555A
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE LAHORE HIGH COURT
2ND ANNUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
BY BLACKSTONE MOOTING SOCIETY
ALI AKBAR
(Petitioner)
Vs.
THE STATE
(Respondent)
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………………..
List of Abbreviations ………………………………………………………………………………
List of Authorities …………………………………………………………………………………
Statement of Relevant Facts ………………………………………………………………….
Statement of Jurisdiction………………………………………………………………………
Questions presented/ Issues raised …………………………………………………………….
Summary of Pleadings………………………………………………………………………….
Advanced Pleadings…………………………………………………………………………….
I. Did the Anti-Terrorism Court have jurisdiction to try Ali Akbar’s case in 1999?.......................
A. the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 with Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance, 1999 is
applicable in the instant case………………………………………………………………
B.The ATA, 1997 provided mens rea approach, which is not satisfied in the instant
case………………………………………………………………………………………..
C.The principle of ‘nexus’ is not satisfied in the instant case……………………………
II. Was Ali Akbar rightfully convicted by the Anti-Terrorism Court?........................................
A.The confessions were extracted by torture, therefore they are questionable…………..
B.The statements recorded in police custody were inadmissible before ATC…………..
C.Ali Akbar’s conviction violated Pakistan’s International obligations…………………
III. Did the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (later repealed by the Juvenile Justice System
Act, 2018) have a retrospective effect?..........................................................................................
IV. Did the sentence of death penalty violate the fundamental human rights of Ali
Akbar?...........................................................................................................................................
Prayer/ Relief……………………………………………………………………………………
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
➢ ATA Anti Terrorism Act
➢ ATC Anti Terrorism Court
➢ JJSO Juvenile Justice System Ordinance
➢ SCP Supreme Court Of Pakistan
➢ HC High Court
➢ COP Constitution Of Pakistan
➢ PLC Pakistan Law Digestion
➢ LHC Lahore High Court
➢ Sec Section
➢ Art. Article
LIST OF AUTHORITIES
Case Laws
Muhammad Afzal vs. Federation of Pakistan and others, 1999 P.Cr.L.J. 929 Lahore
Ahmed Shah and another vs. The State, 2003 YLR 1977 Karachi
Mehram Ali vs. Federation of Pakistan and others, PLD 1998 SC 1445.
Jamat-i-Islami Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan and others, PLD 2000 SC 111.
1
Ch. Bashir Ahmed v. Naveed Iqbal,PLD 2001 SC 521.
Bashir Ahmed v. Muhammad Siddique,PLD 2009 SC 11.
Ziaullah vs. Najeebullah {PLD 2003 SC 656}.
Pakistani Law/Statutes
Constitution of Islamic Republic Of Pakistan
Pakistan Penal Code
Criminal Procedure Code
Anti Terrorism Act
Juvenile Justice System Ordinance
STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
The case concerns a writ petition filed on behalf of Ali Akbar, who was found involved in the
offense of robbery along with his friend Babar Amjad. However, Babar fired at the old man
before leaving, which caused his death. The police arrested both, but released Babar from
custody. Ali Akbar was severely beaten by police, for which he confessed to the crime to avoid
the physical abuse. He was tried by Anti-Terrorism Court in 1999 and at the age of 17, he was
sentenced to death U/S 302 PPC and Section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. In 2000, Juvenile
Justice System Ordinance was passé, which prohibited execution of juveniles to death. Ali Akbar
filed an appeal, however his appeal was declined for the law cannot be applied retrospectively.
After spending half of his life on death row, a black warrant for execution of Ali Akbar was
issued on 11-02-2019. Hence, this writ petition before this Honourable Court.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
On behalf of Ali Akbar, Justice for All has filed writ petition before this Honourable Court.
Pursuant to Article 199 of Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, this Honourable Court is empowered
to heat the instant petition.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED/ ISSUES RAISED
I. Did the Anti-Terrorism Court have jurisdiction to try Ali Akbar’s case in 1999?
II. Was Ali Akbar rightfully convicted by the Anti-Terrorism Court?
III. Did the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (later repealed by the Juvenile Justice System
Act, 2018) have a retrospective effect?
IV. Did the sentence of death penalty violate the fundamental human rights of Ali Akbar?
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
Charge 1
Admittedly, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 has been amended several times. Notably, the first
amendment in the said Act was made through Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance, 1999,
which came into force on 24-02-1999. The case of Ali Akbar was tried in Anti-Terrorism Court
in 1999, for which the amended Act is applicable on the instant case. After amendment, section
6(a) of ATA, 1997 stipulates inter alia that “a person is said commit terrorist Act if he, in order
to, or if the effect of his actions will be to, strike terror or create a sense of fear and insecurity in
the people, or any section of the people, does any act or thing by using fire-arms or other lethal
weapons as may be notified, in such a manner as to cause, or be likely to cause, the death of, or
injury to, any person or persons.”
Charge 2
Being a juvenile he is not liable for capital punishment, imposition of death penalty on children
and juveniles is a clear violation of Pakistan’s International legal obligation as a state party to the
United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child to bring its domestic law into conformity
with the Convention’s provision that the death penalty may not be imposed on anyone below the
age of 18 at the time at the time of offence.
Charge 3
The juvenile justice system ordinance of Pakistan was not expressly retroactively enacted.
However, the president of Pakistan issued notification NO:- F.8/41/2001 Ptns dated 13.12.2001
(Notification) in exercise of his powers under article 45 of the constitution of Pakistan 1973. As
per this notification, especial remission under article 45 is to be granted to all juveniles sentenced
to death whose sentences were confirmed by the High Court before 17the December 2001, and
their death sentence is to be commuted to life imprisonment.
Charge 4
Death penalty is a violation of right to fair trial and right to life because the Anti terrorism court
being a especial court is bound to conduct speedy trial and it is the violation of right to fair trail
because the accused did not prove himself innocent within short period of time. Furthermore it is
the violation of right to life because article 6 of International Covenant on Civil & Political Right
provides that every human being has the right to life, this right shall be protected by law and no
person shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
ADVANCED PLEADINGS
I. Did the Anti-Terrorism court have jurisdiction to try Ali Akbar’s case in 1999?
The Anti-terrorism court had no jurisdiction to try Ali Akbar’s case in 1999, because:firstly, the
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 with Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance, 1999 is not applicable
in the instant case[A]; secondly, the ATA, 1997 provided mens rea approach, which is not
satisfied in the instant case[B]; and lastly, the principle of ‘nexus’ is not satisfied in the instant
case [C].
A. The Anti-terrorism Act, 1997 with Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance, 1999 is
applicable:
Admittedly, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 19971 has been amended several times. Notably, the first
amendment in the said Act was made through Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance, 1999,
which came into force on 24-02-1999.2 The case of Ali Akbar was tried in Anti-Terrorism Court
in 1999,3 for which the amended Act is applicable on the instant case. After amendment, section
6(a) of ATA, 1997 stipulates inter alia that “a person is said to commit terrorist Act if he, in
order to, or if the effect of his actions will be to, strike terror or create a sense of fear and
insecurity in the people, or any section of the people, does any act or thing by using fire-arms or
other lethal weapons as may be notified, in such a manner as to cause, or be likely to cause, the
death of, or injury to, any person or persons.” The bare reading of terrorist Act suggests two
approaches: the mens rea based approach and effects based approach. The jurisprudence of
1
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 [Hereinafter “ATA, 1997”].
2
Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance, 1999
3
Fact No. 07.
Pakistani Court has widely recognized mens rea approach and its more sophisticated principle of
nexus, which are discussed hereunder.4
B. The ATA, 1997 provided mens rea approach, which is not satisfied:
The requirement of mens rea is founded in the case of Muhammad Afzal,5 wherein the
Honorable Lahore High Court held the importance of maintaining distinction between a terrorist
act and a run-of-the-mill crime. The Honourable Court explicitly stated that “doing an act or
thing by using explosives or the display of firearms or deterring public servants from the
performance of their duties are offences under various penal statutes. But when these acts are
coupled with the mens rea, intention, aim or objectives embodied in the definition of Section 6,
an ordinary penal offence becomes a terrorist act.” The Honourable Court established the
requirements of mens rea stating, “the operative factor of the predicated offence would thus be
the particular intention, mens rea, or aim of the perpetrator of the crime.”The mens rea approach
was endorsed by a seven-member bench of Honourable SCP in case, wherein the Honourbale
Court laid down the definition of terrorism, in terms that “for an action or threat of action to be
accepted as terrorism within the meanings of section 6 of the ATA 1997, the action must fall in
subsection (2) of section 6 of said Act and the use or threat of such action must be designed to
achieve any of the objectives specified in clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 6 of that Act or
the use or threat of such action must be to achieve any of the purposes mentioned in clause (c) of
subsection (1) of section 6 of that Act.6 The Court further held that any offence, regardless of
how brutal and heinous it is, cannot fall under the ambit of terrorism if it is not committed with
the design or purpose specified in section 6(1)(b)7 or (c)8 of the ATA 1997.”
The facts of the case evidence that Ali Akbar and his friend Babar Amjad were involved in a
robbery.6This manifests that intention of Ali Akbar to the extent of the offence of robbery only.
Although intention is a mental state, which is to be gathered from overt acts and expressions of a
person [cite law]. Ali Akbar neither abetted Babar nor he aided in any other manner, however it
4
See infra I.B. and I.C.
5
Muhammad Afzal vs. Federation of Pakistan and others, 1999 P.Cr.L.J. 929 Lahore.
6
Fact No. 01.
was only Babar who fired at the old man, which caused his death. 7This evidences that Ali Akbar
had no intention of committing the offence of murder, but only robbery. Undeniably, the offence
of robbery also involves probability of death, but Ali Akbar’s overt acts suggest that he lacked
intention to commit murder. Reliance is placed on Ahmed Shah and another8 involving two
injuries while commission of robbery, wherein the Honourable High Court of Sindh held that the
Anti-Terrorism Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case under section 6 of ATA. The
Honourable Court explicitly stated that, “the perpetrators had intended to commit a simple
offence of robbery but once they were caught in the act, firing ensued as a result of which the
children were injured. The lack of intent to commit an act of terrorism therefore precluded the
application of the ATA.” Similarly, Ali Akbar and Babar Amjad were only involved in the
offence of robbery, for which jurisdiction of ATC cannot be invoked. On the other hand, the
offence of murder was neither intended by Ali Akbar, nor it was ensuing, but it was only Babar
who fired at the old man. Ali Akbar, therefore, cannot be held accountable for he lacked
intention. Interestingly, the principal accused, Babar Amjad, is already released from police
custody.9
C. The principle of “nexus” is not satisfied:
Notably, there are subtle differences between the mens rea based approach and the principle of
nexus. The principle of nexus is a modified and more sophisticated variation of the principle of
nexus, which was laid down by Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan10 in Mehram Ali
case.11Nexus with the object of ATA and the offences covered in Sections 6, 7 and 8 thereof is a
pre-requisite for offences being tried by a learned ATC.12The Honourable SCP stated in the said
case that, “offences mentioned in the schedule should have nexus with the object of the Act and
7
Fact No. 01.
8
Ahmed Shah and another vs. The State, 2003 YLR 1977 Karachi.
9
Fact No. 05
10
Hereinafter “SCP”
11
Mehram Ali vs. Federation of Pakistan and others, PLD 1998 SC 1445.
12
Ibid.
the offences covered by sections 6, 7 and 8 thereof. It may be stated that section 6 defines
terrorist acts, section 7 provides punishment for such acts and section 8 prohibits acts intended or
likely to stir up sectarian hatred mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) thereof.”As submitted above,13Ali
Akbar lacked intention for the offence of murder. Although, offence of robbery involves
likelihood of causing death, but Ali Akbar’s over acts clearly manifested that he did not intended
murder. It was the Babar who committed the offence, who was released from police custody.
Since Ali Akbar lacked intention for the offence of murder and he lacked intention for such
offence during robbery, therefore nexus cannot be drawn between the object of the Act and
offence of terrorism under Section 7 of ATA. The Honorable SCP further held that, “if an
offence intended in the schedule has no nexus with the above sections, in that event notification
including such an offence to that extent will be ultra vires.”Hence, Ali Akbar was not liable to be
tried by ATC as nexus between the object and offence lacked in the instant case. Similar view
was taken by Honourable SCP in Jamat-i-Islami Pakistan through Syed Munawar Hassan,
Secretary-General,14Ch. Bashir Ahmad15 and Bashir Ahmed16 cases.
13
See Supra I.A.
14
Jamat-i-Islami Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan and others, PLD 2000 SC 111.
15
Ch. Bashir Ahmed v. Naveed Iqbal,PLD 2001 SC 521.
16
Bashir Ahmed v. Muhammad Siddique,PLD 2009 SC 11.
II. Was Ali Akbar rightfully convicted by the Anti-Terrorism Court?
Ali Akbar was illegally convicted by the Anti-Terrorism Court, because: firstly, the confessions
were extracted by torture, therefore they are questionable; secondly, the statements recorded in
police custody were inadmissible before ATC; and lastly, Ali Akbar’s conviction violated
Pakistan’s International obligations.
A. The confessions were extracted by torture, therefore questionable:
Article 14(2) of Constitution of Pakistan17 prohibits “use of torture for the purpose of extracting
evidence” as a fundamental right. Facts of the case evidence that the confessional statement of
Ali Akbar were extracted by torture, which are highly questionable as Ali Akbar confessed to
committing crime in order to avoid physical abuse.18Hence, they lack evidentiary value, which
were not taken into consideration by ATC.
B. The statements recorded in police custody were inadmissible before ATC:
Art. 38 of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, renders any confessional statement made under
police custody as inadmissible as proof.19Articles 3920 and 4021 of QSO, 1984 also renders all
statements, confessional or otherwise, made in police custody as inadmissible in Court of law.
Since the confessional statement of Ali Akbar was recorded during police custody, it should not
have been admitted before ATC.
C. Ali Akbar’s convictions violated Pakistan’s international obligations:
Being a juvenile he is not liable for capital punishment, imposition of death penalty on children
and juveniles is a clear violation of Pakistan’s International legal obligation as a state party to the
United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child to bring its domestic law into conformity
17
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 14(2).
18
Fact No. 04.
19
QSO, Art. 38.
20
QSO, Art. 39.
21
QSO, Art. 40.
with the Convention’s provision that the death penalty may not be imposed on anyone below the
age of 18 at the time at the time of offence.22
D. Prohibition on Imposition of Capital punishment upon Juvenile offenders under
international law:
The execution of offenders under the age of 18 years is squarely prohibited in international law
by a number of multilateral treaties. The prohibition is determined by the age of the offender at
the time of committing the alleged crime and does not cease when the juvenile turns 18. The
united nation convention on the rights of child which Pakistan ratified in 1990, dictates under
article 37 (a) that ‘neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release
shall be imposed for offence committed by persons below 18 years of age. Additionally, the
international covenant on civil and political rights (ICCPR) under article 6 (4) states that
sentences of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by the persons below 18 years of
age. Intergovernmental bodies have also reportedly called for the exclusion of child offenders
from the death penalty on the basis that the use of death penalty against child offenders is
contrary to international law. Several of the relevant resolutions have been adopted without a
vote, a sign of strong consensus among states that these provisions should be observed. 23For
example, in 1984 the UN Economic and social Council (ECOSOC) adopted the safeguards
guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty (ECOSOC Safeguards).
International law clearly, repeatedly and categorically condemns use of the death penalty for
offences committed by juveniles. The united nation convention on the rights of the child (CRC),
which Pakistan ratified in 1990, dictates that neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment
without the possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below
eighteen years of age.24 Moreover, the ICCPR states, ‘Sentence of death shall not be imposed for
22
(See Pakistan: Death Penalty for juveniles, AI Index: ASA 33/07/95).
23
Amnesty International, The Exclusion of child offenders from the death penalty under international law, 3, July
2013.
24
Convention on the rights of child, U.N Doc. A/RES/44/25, art.37 (a) (1989) {hereinafter CRC}
crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age’.25 These binding prohibitions reflect a
universal and unqualified protection of juveniles from the death penalty.
UN experts issued an statement “reiterating that the prohibition on executing juveniles should
apply in all cases ‘International law, accepted as binding by Pakistan, is clear: it is unlawful to
execute someone who was under 18 years old when they allegedly committed a crime.26
There was no evidence and eyes witness was available which clarify that ali akbar has
committed the saide act:- Furthermore there was no eye witness and evidence was available
which clarifies that ali akbar has committed the act of terrorism under section 6 (a). Even if he
had committed the act of terrorism he was not liable for punishment of death penalty because he
was juvenile at that time when the anti terrorism court had passed death penalty.
As mentioned in the facts that there is no any evidence is available which connect Ali Akbar to
the alleged offence, as it was held in the case of Salamat Masih 1995, a Christian boy convicted
of blasphemy he was 12 years old at the time of the alleged offence and was later acquitted by
court as there was no evidence was available which connects him with alleged offence.27
25
ICCPR, art. 6(5)
26
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NEWSID=15729&LANGID=E.The expert Panel
included Christof Heyns (the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions), Juan E.
Mendenz, {the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment),
and Kirsten Sandberg (the chairperson of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child).
27
Salamat Masih vs. The State 1995
III. Did the juvenile justice system ordinance (latter repealed by the juvenile justice
system act 2018) have a retrospective effect?
The juvenile justice system ordinance of Pakistan was not expressly retroactively enacted.
However, the president of Pakistan issued notification NO:- F.8/41/2001 Ptns dated 13.12.2001
(Notification) in exercise of his powers under article 45 of the constitution of Pakistan 1973. As
per this notification, especial remission under article 45 is to be granted to all juveniles sentenced
to death whose sentences were confirmed by the High Court before 17the December 2001, and
their death sentence is to be commuted to life imprisonment.
The relevant part of the Presidential Notification reads as follows:-
“The death sentence of those condemned prisoners who were juvenile as defined in the juvenile
justice system ordinance, 2000 at the time of commission of offence stands converted to life
imprisonment provided that the death sentence has been awarded under Tazir and not Qisas or
under other Hudood Laws.
On 18th august 2003, the Government of Punjab issued a letter to the Registrar of the Lahore
High Court setting out the eligibility criteria for the especial remission for juveniles under the
Presidential Notification.28 The letter stated that all the juvenile offenders were entitled to
remission if their death sentences were confirmed by the High court before 17 December 2001.
The letter confirmed that such remission was to accrue automatically without the need for the
submission of a mercy petition under Article 45 of the Constitution.
However, the operation of this notification subsequently became the subject of proceedings
before the supreme court of Pakistan in case titled as Ziaullah vs. Najeebullah {PLD 2003 SC
656}. The court held that:
“The President of Pakistan has allowed special remission to the juvenile offenders who were
below 18 years at the time of commission of the offence claim to the benefit and we hold that the
committee constituted by the Home Secretary, Government of Punjab for purpose of determining
28
Government of Punjab, Home Department, Grant of Special Remission Under Article 45 of the constitution to
condemned prisoners, (Aug 19,2003)
age of an accused has no lawful authority to do so. The matters can be referred to concerned
session judge, who also exercises powers of Juvenile court.29
In 2004, the Lahore High court confirmed the Presidential order. It ruled that the juvenile under
sentence of death, whose case had been decided before the promulgation of the JJSO is still
entitled to the protection of JJSO. It asserted the retrospective effect of the JJSO in all cases,
even those where the death sentences had been confirmed by the superior courts. The judgment
related to the case of Sikander Hayat and jamshed ali who were both under 18 years at the time
of the alleged murder and whose death warrants had been issued. The district and sessions judge
in Jhelum, where the juvenile had originally been tried, had refused to commute the death
sentences, as the Supreme Court had confirmed them.30
29
Ziaullah vs. Najeebullah {PLD 2003 SC 656}.
30
http://www.dawn.com/news/350914/Islamabad-no-death-sentence-for-juveniles-lhc
IV. Did the sentence of death penalty violated the fundamental human rights of Ali
AkbarViolation of right to fair trial because of speedy trial?
Violation of Right To fair trial:-
In Pakistan there is litany of cases that seriously question the legality of the decisions and
punishment handed to the convicted mainly due to political influence, misuse of law for own
purpose and benefit and faulty investigation. The criminal justice system is appaling and a
remnant of colonial era. Its discrepancies cause a direct violation of the constitution; article 10-A
guarantees fair trial.
On such case is the “Ghullam Qadir and Ghulam sarwar”, brothers, who were wrongfully
executed by the order of the lower court. the two brothers were convicted for murder and were
executed by the state before the appeals could be decided.31Similarly mazhar, accused of murder
spent 19 years of his life in prison before being acquitted by court. sadly, the decision came too
late as he had passed away in jail two years prior to his acquittal.32
Another case is that of shafqat hussain, convicted for murdering a seven years old boy. Shafqat
was executed at the Karachi Central Jail on August 04, 2015 after his death warrant were issued
for fifth time by court, the previous four execution notices were suspended at the last time due to
international pressure as well as opposition from the civil society and activists.33
Death Penalty is a violation of Right to life:-
The most important and most valuable among individual rights and freedom is the right to life is
a basic good and one of the highest social values of human deprivation which is irreversible and
means the demise of individual, the right to life a natural and inalienable right. According to the
31
Editorial “Wrongfully hanged” dawn (Karachi, 24 OCT 2016) <http://www.dawn.com/news/1291838> accessed
19 Jun 2019
32
Zaheer Ahmed Cheema, ‘Hanged Unlawfully’ Dawn (Karachi, 30 Oct 2016)
http://www.dawn.com/news/1293088 accessed 19 Jun 2019.
33
Al Jazeera and AFP, ‘Pakistan hangs Shafqat Hussain despite appeals’ Al Jazeera (Doha, 5 Aug 2015)
<http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/08/pakistan-hangs-shafqat-hussain-150804042659945.html> accessed 19 Jun
2019.
Article 3 of UDHR everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of a person”. 34 And the
article 6 of International Covenant on Civil & Political Right provides that every human being
has the right to life, this right shall be protected by law and no person shall be arbitrarily
deprived of his life.35 with regard to capital punishment the ICCPR goes to say that life can’t be
taken “arbitrarily” taken away the convention adopts and approach, similar to due process
analysis, to prevent a capricious or arbitrarily taking of human life without protection of
law.This, article 6(1) of the international covenant and political rights (ICCPR) strongly suggests
that abolition of the death penalty is desirable by indicating that ‘every human being has the
inherent right to life this right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrary deprived of
life. Furthermore the second optional protocol to the international covenant on civil and political
rights, adopted by the UN general assembly by resolution 441728 of 15th December 1989,
declares that the abolition of the death penalty contributes to the enhancement of human dignity
and progressive development of human rights.
AI and Asian Legal Resource Center (ALRC) have stated in their reports on capital punishment
in Pakistan that it is being met out after an unfair trail and also violates the constitution of
Pakistan, article 9: “No Person shall be deprived of life or liberty save in accordance with law,”
yet the civil military courts are sentencing without following due process. In sharing its concerns,
ALRC wrote to the UN Human Rights Council about Pakistan not following international
principles anf for acting absolute voilaiton of Article 6 of ICCPR.36
34
Article 3 of UDHR
35
Article 6 of ICCPR
36
ALRC, ‘Pakistan: Government Undermines the People’s Right to life’ [2016] 15(1) Article2
<http://alrc.asia/article2/2016/03/pakistan-government-undermines-the-peoples-right-to-life/> accessed 20 june
2019.
PRAYER/ RELIEF
In the light of foregoing, the Applicant respectfully prays before this Honorable Court to declare
and adjudge as under:
I. The Anti-Terrorism Court had no jurisdiction to try Ali Akbar’s case in 1999;
II. Ali Akbar wrongfully convicted by the Anti-Terrorism Court;
III. The Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (later repealed by the Juvenile Justice System
Act, 2018) has a retrospective effect; and
IV. The sentence of death penalty violates the fundamental human rights of Ali Akbar.
Respectfully submitted,
Counsels for Applicant
