr. Haider Ali. According to the information received, the police sent Mr. Ali to a secret location so that his whereabouts remain unknown. The police handed over the dead bodies to their relatives after having conducted a postmortem concluding that the deceases were killed in a shoot-out. The relatives of the deceased appealed to the Governor, the Chief Minister, and the Inspector General of Police in Punjab to conduct an inquiry into the killings.

Response of the Government of Pakistan dated 22 August 2005

Muhammad Ramazan: � On 11.05.2004, these individuals snatched a motorcycle from one Muhammad Ashraf resident of Sandhey Khan, District Pakpatan, Police Station Malka Hans at gunpoint. They were confronted by the local farmers working into a nearby fields. The culprits left the bike on a pavement and entered into a nearby maize crop farm. A Police party, encircled the field and in exchange of firing Muhmmad Ramazan and Dost Muhammad were killed, while Haider Ali managed to escape. Haider Ali is still at large. Dost Muhammad son of Wali Muhammad, caste Bhatti resident of Marley Dakhali Chak Alwardi, Tehsil and District Pakpattan was a notorious criminal and a number of FIRs were registered against him on charges of theft and possessing of unlicensed weapons.

Pakistan: Killing of Yusuf by Police

Violation alleged: Death due to attacks or killings by security forces

Subject(s) of appeal: 1 male

Character of reply: Largely satisfactory response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur appreciates the information provided by the Government of Pakistan concerning the death of Yusuf on 8 June 2004.

Allegation letter sent on 21 July 2004, reproduced from E/CN.4/2005/7/Add. 1, at par. 573

573. Yusuf, who was picked up on 8 June 2004 by the Lahore Anti-Car Lifting staff for which he had worked as an informer a few years ago and was taken to the Gulberg police station in Lahore. It is reported that Constable Shafi Lashari demanded Rs. 10,000 for Mr. Yusuf�s release. As Mr. Yusuf�s family could not pay the whole amount requested, the police took him away from the police station and killed him in a fake encounter.

Response of the Government of Pakistan dated 22 August 2005

Yusuf: �One Yusuf provided information to Shafi Lashari (Sub Inspector) Anti-Car lifting staff, Gulberg Lahore stating that Noman Azhar, Suleman Azhar, both residents of Chak No.325/GB T.T. Singh were involved in stealing vehicles. The Police staff proceeded to T.T. Singh and also took Yusuf from Sahiwal with them (02-06-2004). On reaching near residence of the suspects, the police dispatched a party to confirm presence of the suspects at their residence. The suspects opened fire at this party. Resultantly Yusuf (informer) sustained bullet injuries and later succumbed to his injuries in a hospital. A case vide FIR No.153/2004,u/s 302, 148, 149 under Pakistan Penal Code was registered at Police Station City T.T. Singh against Noman Azhar Suleman Azhar and Asharf Masih.

Pakistan: Impunity for Honour Killings

Violation alleged: Impunity for honour killings

Subject(s) of appeal: 18 females, including 3 minors; 3 males (persons killed in the name of honour)

Character of reply: Cooperative but incomplete response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur appreciates the information provided by the Government of Pakistan concerning the deaths of Koojan, Wazeeran, Noor Zadi and Abdul Qadir.� The SR would appreciate receiving further information on these incidents and on the other incidents mentioned in his communication.

Allegation letter sent on 8 December 2004 with the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women

Shahida Bibi, of Okara. On 26 July 2004, she was killed with the blow of an axe by her husband Khan who suspected her of adultery. The incident was not reported to the authorities.

Hashmat Bibi (aged 55). On 26 July 2004, she was axed to death by her son Elahi Bukhsh (aged 24) in Dherki. He suspected her of illicit relations with a man of their village. Elahi Bukhsh fled with the murder weapon. The Dherki police is said not to have not yet registered a First Information Report.

Shazia and Razia, two sisters from Sahiwal, in Chack 107/7-R. They were shot dead on 20 July 2004 by their cousin Mazhar, and his accomplices Bashir and Bilal, over a marriage dispute. According to information received, Shazia had refused to marry her cousin. The incident was not reported to the authorities.

Robina Shahid (aged 32). On 2 July 2004, she was shot dead by her brother Anwar Ali of Raiwind The police of Lahore stated that the accused had been suspicious about his sister�s character for several months. The body was removed to the city mortuary for autopsy. A case has been reportedly registered, but no arrest was reported.

Sajida (aged 16). She was allegedly killed with an axe by her brother Yasin at Chak 3/WB in Vehari on 15 July 2004. She was pregnant, as a result of her relationship with one Salim from her village. According to the information received, the police arrested the assailant, but no further action was reported against him.

Ansa, aged 16. On 8 July 2004, she was shot dead by her father, Mohammed Aslam in Ferozewala. He suspected her of having illicit relations with someone. He allegedly fled after the incident. No report has been made to the authorities.�

Imtiaz Mai from Warind tribe. On 6 July 2004, she was killed by members of the Warind tribe in Rahim Yar Khan. They supposedly buried her body without any post-mortem examination and alleged that she committed suicide. According to information received, members of the Warind tribe did not accept the marriage of Imtiaz Mai with Mir Hassan. They registered a case against the couple with the Rahim Yar Khan police. Despite the fact that they were in possession of a legal marriage certificate, the police arrested them and induced Imtiaz Mai to record a statement against her husband. As she refused, they handed her over to her relatives who killed her. The incident was allegedly reported to the Rahim Yar police, but no action was taken against the assailants. It is further reported that Mir Hassan was sent to jail on charge of adultery.

Noorzadi an 18-year old girl and Qadir (aged 27). On 3 July 2004, at around 4 am, both were killed with an axe by Noorzadi�s cousin, Nazar Mohammed in Ali Mohammed Goth, Karachi. He later came to the Ibrahim Hyderi Police station and confessed his crime. The victims� bodies were transferred to the police station where they were unattended for at least 8 hours. At around 4:30 pm, the bodies were moved to Jinnah Post-Graduate Medical Center. The autopsy could not be carried out on Noorzadi�s body as the woman medico-legal officer was not present at the hospital. It is reported that no further action was taken by the police later on.

Nadeema Bibi a woman from Lahore. According to information received, her husband Ishaq killed her on 3 July 2004. He justified her killing by explaining that she had lost character. Police registered a case against on the complaint of the deceased�s father. However, no action was reportedly taken by the Lahore police to bring Nadeema Bibi�s husband to justice.

Sharifan alias Gudo. According to information received, Sharifan, her husband Sagheer Shahid and her sister Hanifan Bibi were killed by Hanifan Bibi�s brother-in-law on 3 July 2004. Sagheer Shahid was an employee at the Police Department. He had divorced his first wife and was living with his second wife, Sharifan alias Gudo. It is alleged that Sagheer Shahid later developed illicit relations with Sharifan�s sister, Hanifan Bibi, who was also married. Hanifan Bibi�s brother-in-law came to know of her relations with Sagheer Shahid and therefore, killed Sagheer Shahid, Hanifan Bibi, and Sharifan. Police registered a case and were investigating at the time the information was received.

Zobia Begum of Rawalpindi. On 14 May 2004, she was killed by her father Manzoor Hussain and maternal uncle, Abdul Ghaffar. According to information received, she had married with Faisal Bukhari and fled to Mianlwali with him. Manzoor Hussain filed a case of murder against his brother-in-law and the cause of murder was stated to be �honor killing�. Faisal Bukhari, the victim�s husband, filed a case against Manzoor Hussain and Abdul Ghaffar to Mochh Station House Officer of Police, who allegedly refused to register the complaint. Faisal Bukhari filed a writ to the High Court.

Shazia Khaskheli. According to information received, she was killed together with her husband Mohammed Hassan Solangi. Shazia Khaskheli and Mohammed Hassan Solangi married of their free will in October 2003. Since that date, the couple had contacted police to seek protection, but on the contrary they were handed over to relatives of the girl who murdered them on 2 April 2004. On the same month, the Supreme Court held that police had facilitated the murder of the couple who had approached them for protection and directed the Inspector General of Police to personally look into the matter and submit a report within a month.

Fatima Bibi, a woman from Vehari. According to information received, on 1 April 2004 she was strangled by her husband Allah Baksh who was accompanied by her brother Allah Ditta and Mushtaq Baloch, Islam, Yameen, Karim Baksh, Ahmed and Sultan. Fatima Bibi had reportedly left her husband and went to live in a shelter home for women in Darulaman An elder from Vehari called Fatima Bibi, her family, the panchayat and her husband to his house to settle the matter. Because she affirmed that she did not wish to live with her husband anymore, she was strangled by the men present. At the time the information was received, the police had not registered any case against the perpetrators.�

Ms. Wazeeran, a 50-year-old woman from Mahar caste and elected as counselor in Taluka (sub division) Council Rohrri. According to information received, Ms Wazeeran was killed on 7 March 2004 at around 5:30 in Sanjrani street, Berri Chouk, Rohrri town by three nephews of her husband whose names are known to the Special Rapporteur. Although the victim�s brother lodged a complaint to the Rohrri police station, no action had reportedly been taken by the police to bring the perpetrators to justice at the time the information was received. It is further reported that the perpetrators spread around the information that Ms. Wazeeran had committed adultery to make sure they would be set free in case of legal proceedings against them. Moreover, the police was said to offer no protection to the victim�s family who was under permanent threat from the perpetrators.

Koojan, a 13-year-old girl from Kato Bangwar village, Kandh Kot town, Jaqcobabd district, Sindh province. According to information received, she was killed on 4 March 2004 at around 20:30 on the pretext of honour killing by her husband and four members of his family whose names are known to the Special Rapporteur. Koojan�s father, Todo Bahilkani as well as his two cousins, Bilawal Bahilkani and Rasool Bux had come to visit Koojan. They were discussing when her husband accompanied by his father, his uncle, his brother and one of his relative, all armed with guns came to the house, dragged Koojan to the ground and shot her to death after having accused her of having sexual relationship with a man. They then took her body in a bull-cart and left the place to conceal it. Koojan�s family members could not do anything to stop the killing. Koojan�s father registered a case at the Karampur police station on 6 March 2004. Nevertheless, none of the perpetrators had reportedly been arrested at the time the information was received despite the fact that the killers were identified by three persons.

Robina, a woman from Farooqabad. According to information received, Robina was reportedly burnt by her husband Mohammed Ramazan and in-laws on 20 March 2004. It is also reported that Robina was cruelly treated since she got married 5 years ago because she had brought less dowry than they had expected. The mistreatment increased when she remained childless. Robina was first stabbed in the neck. She was later doused with kerosene oil and set on fire. Her in-laws affirmed that she was burnt by accident but the neighbors witnessed what actually happened. Robina�s father-in-law only allowed her family to take her to hospital when they vowed that they would not file a case against her in-laws if she died. A month later, Robina passed as a result of her injuries. At the time the information was received, her in-laws and husband were said to remain free.

Response of the Government of Pakistan dated 4 February 2005

Concerning the death of Ms Koojan: A case of killing of Ms Koojan has been registered at Police Station Karampur on 6 March 2004 against accused Malhar, Ahmedan, Todo, Khalid, Rehmatullah all Banhgwar by caste vibe FIR No 15/2004 under section 302, 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The accused reportedly took away the dead body of the victim and concealed at unknown place and fled away towards Balotchistan side. On the directions of RPO Sukkur a Joint Special Team consisting of Senior and professionally competent officers from Watch and Wards and Investigation Branch was constituted by DPO Jacobabad for the arrest of involved accused and recovery of dead body of the girl. Efforts in this regard are continuing.

Concerning the death of Ms. Wazeeran: the matter has been enquired and as per report it has relevancy with FIR No 21/2004 u/s 302,337-Hii, 34 of the PPC of Police Station Rohri registered on the complaint of Hakim Ali Mahar. The facts of the case are that on 7.3.2004 at 5.30 hours accused Zaheer Ahmed Mahar, mohammad Saleh Mahar and Qaimuddin Mahar duly armed entered the house of Ms. Waziran Mahar and open fire on her. As a result, she died on the spot. The accused escaped from the scene and went underground. The motive of the murder is dispute between the parties on a pot located in village Rustam, district Shikarpur. Joint efforts are on the way by the DPO and SP Investigation for the arrest of the accused. Further information shall be conveyed in due course.

Response of the Government of Pakistan dated 4 April 2005

It is submitted that the subject matter pertains to case FIR No 65/04 U/S 302 PPC of Police Station Ibrahim Hyderi in which complainant Didar Hussain Resident of Katchi Abadi Ali Mohammad Brohi Goth Dehj Rehri Bin Qasim Town Karachi reported that accused Nazar Mohammad son of Fazal Mohammad murdered his sister Noor Zadi and one Abdul Qadir on the charge of Karo-Kari. The case was registered and Investigation was taken up by Incharge Investigation Wing Police Station Ibrahim Hyderi. During the course of Investigation, the Investigation Officer arrested accused persons 1) Nazar Mohammad son of Fazal Mohammad (husband of deceased Ms. Noor Zadi) 2) Haji Abdul Rehman son of Mir Hussain, the Investigation Officer added Section 34 PPC in the case and challaned the accused persons vide charge sheet No. 61/04 U/S 302/34 PPC dated 27/10/2004 in the Court of Law. Whereas accused 1) Zulifiqar son of Mir Hussain 2) Haji Fazal son of Mir Hussain are absconders in this case from the date of occurrence. The authorities are pursuing their arrest. In view of the above response, the case may be considered as settled.

Pakistan: Deaths in Custody of Eight Persons

Violation alleged: Deaths in custody

Subject(s) of appeal: 7 males; 1 female

Character of reply: Cooperative but incomplete response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur appreciates the preliminary information provided by the Government of Pakistan regarding the deaths of Yasir Lund, Mohammed Ashraf, Ameerzada, and Salim Khan.� The SR would appreciate updated information on the cases brought against those believed responsible.� The SR would also appreciate information regarding the deaths of Perveen Bibi, Isfaque, Mohammed Tariq, and Bashir.

Allegation letter sent on 15 March 2005 with the Special Rapporteur on Torture

Mr. Yasir Lund, Naushahro Feroze. At the end of January 2004, he died due to torture while under the custody of Station House Officer Mehrabpur Zaman Rind, Assistant Sub-inspector Faiz Mohammed, Head Constables Mohammed Mossa and Majeed of Mehrabpur Police Station. Following the incident, protests were held by the community demanding the arrest of the alleged perpetrators. No arrests have been made to date.�

Mr. Mohammed Ashraf, a 30 year-old photographer, Karachi. On 13 July 2004 at 3am, he was arrested by members of the Crime Investigation Agency (CIA) Saddar team and taken to the CIA Centre no 1, on suspicion of a number of offences. Five other men were arrested on the same charges. On 14 July 2004, he died in police custody. The victim�s family, who had not been notified of his death, was asked for a payment to secure his release by Inspector Farooq Sati and Sub-Inspector Taj Wassan. Mr. Ashraf�s body was taken to Jinnah Hospital for a post-mortem examination, which concluded that he had subjected to torture. The authorities claimed that Mr. Ashraf died of a heart attack. A First Incident Report was registered against Head Constable Manzoor and Constable Israr (FIR No. 120/04) and they were both arrested for negligence before being released on bail. No other action has been taken against them. The victim�s family has been the subject of threats and intimidation.

Ms. Perveen Bibi. On 12 August 2004, she died in custody of Hafizabad Police, while being held on suspicion of abducting two young boys. According to the authorities, Ms. Perveen Bibi complained of a stomach ache as she was taken into custody, and died as a result of it. However, no post-mortem examination was carried out.

Mr. Ameerzada, aged 40, and Mr. Salim Khan, aged 30, both from Shereen Jinnah Colony, Karachi. On 18 August 2004, they were arrested in front of their house by officers from Gizri Police Station, under the supervision of Sub-inspector Manzoor, on suspicion of a number of offences. They were subjected to torture in order to extract confessions. On 23 August in the evening, they were doused with petrol and set alight by the Sub-inspector. The men were later taken to the Civil Hospital for treatment. Mr Ameerzada died on 25 August from serious burns. Mr Salim Khan received burns to 75 percent of his body. According to the authorities, the burns resulted from suicide attempts. Thirteen police officers implicated in this incident were suspended, but not charged.

Isfaque (alias Kaloo), aged 14, Sheikhupura. On 27 September 2004, he was arrested by members of the Sheikhupura police on suspicion of theft. He died due to torture in police custody. The police claimed that he was already beaten before the police intervened and took him into custody.

Mr. Mohammed Tariq, Kamoki. On 4 October 2004, he died in custody of the Saddar Kamoki police due to torture. A post-mortem was carried out by a board composed of senior doctors of the Divisional Headquarter Hospital, Gujranwala. The results have not yet been revealed even though the victim�s body has been returned to the family.

Mr. Bashir, aged 25, Sherakot. On 11 October 2004, he was arrested by members of Sherakot Police Station on suspicion of theft.� Mr. Bashir was taken to a cell and subjected to torture by two sub-inspectors, Abdul Ghafoor and Mansoor Hamad and an assistant sub-inspector, Munir Ahmad. He died on 16 October 2004 due to torture. However, the police claimed that he was already injured prior to the arrest.

Response of the Government of Pakistan dated 6 June 2005

Yasir Lund: �was arrested as a suspect in a case by the police officials of Police Station Mehrabpur, District Nausheroferoze, Sindh. He died in the police lock up. The Police department conducted a preliminary enquiry and the mother of deceased Yasir Lund named Ghulam Zohra was advised to register FIR against the police officials who were on duty at that time.

Mother of Yasir Lund named Ghulam Zhora, lodged complaint vide FIR No. 9/04 with Police Station Mehrabpur, District Nausheroferoze against the following five police officials:

i. Sub-Inspector Zaman Rind

ii. Assistant Sub-Inspectorm Faiz Muhhamad

iii. Police Constable Abdul Majeed

iv. Police Constable Muhammad Moosa

v. Police Constable Muhammad Ashraf

Autopsy was carried out. After investigations, the case was registered in the court of District and Session Judge, Nausheroferoze. The Court passed the following orders:

a. Sub-Inspector Zaman Rind was declared absconder

b. Assistant Sub-Inspectorm Faiz Muhhamad was sent to jail custody. He is now in Central Prison Sukkur-I

c. Police Constable Abdul Majeed was sent to jail custody. He is also in Central Prison Sukkur-I

d. Police Constable Muhammad Moosa was granted bail

e. Police Constable Muhammad Ashraf� was also granted bail

The case is presently subjudice.

It is evident that Government has taken effective legal and administrative measures to bring the perpetrators to justice in accordance with the laws of the country.

Muhammad Ashraf: was taken into custody as a suspect by the CIA, Saddar, Karachi, on 13.7.2004. He died in police custody (CIA Saddar) on 14.7.2004.

Autopsy of the dead body was carried out at Jinnah Post Graduate Medical Centre, Karachi, where the doctors declared the cause of death as �Cardio-Respiratory Failure due to Neurogenic Shock�. The investigating officer sought Medico Legal opinion on neurogenic shock. The Incharge of Medico Legal Section of Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre, Karachi, stated in his medico-legal opinion that �Cardio Respiratory Failure due to neurogenic shock may result from fright�.

A complaint was lodged vide FIR No. 120/04 with Police Station Saddar, Karachi. Head Constable Manzoor and Constable Israr were arrested and case was registered in the court of Additional District Judge, District South Karachi.

The Court having examined the autopsy report granted bail to Head Constable Manzoor and Police Constable Israr. The case is presently sub-judice in the court of law.

It is evident that Government has taken effective legal and administrative measures to bring the perpetrators to justice in accordance with the laws of the country.

Ameerzada and Salim Khan: The summary of the allegations contained in the Special Rapporteur�s letter were sent to authorities in Pakistan for investigation. The facts provided by them are as under:

Ameerzada and Salim Khan belonging to Shireen Jinnah Colony, Karachi were arrested under the supervision of Sub-Inspector Manzoor on suspicion of a number of offences. They were kept inside the lock up of Police Station Gizri, District South, Karachi, where they were doused with petrol and set alight, which resulted into the death of Ameerzada while Salim Khan sustained 75% injuries due to burns.

An FIR was registered at Police Station Gizri against the following police officials U/s 302 PPC.

The authopsies of dead bodies were carried out and it was confirmed that the cause of death was burning. A complaint was lodged with Police Staiton Gizri vide FIR 17/04 U/s 302 against following police officials:

i) Inspector Ghaffar Jumani�SHO, Police Station Gizri

ii) Sub Inspector Nasrullah

iii) Inspector Arif Usman

iv) Sub Inspector Manzoor

The State prosecuted four police officials in the court of Judicial Magistrate, South Karachi, where it is presently subjudice.

In addition, the Government also conducted departmental enquiry of the incident. As a result of the enquiry report, following eleven police officials were dismissed from service under a departmental action:

1. Inspector Ghaffer Jumani�SHO, Police Station Gizri

2. Inspector Arif Usman

3. Sub-Inspector Nasrullah

4. Sub-Inspector Manzoor

5. Assistant Sub Inspector Faiz Muhammad

6. Assistant Sub Inspector Qurban Ali

7. Assistant Sub Inspector Hanif

8. Police Constable Badruddin

9. Police Constable Masood Shad

10. Police Constable Waheed

11. Police Constable Abid

It is evident that Government has taken effective legal and administrative measures to bring the perpetrators to justice in accordance with the laws of the coutry.

Pakistan: Death Sentences of Two Juvenile Offenders

Violation alleged: Non-respect of international standards relating to the imposition of capital punishment

Subject(s) of appeal: 2 males (1 minor; 2 juvenile offenders; 2 refugees)

Character of reply: Largely satisfactory response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur appreciates receiving the information from Pakistan that the cases of Ziauddin and Abdul Qadir have been remanded due to the death sentences that had been imposed.� The SR would appreciate updated information on their sentences.

Urgent appeal sent 9 June 2005

Urgent appeal sent on 9 June 2005 concerning two Afghan refugees known as Ziauddin, aged around 15 and Abdul Qadir, aged around 18, currently in Much Prison, east of the provincial capital Quetta.

According to the information received, both were sentenced to death in 2003 after having been found guilty of murder by an Anti-Terrorism Court although court documents clearly record them as being minors at the time of their arrest, which means that they should have been tried by a Juvenile Court. Reports indicate that Ziauddin, who suffers from polio, was 13 years old at the time of his arrest whereas Abdul Qadir was 16 years old. Their death sentence is currently under appeal.

The two young males are being detained in Much Prison, an adult prison, where they share a cell with 6 men under death sentences. Much Prison is heavily overcrowded and persons sentenced to death are allegedly kept in particularly appalling conditions in extremely small cells without separate toilets.

In this regard, I wish to note that the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance of 2000 explicitly prohibits the imposition of capital punishment on anyone who was under the age of 18 at the time of the commission of the crime. Moreover, the right to life of persons below eighteen years of age and the obligation of States to guarantee the enjoyment of this right to the maximum extent possible are both specifically expressed in article 6 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. More explicitly, article 37(a) provides that capital punishment shall not be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age.

In this regard, I would respectfully urge the Government of your Excellency to take all measures necessary to comply with international law. These measures were, in our view, accurately reflected in the recommendations issued by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, which called on the Government of Pakistan, in October 2003, to, inter alia, �(b) Raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility to an internationally acceptable level and ensure that children below the age of 18 years are accorded the protection of juvenile justice provisions and are not treated as adults; (e) Set up a system of juvenile courts; (f) Ensure that children in detention are always separated from adults; (h)Take immediate steps to ensure that the prohibition of the death penalty, as stipulated in the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, is guaranteed for all children below the age of 18 years, in light of articles 37 (a) and 6 of the Convention, and that death sentences imposed before the promulgation of this Ordinance are not carried out.� (See CRC/C/15/Add.217, at par. 81).

In this connection, I would also be grateful if your Excellency�s Government could inform me of the steps it has taken to ensure that, in future, the death penalty cannot be imposed either upon the two above-mentioned young men or on any other child accused of committing a crime when under the age of 18.� This would appear to be a matter of pressing importance in view of the fact that both domestic and international law prohibit the imposition of such a punishment, but that this did not apparently prevent the death sentence being imposed in the first instance.

Response of the Government of Pakistan dated 17 August 2005

�A report was sought on the subject from Inspector General of Prisons, Balochistan, Quetta. The Report states that the Honourable High Court of Balochistan vide its Judgment dated 23.05.2005 set aside the ordre/judgment of the Honourable Court of ATC-I Quetta dated 12.06.2003, regarding death sentence of both juvenile prisoners and remanded the case to the �Juvenile Justice Court� for rewriting the Judgment.

Besides the Superintendent, Central Jail, Mach has informed that both the Juvenile prisioners are being kept in a separate room with other five youthful offenders of the same age and they are not confined with adult prisoners.

Regarding allegations of torture or abuse, the Superintendent Jail Mach personally interviewed both the juvenile prisoners. They have informed the Superintendent Jail that they had no complaint of torture or abuse by their fellow juvenile prisoners or the officials of the Jail. They are in safe hands and are being treated very well.�

Pakistan: Death Sentence of Juvenile Offender Mutabar Khan

Violation alleged: Non-respect of international standards relating to the imposition of capital punishment

Subject(s) of appeal: 1 male (juvenile offender)

Character of reply: Cooperative but incomplete response.

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur appreciates the information that the Government of Pakistan has provided concerning Mutabar Khan.� However, in light of the credible allegations that Mutabar Khan was younger than 18 years of age at time of the crime�s commission, he would appreciate further information concerning how Mutabar Khan�s precise age was determined.

Urgent appeal sent on 9 June 2005

Mutabar Khan, aged about 25, who was reportedly sentenced to death for murder in 1998 and is now being held in a death cell in the Haripur prison in the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan. According to the information received, Mr. Khan was arrested in 1996 while he was reportedly 16 years old. Although his age was not recorded by the authorities, he was then allegedly detained in the juvenile section of the Peshawar Central Jail, which would support his claim that he was a juvenile at the time of his arrest.

According to the information received, Mr. Khan has been facing great difficulties in attempting to prove that he was in fact a juvenile at the time of the commission of the crime. Indeed, reports indicate that successive appeals against his death sentence on these grounds have all failed. Both his appeals in the Peshawar High Court and the Supreme Court were dismissed in 2000 and 2001 respectively. In 2003, two petitions filed by his mother, one with the Peshawar High Court to overturn the sentence because of his age as well as another one with the Supreme Court, asking for his age to be determined through medical tests on his bones were also dismissed. I have been informed that, as a last resort, Mr. Khan's lawyer filed a petition for mercy with the President asking to commute his death sentence. President Musharraf has not yet reached a decision on the case.

In this regard, I note that the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance of 2000 (JJSO) explicitly prohibits the imposition of capital punishment on anyone who was under the age of 18 at the time of the commission of the crime. Besides, I have been informed that, in December 2001, by the Presidential Commutation Order of 2001, President Pervez Musharraf ordered the commutation of death sentences of all those juveniles who had been sentenced to death before July 2000. It is my understanding that, because of the dispute over his age, this commutation did not apply to Mr. Khan.

In this connection, concern has been expressed over reports that many juveniles under sentence of death have actually faced a lot of problems and long delays when seeking to commute their sentence under the terms of this above-mentioned Presidential Commutation Order. Indeed, it is reported that, in many cases, the authorities simply have no record of the age of the accused as prior to the implementation of the JJSO in 2000, age was not taken into account when deciding leniency.� On the other hand, it is reported that it is also difficult for the accused themselves, their relatives or their legal representatives to prove their age, as documents such as school leaving certificates and birth certificates have often been refused as evidence due to the simplicity with which they can be forged.

Finally, concern is heightened by reports according to which, despite the introduction of the JJSO, many judges have failed to address the issue of age of the accused before them and generally accept the age recorded by police, even if the accused person appears to be younger.

If these allegations are correct, there would be grounds for serious concerns. Therefore, while I do not wish to prejudge the accuracy of these allegations, I would respectfully urge your Excellency�s Government to take all necessary measures in order to fully implement the Presidential Commutation Order of December 2001 without delay, in accordance with Pakistan�s commitments under both the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance and the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child. I take this opportunity to remind your Excellency�s Government of the fact that the right to life of persons below eighteen years of age and the obligation of States to guarantee the enjoyment of this right to the maximum extent possible are both specifically expressed in article 6 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Pakistan is a State party. More explicitly, article 37(a) provides that capital punishment shall not be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age.

I would also like to recall that, in its concluding observations on the report of Pakistan in October 2003, while welcoming the promulgation of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance of 2000, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child indicated that it was �concerned at its poor implementation and that many of the authorities in charge of its implementation, particularly within provincial governments and tribal areas, are unaware of its existence. Further, the Committee is deeply concerned about reports of juvenile offenders being sentenced to death and executed, which have occurred even after the promulgation of the Ordinance.� The Committee therefore recommended, inter alia, that the State party �(h) Take immediate steps to ensure that the prohibition of the death penalty, as stipulated in the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, is guaranteed for all children below the age of 18 years, in light of articles 37 (a) and 6 of the Convention, and that death sentences imposed before the promulgation of this Ordinance are not carried out.�

In view of what appears to be remaining uncertainty over Mr. Khan�s age at the time of the commission of the crime, I would strongly suggest that his death sentence be commuted. I would also request your Government to show clemency in similar cases where juveniles have been unable to adequately prove that they were indeed juveniles at the time of the alleged offence either because of their parents� failures to register their births or because of delays in the criminal justice system to establish their age.

Response of the Government of Pakistan dated 16 September 2005

Muthabar Khan� son of Khan Pur, of Swabi, fell in love with a local girl Mashooqa daughter of Khanzada and wanted to marry her. On refusal, he brutally axed to death Mashooqa, her father, her two sisters, her minor brother and injured her mother who later succumbed to her injuries. One Taza Gul was co-accused in the case who is still at large.

In this connection, the local police had registered a case and arrested the accused Mutabar Khan. The accused was convicted and awarded five time death sentence besides 53 years Rigorous Imprisonment and Rs. 65.000 Fine, by Additional Session Judge Swabi. Mutabar Khan remained in Swabi, Haripur, Bannu and Peshawar Prisons. At present, he is in the Death Cell of Central Jail Peshawar since 14 March 2004. His appeals have been rejected by the Superior Courts. His review petition was also dismissed by Supreme Court of Pakistan on the ground that the case cannot be reopened fro trail under the �Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000� and the orders issued by the President of Pakistan on 27^th December 2001 (under which the death sentence awarded to any minor of under 18 years accused can be remitted /converted to life imprisonment), as his age at the time of the commission of the crime was 18 years, 6 months and 12 days.

In view of the foregoing, the accused is not entitled to trial under the �Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000� because his age at the time of the commission of offence was above 18 years and his present age is 27/28 years. It may be mentioned that his age recorded as 23 years and 6 months, by Medical Officer on 1 April 2001, when the culprit was transferred from Haripur Jail to Central Jail, Peshawar. His sentence is based on the verdicts given by the Superior Courts on his gruesome crime.

Pakistan: Targeted Killing of Haitham al-Yemeni

Violation alleged: Death due to attacks or killings by security forces

Subject(s) of appeal: 1 male

Character of reply: Cooperative but incomplete response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur appreciates the information provided by the Government of Pakistan.� However, the SR remains concerned about the lack of a thorough investigation into the allegations.� A finding that a foreigner was killed when a car exploded is consistent with a targeted killing directed at Haitham al-Yemeni, and the SR regrets that a more thorough investigation was not conducted.

Allegation letter sent on 1 September 2005

Haitham al-Yemeni, an alleged al-Qaeda senior figure, was killed on the Pakistani side of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border on or around the 10 May 2005 by a missile fired by an un-manned aerial drone operated by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Mr. al-Yemeni had reportedly been under surveillance for more than a week by US intelligence and military personnel. Reports indicate that the Predator drone, operated from a secret base hundreds of kilometers from the target, located and fired on him in Toorikhel, Pakistan, an area where forces of your Excellency�s Government had allegedly been looking for al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden.

According to the information received, although Mr. al-Yemeni was not listed by that name neither in your Government�s �most wanted�, nor in that of the United States of America, the active surveillance of his activities would suggest that he was playing an important role inside the al-Qaeda organization. It has been suggested that those undertaking the surveillance were hoping that he would lead them to Osama bin Laden. However, after Abu Faraj al-Libbi, another suspected al-Qaeda leader, was arrested by your Excellency�s Government a month before, it is reported that a decision was taken to kill Mr. al-Yemeni for fear that he would go into hiding and thus be lost track of.� My understanding is that the CIA reportedly refused to comment on the situation. Similarly, Sheik Rashid Ahmed, your Government's Information Minister reportedly denied that any such incident had ever happened near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

I wish to stress that, while Governments have a responsibility to protect their own citizens and those of other States against the excesses of non-State actors or other entities, efforts to eradicate terrorism must be undertaken within a framework clearly governed by international human rights law as well as by international humanitarian law. In this respect, I would reiterate my concern that empowering Governments to identify and kill �known terrorists� places no verifiable obligation upon them to demonstrate in any way that those against whom lethal force is used are indeed terrorists, or to demonstrate that every other alternative has been exhausted. (See E/CN.4/2005/7, at par. 41).

Without in any way wishing to pre-judge the accuracy of the information received, I would be grateful for a reply to the following questions:�

1. �� Did the government of Pakistan consent to the killing of Haitham al-Yemeni? If so, on what basis was it decided to kill rather than capture Haitham al-Yemeni?

2. �� What rules of international law does your Excellency�s Government consider to govern this incident? If your Excellency's Government considers the incident to have been governed by humanitarian law, please clarify which treaty instruments or customary norms are considered to apply.

3. �� What procedural safeguards, if any, were employed to ensure that this killing complied with international law?

4. �� In case your Excellency�s Government did not consent to the killing of Haitham al-Yemeni, what steps were taken to investigate the incident and hold those responsible accountable?

Response of the Government of Pakistan dated 17 October 2005

On 8 May 2005, a car blew up with an explosion near Mirali, North Waziristan Agency (NWA), resulting in the killing of a local and an unidentified foreigner. The remains of the foreigner were buried at an unknown place. After a few days it was propagated on media that Haitham Al Yemeni had been killed in a missile attack in North wazirisitan Agency. There is no evidence to suggest that the deceased foreigner was Hatham Al-Yemeni.

Correspondence from 2005

The record of correspondence for 2005 is excerpted from the official United Nations report, E/CN.4/2005/7/Add.1.

Type, date and summary of communication: Allegation, sent on 20 October 2003. See E/CN.4/2004/7/Add.1, parag 501-505

Government reply: Response dated 17 February 2004. The Government provided the following onformation:

Allegation concerning the death of Ms. Sharifan Bibi (parag 503). The police implicated in the incident was searching for a proclaimed offender, who is the victim�s step son. The victim died of a heart attack. The daughter of the victim was released immediately. After protest in the village, one of the perpetrators, SHO of the Kot Ladha police station was suspended. The victim�s family exonerated SHO in a written statement, stating that the victim was an old lady and that her death was not the consequence of the raid in the house. Therefore, SHO was re-instated.

Allegation concerning the death of Mr. Azam Khan (parag 505). The victim was found dead in the lock-up. The autopsy, carried out at Mian Mushi Trust Hospital revealed neither any sign of torture nor poison in the stomach.

Observation of the Special Rapporteur: The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its reply. The Special Rapporteur would appreciate receiving details, and where available the results, of any investigation, or judicial or other form of inquiry carried out in relation to the involvement of the other police officers involved in the operation that resulted in the death of Sharifan Bibi.

Type, date and summary of communication: Allegation, 3 September 2003. See E/CN.4/2004/7/Add.1, parag 353-500.

Government reply: Response dated 30 April-04. Allegation concerning the death of Ms. Nilam Bibi and Mr. Umar Zameen (Parag. 427): According to the Government of Pakistan, Mr Gujar Khan, father of one of the victim, lodged a complaint and the Police Station Gulbahar Liaquatabad registered a First Investigation Report. The police arrested Khasta Rehman. The case is presently under trial in the court of Additional District Judge � V Central. An autopsy of both victims has been conducted at Abbasi Shaheed Hospital.

Allegation concerning the death of Ms. Mera (parag 431): Mr Partab Meghwar was arrested, and the weapon was recovered. The accused was produced before the Magistrate Umer Kot. Further progress is awaited.

Response dated 6 February 2004 Allegation concerning the death of Bibi Amina and Wilayat Shah (Parag. 358). The case was investigated by the police, and sent to the District court and Session Judge Peshawar for trial. The government of Pakistan states that it was a sudden incident. The decision of the Court is awaited.

Allegation concerning the death of Mohammedia and Khalil Mohammed (Parag. 430). The police arrested Rahim Bali, husband of one of the victims. He confessed his crime. The accused Gul Bali is on bail. The murder case is under trial.

Allegation concerning the death of Shaheed Khan and Sumaira Bibi (Parag. 405). According to the Government of Pakistan, a murder case was registered and is being investigated by Lakki Bureau of Investigation, District Lukki Murwat Public Prosecutor. The accused are fugitive and will face trial after their arrest.

Allegations concerning the death of Shahnaz and Mohammed Rafiq (Parag. 489). The police have registered the complaint made by Ms Ghushad, wife of Zulfiquar. The police are pursuing the arrest of the accused.

Allegation concerning the death of Shamshad Bibi (Parag. 468). A complaint was filed by the father of the victim against Zafar Shan, son of the victim. The case was registered under section 302. The accused confessed the offence and was released on bail. The case was sent to the Court of Additionnal Session Judge Dera Ismail Khan and is pending for trial.

Allegation concerning the death of Shahida and Salim Khan (Parag. 498). A case under section 302 (murder) was registered by the police Station Mardan on 24/05/2004. An autopsy was carried out on both victims. Superintendent of investigation Bhadur Khan is responsible for investigating the case. The inquiry is still under process.

Response dated 17 February 2004. Allegation concerning the death of Ms. Arbeli (Parag. 365). A First Investigation Report was registered under section 34 of Penal code by the father of the victim. The accused, Bashir Rajar was arrested and is facing trial.

Allegations concerning the death of Ms. Kaneez Rukhsana (Parag. 395). The main suspect Ibrahim Jamali, Kaneez Rukhsana�s husband, was gunned down on 31 May 2002. A FIR was registered under section 302 for his murder. One of the other two accused, namely Abdul Hakeem could not be arrested. Muhammad Asghar, the third accused was arrested and produced on 17 January 2002 before Judicial Magistrate in Johi.

Allegation concerning the death of Bibi Noor Bano (Parag. 399). A FIR was registered by Mr Hussain Shah, son of the victim�s cousin. The accused was produced before Session Court Nawabshah and is in Sukkur jail pending the conclusion of the trial.

Allegation concerning the death of Ms. Pathani and Abdul Rahim (Parag. 442). The Government of Pakistan informs that the three perpetrators, namely Ghulam Rasool,, Pathani�s husband, Nek Muhammad and Rasool Buk were produced before the court of law under section 302 (murder). The case was registered at police Station Khanpur Mahr by Inspector Razi Khan Almani and is still under process.

Allegation concerning the death of Shamshad Kehar (Parag. 451). The Government of Pakistan claims that the facts alleged in the summary are incorrect. The victim was not shot dead by her uncle but was killed with baton mainly by her father. No complaint was lodged. However, a FIR under section 203 was registered at Police Station Mahuta. The case was investigated and is under process with Extra joint Civil Judge Larkana.

Allegation concerning the death of Ms. Hajul Chandio and Mr. Saddar Chandio (Parag. 455). According to the Government of Pakistan, postmortem examination confirmed that both victims died of gun wounds. A FIR under section 302 (murder) was registered against the father of Hajul Chandio, namely Ashiq Ali Chandio at Police Station Waleed Taluka, Distrci Larkana. The accused is under police custody. The case is produced before Judicial Magistrate Larkana and under process.

Allegation concerning the death of Ms Hasina and Mr. Khamiso (Parag. 458). Inspector Muhammad Hashim Memon registered a FRI under section 302, 148 and 149 and is investigating the case. According to the Government �the case was disposed off under clause �C��.

Allegation concerning the death of Ms Sohni and Mr. Zahid Ali (Parag. 473). A FIR was registered under section 302, 114 and 34 by SHO Ghulam Muzammal Soomro of Police Station Mahuta. Investigation is carried out by Sub Inspector Police Gulzar Ali Abra. The case is under trial but the accused could not be found by the authorities.

Allegation concerning the death of Mr. Roshan Ali and Ms. Sozi (Parag. 482). Two FIR were registered by Police Station Drib under section 302 and 34. Autopsies were conducted. The case was referred to Judicial Court Larkana and is under process.

Observation of the Special Rapporteur: The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its reply. The Special Rapporteur would appreciate receiving further details on the conclusions of the trials and of the autopsies as well as receiving information relevant to the other cases referred to in the allegation letter.

Type, date and summary of communication: Urgent appeal, 24 March 2004. A man known as "Arshad" who is reportedly scheduled to be executed at Adiala Jail in the city of Rawalpindi on 28 March 2004. According to the information received, he was sentenced to death for the murder of a man in 1998 in the area of Tarnol by District and Sessions Judge Mansoor Ali Khan. He reportedly filed an appeal after he was sentenced but this was rejected by the high court in Islamabad. It is alleged that his death warrant has been sent to the Superintendent of Adiala Jail and that he could be executed at any time. In this respect, it is my understanding that the Safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty have not been respected.

Government reply: Response dated 27 April 2004. The Government of Pakistan claims that Mr. Arshad Mahmood has the right to appeal to the Supreme Court, a right that he had not exercised yet. In case of dismissal of appeal by the Supreme Court, his mercy petition would be submitted to the President of Pakistan. The case is still under judicial review and all safeguards are fully taken into account.

Observation of the Special Rapporteur: The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its reply and would be grateful for information as to the outcome of the pending judicial review.

Type, date and summary of communication: Urgent appeal sent with Special Rapporteur on violence against women and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders, 7 April 2004. According to the information received, in 2002 Uzma Noorani, Secretary General of Panah Shelter Home for Women and a council member of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, provided shelter in the Panah Shelter Home for Women to a woman who had allegedly been tortured by her husband, a Major in the army. It is reported that during this time, the husband of the women harassed and threatened to kill the staff of Panah for having granted asylum to his wife. The woman Yet, returned to her husband two months later. Yet he obtained the contact details of Uzma Noorani and has subjected her and her family to constant harassment and intimidation with threatening and abusive telephone calls. She filed a complaint on 26 April 2003 with the Corp Commander of the army and the Citizen Police Liaison Committee (CPLC). The Corp Commander reportedly informed her that she would no longer be harassed. The harassment stopped following her complaint but has reportedly begun again. A further complaint was filed on 25 February 2004 with the Police including the Senior Superintendent of Police in Islamabad Mr Shaid Nadeem Balouch. However, no action has reportedly been taken by the authorities to protect Uzma Noorani and her family.

Government reply: Response dated 15 October 2004. The Assistant Superintendent Police of Islamabad reports that necessary action was taken. A FIR dated on 1 October 2003 has been registered under sections 506, 511 and 352 of the Penal code against the accused. Moreover, the accused was arrested and was sent to court. However, necessary preventive action under section 107/150 has been prepared and sent to Court. In view of the attached response, the Government asserts that the case may be considered as settled.

Observation of the Special Rapporteur: The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its reply. The Special Rapporteur would appreciate further on the outcome of the trial.

Type, date and summary of communication: Allegation sent with the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, 28 April 2004. According to information received, on 14 April 2004, Hazooran, a 36-year-old woman mother of 4 children was killed by her husband Gulshan Ali (son of Khabar, of Jeho Caste reportedly in the name of honor), and Dilawar, the brother of the accused, in Drakhan Village, Garhi Yaseen Town, Shikarpur District, Sindh Province. According to the information received, the victim's brother went to lodge a complaint at the Drakhan Police Station (Case No. 27/04 Section 302-34 PPC) within two hours after the incident, at around 8.30 am on the 14 April 2004; he clearly stated to the police that it was a killing in the name of honour. According to the information received, the police are not taking any steps to arrest the alleged perpetrators of the crime.

Government reply: Response dated 16 June 2004. According to the Government, a First Investigation Report was registered by the Police Station Dakhan District of Shikarpur under section 302. The alleged perpetrator, namely Gulshan Jeho, husband of the victim, was arrested. The weapon was recovered. A separated case was registered against the accused. Efforts are underway to arrest the brother of the accused, Delawar Jeho. According to the Government, all killings in the name of Karo-kari (honour) are registered under section 302 PPC (Murder) for award of maximum punishment by the Courts.

Observation of the Special Rapporteur: The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its reply. The Special Rapporteur would appreciate further details on the conclusions of the trial agsint the accused and on the whereabouts of his accomplice.

Type, date and summary of communication: Urgent appeal, 10 May 2004. Mr. Arshad Mahmood, whose case was the object of a previous urgent appeal sent to your Government on 24 March 2004 (Communication No. UA G/SO 214/33-21 PAK 6/2004). The Special Rapporteur took note of the Government response dated 27 April 2004., However, given the fact that Mr. Arshad Mahmood's petitions were all dismissed by the courts of Pakistan and that his stay of execution expires on 12 May 2004, he could possibly be hanged unless he is granted Presidential clemency.

Type, date and summary of communication: Urgent appeal sent with Special Rapporteur on violence against women, 14 May 2004. Ms Tahmeena, aged 17, and Ms Aabida, aged 18, two cousins from Sindh Province who were reportedly shot dead after they were accused of having "loose morals" for having visited their grandparents without first getting family permission. The decision to kill the girls was taken in a tribal jirga, led by Mr. Abdul Rasheed, the tribal chief and a powerful landlord in the village. On 1 May 2004, the two victims had gone to visit their grandparents without informing any family members. On 2 May 2004, two search groups went to look for them. Abdul Rasheed, who was part of the group who found the girls, brought them to his residence at Lakhi gate in Shikarpur. As chief of the tribe, he called on several persons to join him there for the jirga including Ms Tahmeena�s brothers Fazaluddin and Hidayatullah, as well as Ms Aabida�s father Dad Mohammad, telling them that the girls were under his protection and that they would be given back to their family the following day. The three relatives went to appear before the tribal chief on 3 May 2004. Although Fazaluddin, Hidayatullah, and Dad Mohammad begged members of the tribenot to kill the girls, they were shot and their bodies taken away. The witnesses were treatheneds with death if they were to complain to the police.The witnesses reported the killings at the police station in New Faojdari. Since then, the family has received constant threats to withdraw the case and has been socially ostracized by the rest of the community. The perpetrators have refused to give the bodies to the family, claiming that they were already too decayed. Reports indicate that the police have done nothing to investigate this case and to bring the perpetrators to justice, and have taken no action to protect the family members who lodged the complaint.

Government reply: Response dated 16 June 2004. According to the Government of Pakistan, on 4 May 2004 a First Inquiry Report was filed by Mr. Fazaluddin, brother of Ms. Tehmeena at police Station New Foudjari, Shikapur against the 8 following persons:
Abdul Rasheed, s/o Haji Ghulam Nabi
- Younis s/o Allah Ditto
- Jamaluddin s/o Haji Shafi Muhammad
- Haji Abdul Karin s/o Allah Warayo
- Ghulam Sarwar s/o Ghulam Rasool
- Suleman s/o Abdul Kalique
- Haji Shafi Muhammad s/o Haji Hurmal
- Sanaullah s/o Moulvi Abdul Rehman

On 11 May 2004, three accused were arrested and on 14 May 2004, the victim�s bodies were recovered in the fish pond of Abdul Rasheed Bhutto situated near village Janno District Shikapur. Further raids are being carried out. Police guards are provided for the safety of the victim�s families. The entire process is being supervised by the concerned authorities at high level. In view of the above information, the Government of Pakistan wishes that these allegations would not be pursued further.

Observation of the Special Rapporteur: The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its reply. The Special Rapporteur would appreciate further details on the outcome of the trial against the alleged perpetrators.

Type, date and summary of communication: Urgent appeal, 16 June 2004. Mr. Najeebullah Khan was detained at the central jail of Mianwali and was due to be executed on 23 June 2004. According to the information received, Mr. Khan was tried by the Sargodha Anti-Terrorist Court and was convicted on 17 March 1999 for killing Fida Mohammed on 31 January 1998. The SR brought to the attention of the Government that the Safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty have not been respected. Besides, it has been brought to my attention that the postponement of the execution would allow Mr. Khan�s family to raise the demanded amounted of Diyat to be paid to the aggrieved family.

Type, date and summary of communication: Allegation sent with Special Rapporteur on torture, 25 June 2004. According to the information received, Samuel Sunil, an 18-year-old member of the Christian minority in Pakistan was arrested by police officers from the Qilla Singh Police Station on 9 August 2003. He was accused of robbery by his employer, the proprietor of an Internet caf� on Mall Road, after a salary payment dispute. A Sub-Inspector from the Qilla Singh Police Station and other officers tortured him in front of his employer, and he was sent later that day to Camp Jail Lahore and detained with convicted criminals. At Camp Jail Lahore ,Samuel Sunil was sodomized by three inmates. The prison authorities failed in their duties to protect him from the sexual assault while he was in custody. When Samuel Sunil made a complaint about the assault to the prison officials, a Deputy Superintendent ordered Samuel Sunil to be punished along with his assailants, as he was viewed as being party to the crime of sodomy. He was then subjected to severe torture which resulted in his death on 19 August 2003. Jail officials hung his body by the neck from a ceiling fan in order to make his death appear to have been a suicide. An autopsy report noted signs of sodomy and suggested that torture was the cause of death. A case has been registered against the Prison Superintendent, Jail Warden, and the three prisoners who allegedly assaulted him..

On 30 September 2003 Zafar Iqbal was reportedly handed over to Westridge Police Station in Rawalpindi Division after he was caught by a group of civilians who accused him of robbery. Since his handover to the the Station House Officer (SHO) no complaint was registered against him, nor was he produced before a court. Despite the police�s claim that Zafar Iqbal was released, it is alleged that he died in police custody as a result of torture and that his body was disposed of. Reports indicate that the SHO of Westridge police station and two constables were taken into custody and that a FIR was registered on charges of abduction and hiding a person under the pretext of killing him. The Special Rapporteurs requested information concerning the prosecution and eventual conviction of those held responsible.

On 1 March 2004, Shahid, beaten to death by members of the Kotwali police in Lahore, when he was visiting his neighbors. The police raided the neighbors� house on suspicion that they were involved in a forgery case. Shahid was severely beaten on the head and collapsed and the policemen continued beating, kicking and hitting him with the butts of their rifles and guns. Shahid, died as a result of this treatment. His body was dragged into the street by the policemen, who told other neighbors that he was only unconscious and prevented them from approaching or taking him to the hospital. Witnesses claimed that his body was covered with bruises, in particular in the chest, back, arms and ribs. A FIR has reportedly been filed against the policemen and a Sub-Inspector has been identified as responsible for murder.

Government reply: Response dated 27 Dec 2004 Allegations concerning Zafar Iqbal: Mr. Zafar Iqbal was found confined in the lock-up for allegedly entering on 30 September 2003 along with two accomplices into the house of Dr. Rauf Ahmed Raja to commit robbery. But he was captured/overpowered by the inhabitants of the house with the assistance of residents of the locality. His companions managed to escape from the scene. Zafar Iqbal was handed over to the SHO for legal action. Rather than registering him the SHO kept him confined illegally and was subsequently declared to be missing when an inspection was carried out by the ASP/SDPO, Cantt. The authorities are conducting judicial and departmental inquiries. A case dated 4 October 2003 has be

Pakistan: Visits & Communications

Correspondence from 2007

Pakistan: Death Sentences of Four Men

Correspondence from 2006

Pakistan: Execution of Najeebullah Khan

Pakistan: Deaths in Custody of Sifullah Kharal and Qari Mohammad Noor

Pakistan: Execution of Mohammed Yar

Pakistan: Mohammed Ramazan, Dost Ali, and Haider Ali

Pakistan: Killing of Yusuf by Police

Pakistan: Impunity for Honour Killings

Pakistan: Deaths in Custody of Eight Persons

Pakistan: Death Sentences of Two Juvenile Offenders

Pakistan: Death Sentence of Juvenile Offender Mutabar Khan

Pakistan: Targeted Killing of Haitham al-Yemeni

Correspondence from 2005