Why did the Foreign Minister shy away from the issue of Balochistan in her address to the United Nations?

by Stewart Sloan

In her presentation to the UN Human Rights Council at the Universal Periodic Review the Foreign Minister, Hina Rabbani Khar painted a rosy picture of the progress that Pakistan has made over the past four years. However, it was what Khar did not talk about that raised the ire of her audience at that function and around the world. Amongst the items that she failed to mention was the situation in Balochistan.

Balochistan is the largest of the four provinces of Pakistan with a total area almost one half of the entire country. Conversely in terms of population it has the lowest number of people, just fewer than eight million. The province is bordered by Afghanistan to the north and north-west, Iran to the south-west, the Arabian Sea to the south, Punjab and Sindh to the east, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and FATA to the north-east. The capital city, which is the largest in the province, is Quetta

In 1947 the ruler of Balochistan agreed to join Pakistan on the condition that the defence, currency, foreign office and finance would be controlled by the federal government but that the province would remain otherwise autonomous. However, after death of Muhammad Ali Jinnah Balochistan, along with other princely states was merged into Pakistan. Since then a small group of Baloch nationalists have been in conflict with the Federal Government which has led to an endless series of enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings; the vast majority of which the government of Pakistan has turned a blind eye to.

Balochistan is rich in natural resources including gold and copper, a fact that the government of Pakistan, and the military, has been quick to take advantage of.

The Frontier Corps (FC), one of the paramilitary forces of Pakistan is based in Peshawar and Quetta and is responsible for protecting the western border regions. Responsible to both the Ministry of States and Frontier Regions and to Army Headquarters the FC comprises of 14 units based in the North-West Frontier and sixteen units based in Balochistan. It is believed that the FC is responsible for the vast majority of enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings that take place in Balochistan. It is also an established fact that they have torture cells in all the major towns and cities. This is borne out by a large number of reports and appeals issued by human rights bodies.

Most of the killings carried out by the FC occur after the enforced disappearances of students, activists and others. The victims are taken in broad daylight from public places in full view of passers-by, often the abductors are accompanied by police officials. When the family members attempt to file First Information Reports at the police stations the officers refuse to record them due to the involvement of the FC. The victim’s families are then forced to go to the courts who then order the army to respond to the charges. However, showing their complete contempt for the civilian establishment the army never complies. What happens next though is that once they know that the courts and the public are fully aware that the disappeared person is in their custody they get rid of the evidence by extrajudicially killing the victim and dumping his body on the road side. The number of such killings is estimated to be in the region of 400 for this year alone. However, nationalist groups claim that up to 8,000 persons have been disappeared. There are also reliable reports that 141 children and 315 women who have gone missing are being held or used as labourers in military camps.

Just one example of the enforced disappearances is the case of Fareed Ahmed Baloch, the son of Haleem Ahmed Balcoh. Fareed Baloch, a final year student of the Balochistan Engineering and Technology University, was abducted from outside the check post of Frontier Corps (FC) at Sariab road, Quetta, on February 9 after 6 pm when he was travelling with his cousin in a three wheeler. He was stopped at the check point by the FC persons along with some persons who were in plain clothes and taken away in a jeep with no registration number. His cousin, Changez Gichki, tried to intervene and was severely beaten and his cell phone was also snatched along with his wallet. Fareed Baloch was the president of Baloch Students Organisation (BSO-Azad) of district Khuzdar, Balochistan. Since then his abduction by the FC his whereabouts are unknown.

Sadly, as mentioned above it is increasingly difficult to lodge an FIR with the police because they know full well who is behind the abduction. To make matter worse the families of the victims get little relief from the courts. For example, on April 13, 2011 the three member bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan under the supervision of Justice Javaid Iqbal heard cases of missing persons. Family members of victims whose loved ones were allegedly abducted by state agencies came before the court and provided the details of their cases. The simple fact is that the officers of the FC do not bother to attend court because they have no fear of judicial action being taken against them.

The relatives of the disappeared persons pointed out to the court that they were tired of testifying before judicial bodies as no apparent results had been seen. They also announced that they would not record their statements in future and that, to their knowledge, others would do the same as it was becoming increasingly evident that the judicial bodies set up to investigate enforced disappearances were simply ‘going through the motions’.

The enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings are the responsibility of the government. Calls for the government to bring the military to heel go unheeded and unless and until the government takes a firm stand these atrocities will continue. President Zardari’s policy of appeasement towards the military will not save him if the armed forces decide that his usefulness has come to an end. Pakistan has suffered most of the 62 years of its existence under military dictatorships. Unless the government wants to find itself unemployed it must clamp down on abuses by the military in general and the Frontier Corps in particular. Only then will the human rights abuses, enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings in Balochistan and other provinces of the country come to an end.

Hina Rabbani Khar should understand that not mentioning a problem does not mean that the problem does not exist.

 

“If Your Child Disappeared, What Would You Do?”

The Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances concludes its official visit to Pakistan
A delegation of the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances concluded its ten-day official visit to Pakistan. The visit took place from 10 to 20 September 2012. The delegation of the Working Group was composed of Mr. Olivier de Frouville, Chair of the Working Group, and Mr. Osman El-Hajjé, member of the Working Group. During the visit, the Working Group received information on cases of enforced disappearances and studied the measures adopted by the State to prevent and eradicate enforced disappearances, including issues related to truth, justice and reparation for the victims of enforced disappearances.

The Working Group wishes to thank the Government of Pakistan for extending an invitation to visit the country. It acknowledges the efforts undertaken before and during the visit to facilitate it, in particular for the assistance in terms of the security arrangements in cooperation with the United Nations. The Working Group also wishes to thank the United Nations Pakistan Country Team as well as the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Secretariat, for their support.

During its ten-day mission, the Working Group visited Islamabad, Lahore, Karachi, Quetta and Peshawar. In Islamabad, the Working Group met the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Interior. The Working Group also met with the Advisor to Prime Minister on Human Rights, the Governor of Punjab, the Additional Secretary in charge of the United Nations and Economic Coordination at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Inspectors General of various provincial police agencies. In Lahore, the Working Group met with the Home Secretary, the Additional Home Secretary and the Secretary Prosecution of Punjab. In Karachi, the Working Group met the Chief Minister, the Chief Secretary, the Home Secretary, and the Advocate General of Sindh. In Quetta, the Working Group held meetings with the Chief Secretary and the Home Secretary of Baluchistan. In Peshawar, the Working Group met with the Home Secretary of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

In Islamabad, the Working Group also held meetings with the Chief Justice and the judges of the High Court of Islamabad, the Chair of the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances and the parliamentarians of the Standing Committee on Human Rights.

Regretfully, some of the meetings that the Working Group had requested with a number of important actors both at the federal and provincial levels did not take place, notably with the Minister of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, the Minister of Defence, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Directorate for ISI, the Inspector-General of Frontier Corps in Baluchistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces and the Chief Justices of the High Courts of Lahore, Karachi, Quetta and Peshawar.

The Working Group held a number of meetings with representatives of all sectors of the civil society including NGOs, activists and lawyers. The Working Group also met a number of relatives of disappeared persons in all parts of the country.

The Working Group received allegations according to which some of the persons with whom we met had been threatened or intimidated. We call on the State to guarantee the safety of those who have met with us and protect them against any form of reprisals, threat or intimidation.

In addition, the Working Group met with representatives of the diplomatic community in Islamabad, as well as with Heads of various United Nations Agencies.

The invitation extended by the Government to us and other special procedures of the Human Rights Council is a testimony of its will to cooperate and take human rights issues seriously. The WGEID welcomes this opening and hopes that other special procedures mandate holders will be invited in the near future to visit Pakistan.

The Working Group also welcomes the ratification by Pakistan of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and of the Convention against Torture. It calls on the Government to ratify the Convention for the protection of all persons against enforced disappearances.

The Working Group undertakes its visits in a spirit of dialogue and cooperation and aims at formulating constructive recommendations.

Before stating our preliminary conclusions and recommendations, please note that we did not make any public statements before the press conference today. Any declaration quoted from one of the members of this Working Group has thus incorrectly been attributed to us.

I.  Mandate of the WGEID

The WGEID is tasked with two main mandates. The first mandate is to deal with cases of enforced disappearances. We receive allegations of cases of enforced disappearances and we transmit those cases to the States, asking them to take all necessary measures to find the fate or the whereabouts of the concerned person. This is done in a “humanitarian spirit”, that is to say that once the person is found, the case is considered clarified. We do not look for individual or State responsibilities. But we always remind the State of its obligations to investigate the case, punish the perpetrators and provide integral reparations to the victims.

The other mandate entrusted to the WGEID is related to the Declaration for the protection of all persons against enforced disappearances, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1992 (thereafter ‘the Declaration’). The WGEID promotes the implementation of the standards of the Declaration and encourages States to implement those standards at the national level. In this respect, we receive general allegations concerning violations of the Declaration that are transmitted to the State, with the request to explain their position and describe the steps they have undertaken in relation to those allegations.

There have been a lot of discussions during the visit about the mandate of this Working Group, in particular on the issue of whether this was a “fact-finding” mission. This expression can have different meanings. If one means by that a body which is tasked with collecting evidence, with the view to initiate criminal proceedings, this is not the role of the WGEID, as the WGEID has always interpreted its mandate, as far as individual cases are concerned, as “humanitarian”. Within this mandate of dealing with cases of enforced disappearances, the WGEID always receives information about alleged individual cases of enforced disappearances, as it did during this mission. Furthermore, the WGEID receives information with respect to its second mandate, which is related to the implementation of the standards of the Declaration by States.

II. General context

Pakistan has been on the road to democracy since its independence. As in all countries worldwide, this road has been difficult and met with many obstacles. Pakistan has endured several periods of military dictatorship throughout its history, which resulted at times in massive violations of human rights. The perceptions of different groups in the society of not being treated on an equal footing with others created frustrations and demands which were often responded to through violent means and further inequalities. Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan provides that “All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law” and this principle should lead all policies of the State.

Since 2008, there has been a new phase of parliamentarian democracy, bringing much hope to the people of this country. Pakistan’s political and institutional life is characterized by a multi-party system, a strong independent judiciary, a vibrant civil society and a lively press, discussing all kinds of matters, including the problem of enforced disappearances.

Meanwhile, Pakistan is facing important security challenges. There is a widespread perception, among the population, that their security is not sufficiently ensured.

The State has to deal with multiple threats, coming from terrorist movements or violent groups. The conflicts taking place in neighbouring countries or territories is an additional factor of insecurity. The Working Group acknowledges these threats and the need for the State to ensure the right to life of their citizens. However, it also underlines that actions taken to deal with security threats, and in particular with terrorism, must at all times respect nationally and internationally recognized human rights. Human rights violations in the name of the fight against terrorism does not achieve its aim but can only, on the contrary, lead to further violations.

III. The phenomenon of enforced disappearances in Pakistan

1. Cases pending before the WGEID

A number of cases of enforced disappearances filed with the WGEID have allegedly occurred in 1985 and in the beginning of the 1990s, in the north-west region, in relation to the conflicts taking place in Afghanistan. A number of cases were also reported to the WGEID to have taken place in the 1990s, in relation to the military operations carried out in Karachi and its aftermaths (Sindh province). At the beginning of the 2000s, the Working Group started receiving cases of persons allegedly abducted in the context of the so-called “war on terror” and sometimes said to have been transferred to other State’s territories or detention centres. Those cases mostly concerned the provinces of Punjab and KPK, between 2003 and 2006. Starting from 2005-2006, a number of cases were received from Sindh and Baluchistan. In 2011, as noted in its annual report, the Working Group transmitted five new cases to the Government, including two cases through its urgent action procedure. The 2011 annual report of the WGEID also indicates the latest public information on the reported 107 cases concerning Pakistan, pending before the WGEID.

2. Allegations received during the mission

According to various official and unofficial sources met during the visit, it is in the post 9/11 period that the question of “missing persons” began to raise real attention at the national level. There is acknowledgement that enforced disappearances have occurred and still occur in the country. Cases continue to be reported to the national authorities. But there are controversies both on the figures and on the nature of the practice of enforced disappearances.

The figures communicated to us range from less than a hundred to thousands. In Baluchistan alone, some sources allege that more than 14,000 persons are still missing, while the provincial government only recognizes less than a hundred. To date, the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances still has more than 500 cases in its docket concerning the whole country. The number of officially registered allegations, although may not be reflective of the reality of the situation, is itself an indication of the existence of the phenomenon.

As far as the nature of the practice is concerned, the authorities at the federal and provincial levels with whom we met often declared that most of the “missing persons” were in fact not victims of enforced disappearances. According to those authorities, some of those persons had been under criminal charges and had chosen to go in hiding, while some others have fled to another country to join illegal armed groups. Others, according to the same authorities, have been the victims of abductions by non state actors for various reasons. Cases of enforced disappearances by State actors, in this context, would be the result of misconducts and ultra vires behaviour by some agents of the State.

However, nongovernmental sources allege that there is a pattern of enforced disappearances in Pakistan, imputable to law enforcement agencies in conjunction with intelligence agencies.

During our visit families told us their stories and each story, while being different, revealed the same pattern. The abduction, often taking place in front of witnesses, is reported to be perpetrated by law enforcement agencies, like the police or the frontier corps, jointly with members of intelligence agencies in civilian clothing. When asked whether they had filed a complaint for illegal arrest, families generally say they tried to file a first information report (FIR) with the police, but were turned down or discouraged to do so. Most of them finally filed their cases with the provincial High Court or the Supreme Court of Pakistan, so that the Court would issue an order to the police to initiate an investigation. In a large number of cases, families reportedly received threats or were intimidated to try to prevent them to file such cases. Some families were promised that if they would not file a case, their loved ones would be released, which did not happen.

Some other families were threatened that if they did file a case, their loved ones will be harmed, or another member of their family would also be abducted. According to the families we have heard, witnesses who were called to testify before the courts were threatened and in some cases victimized. In a few cases, the lawyers defending the families were reportedly themselves victims of enforced disappearances.

Some of the abducted persons were released while others were never seen again by their relatives. A number of those who have returned have testified to being held in unofficial places of detention. Many of those who came back were allegedly threatened not to speak about their period of disappearance. Some however have chosen to take high risks to give statements before courts or before the Commission of Inquiry. In Baluchistan, since 2010, a number of persons whose whereabouts were previously unknown were found dead, generally with signs of torture and sometimes decomposed to the point that their relatives were unable to identify them. Sometimes those bodies were found far from the place where they had been abducted, for some in deserted areas. The practice of “delivering” dead bodies has allegedly accelerated in the years 2011 and 2012. Most of the families we have met, telling their stories, felt abandoned and hopeless.

They implored that if their loved ones were being accused of any crime, he or she should be presented before a judge and, if recognized guilty, be convicted.

It is the responsibility and duty of the State to investigate thoroughly these serious allegations. The State of Pakistan, acknowledging the existence of the problem of enforced disappearances, has already taken positive steps to try to address this issue. The WGEID welcomes the declared will of the Government to tackle this issue and look at the current shortcomings in order to find the truth about the disappeared and finally eradicate the crime of enforced disappearances in Pakistan. Nevertheless, serious challenges remain when it comes to the prevention and the eradication of enforced disappearances in Pakistan. The WGEID emphasizes that, under article 3 of the Declaration, the State must take effective measures to prevent and terminate acts of enforced disappearance in any territory under its jurisdiction.

The WGEID also underscores that in order to prevent any act of enforced disappearances, it is of outmost importance that, as enshrined in the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances, any person deprived of liberty shall be held in an officially recognized place of detention and be brought promptly before a judicial authority (art. 10(1)).

IV. Efforts made by the State of Pakistan to deal with the problem of enforced disappearances

The Working Group welcomes the role played by the judiciary to shed light on the phenomenon of enforced disappearances in Pakistan and to trace missing persons. In 2007, the Supreme Court filed a number of petitions presented by individuals or NGOs. It was followed by provincial high courts which also began to take up cases under their jurisdiction to protect human rights. In a number of cases, the Supreme Court also took suo motuactions, showing its determinate will to tackle the problem. After the independence of the judiciary was reinstated in 2009, the courts continued to play a major role in the search for the disappeared persons and a number of persons resurfaced after having been kept in unlawful custody for several months, sometimes for years. The WGEID was told that the courts were also instrumental in facilitating the filing of FIR by families in relation to the abduction of their relatives, when they had previously been turned down by the local police.

Two special bodies were set up successively on the issue of enforced disappearances. In April 2010, the Interior Ministry set up a committee to investigate the fate of the disappeared persons. In March 2011, the Supreme Court decided to institute a specific body to deal with cases of enforced disappearances, initially for six months, but its mandate was then extended for three years. The two-member Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances is tasked with following up on the work done by the Interior Ministry’s Committee and to deal with cases already received by the Supreme Court, as well as with receiving new cases. The Commission can hear the families and the witnesses, in general in the presence of the representatives of most of the law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The Commission has held hearings in different parts of the country. It can order the setting up of a “Joint Investigation Team” (JIT) at the provincial level, in charge of investigating the matter. It can also summon any potential perpetrator. The JIT must report to the Commission on the result of the investigation.

In May 2012, the Statute of  the National Commission on Human Rights as a national human rights institution (NHRI) has been adopted by the Parliament. The authorities have told the WGEID that the Commission will, among other mandates, have the responsibility to deal with the issue of enforced disappearances, including the exercise of quasi-judicial powers.

There have been commitments from several official authorities to “solve” the problem of the “missing persons” in Pakistan. In particular, as far as Baluchistan is concerned, the Baluchistan “package” adopted by the new government included a provision according to which all persons being in custody should be either released or brought before a court.

V. Challenges faced by the State of Pakistan in resolving the issue of enforced disappearances

1. The judicial inquiries

Efforts made by the courts proved to be efficient in a number of cases, where the persons could effectively be traced and found, and could finally return to their family. However, in the greatest number of cases, the investigations initiated under the orders of the courts remained inconclusive.

Reportedly, the courts have avoided using compelling methods to ensure the cooperation of law enforcement and intelligence agencies whose agents were accused of having perpetrated an enforced disappearance. Some families informed the WGEID that, although they had brought witnesses before the court to substantiate their claims, the court before which the case was filed satisfied itself with the oral declaration by the representative of the said agency, denying the custody of the person. Others told the WGEID that the court failed to use its power to summon an agent suspected of having participated in an enforced disappearance.

The main complaint was that the courts’ proceedings failed to result in prosecutions of the named perpetrators, even when evidence was, according to their lawyers, sufficient to do so.

2. The Commission of inquiry

The same criticism was also made of the Commission of Inquiry, which is said to have limited authority on the various law enforcement or intelligence agencies, allegedly involved in the enforced disappearances reported to the Commission. As in the case of courts, the WGEID received reports that the Commission satisfied itself with the denial of the accused agency that it had the concerned person in custody.

The Commission informed the WGEID that should its orders not be complied with, it had the power to initiate criminal proceedings against the potential perpetrators. But the WGEID has received no report of such criminal proceedings.

Some families also reported to the WGEID that the Commission, after having reviewed a case, gave oral assurances to the family that their loved ones would soon return back home, which in fact never happened. They were not aware of whether or not a formal order had been delivered to the authority allegedly having the disappeared person in its custody.

The families we met had different feelings about the fact that the hearings took place in the presence of representatives of different agencies, including those being accused of having abducted their loved ones: some said they had no fear to confront them, whereas others felt intimidated. The Commission has told the Working Group that families were given the choice to be heard alone with the two members of the Commission, if they preferred to do so. The Working Group is of the opinion that this should be the rule, rather than the exception.

If families are willing to confront and tell their stories in front of the agencies, they should be given the possibility to do so. But generally, the families should be heard by the two members of the Commission in a confidential meeting.

There is no doubt that the courts and the Commission are facing enormous difficulties in their task related to cases of enforced disappearances. The fact that they are being criticized by some families is reflective of the frustration, anguish and fear endured by these families. It is also a sign that those institutions ought to be further strengthened. The WGEID is in particular aware of the limits imposed on a two-member Commission, notably with respect to the limited capacities in terms of staffing.

3. Impunity

As the High Commissioner for Human Rights said when recently visiting the country “Impunity is dangerously corrosive to the rule of law in Pakistan.” Listening to authorities and to victims, we could feel that impunity was a concern for the whole society. Some officials conveyed their concerns that criminals, terrorists or militants from armed groups enjoyed a great impunity because, even when investigations were initiated against them, they managed to get out of them, by using threats against the police, the judges or witnesses. There were hints that this might explain why some law enforcement or intelligence agents might resort to illegal practices such as enforced disappearances.

The WGEID is aware of the difficulties encountered by law enforcement officials to bring criminals to justice and acknowledge the security challenges faced by Pakistan in different areas. However, it underscores that these challenges cannot be accepted as a justification to commit such a heinous crime as enforced disappearances. We draw attention, in this respect, to Article 7 of the Declaration which provides that: “No circumstances whatsoever, whether a threat of war, a state of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked to justify enforced disappearances.”

Furthermore, according to the information received by the WGEID, the practice of enforced disappearances was also a tool to target political or human rights activists, who are legitimately exercising their freedoms of expression, association, and assembly.

Victims complained that, even when clearly identified by witnesses, the perpetrators were not only never convicted, but even never submitted to any effective investigation. The WGEID, despite its reiterated requests, has received no information related to convictions of state agents in relation to acts of enforced disappearances.

We were told by government officials that families of disappeared persons were not so keen to file complaints against named perpetrators and that in the absence of any complaint, no prosecution could be initiated. However, the WGEID would like to recall article 13(1) of the Declaration which provides that whenever there are reasonable grounds to believe that an enforced disappearance has been committed, the State shall promptly refer the matter to a competent and independent State authority for investigation, even if there has been no formal complaint. No measure shall be taken to curtail or impede the investigation.

It was also reported to the WGEID that some victims and witnesses received serious threats when reporting their cases to the police, the courts or the Commission of Inquiry. The WGEID was pleased to hear from official authorities of the Sindh and Baluchistan, but also at the federal level, that laws and regulations relating to the protection of victims and witnesses were in the process of being adopted. As provided in article 13(3) of the Declaration, “steps shall be taken to ensure that all involved in the investigation, including the complainant, counsel, witnesses and those conducting the investigation, are protected against ill-treatment, intimidation or reprisal.” A strong and comprehensive program for the protection of victims and witnesses should be set up, with a special attention to women as relatives of disappeared persons.

The WGEID notes that the Prime Minister promised to the High Commissioner, during her visit, that there would be a “zero tolerance” policy for such abuses, and hopes that this policy will be implemented with urgency.

Investigation against, and punishment of perpetrators, should be in accordance with the law, and with all the guarantees of a fair trial.

Perpetrators should be punished with appropriate penalties, with the clear exclusion of the death penalty. Enforced disappearances can also be punished on the basis of other crimes, as defined in the Criminal Code of Pakistan, such as the offence of “kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person”. However, it is recommended the creation of a new and autonomous crime of enforced disappearances, following the definition given in the 2006 Convention or the protection of all persons against enforced disappearances, and with the legal consequences flowing from this qualification (see the WGEID’s study on the best practices on enforced disappearances in domestic criminal legislation, doc. HRC/16/48/Add.3).

The WGEID also notes that, in Pakistan, military personnel cannot be submitted to trial before civil courts. This might constitute a factor of impunity for human rights violations and should be changed. Article 16 §§ 1 and 2 of the Declaration states that persons alleged to have committed an enforced disappearance shall be suspended from any official duties during the investigation and shall be tried only by the competent ordinary courts, and not by other special tribunal, in particular military courts.

4. Supervision and training of law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies

During its visit, the WGEID repeatedly received allegations according to which there was a lack of supervision and accountability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to the Government.

Accountability and full oversight of law enforcement and intelligence agencies is all the more essential in a situation where the State has to face multiple threats, like terrorism or political violence. In these circumstances, there is a risk that intelligence agencies would acquire new powers to interrogate, arrest and detain individuals, to the detriment of the law enforcement agencies. This shift can ultimately endanger the rule of law, as the collection of intelligence and collection of evidence about criminal acts becomes more and more blurred.

Furthermore, agents in charge of intelligence may be tempted to abuse the usually legitimate secrecy of intelligence operations and commit violations of human rights under the cover of this secrecy.

For these reasons, it is of major importance that the executive effectively supervise and direct the actions of the intelligence agencies. The Parliament has also a role to play in this regard, as it is to hold the executive branch and its agents accountable to the general public.

Appropriate training should also be given to members of law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the field of human rights, with particular focus on enforced disappearances. It should be made clear to all, in particular, that, as stated in article 6(1) of the Declaration that: “No order or instruction of any public authority, civilian, military or other, may be invoked to justify an enforced disappearance. Any person receiving such an order or instruction shall have the right and duty not to obey it.”

5. Assistance to the families and reparation

Victims of enforced disappearances are not only those who have been disappeared, but also their families. Relatives are enduring pain and anguish, as a consequence of the continuous uncertainty about the fate or the whereabouts of their loved ones. In the immense majority of cases, the disappeared persons are men and it is the women who are left alone. The gendered dimension of the phenomenon of enforced disappearances should be duly taken into consideration.

Family members are also prevented from exercising their rights and obligations due to the legal uncertainty created by the absence of the disappeared person. This uncertainty has many legal consequences, among others on the status of marriage, guardianship of under age children, right to social allowances of members of the families and management of property of the disappeared person. When asked, officials told us that there were no specific legal institutions designed to deal with these complex issues. To address this issue, the State of Pakistan should enable the issuance of a “declaration of absence by reason of enforced disappearance.”

During some meetings with officials, we heard that relatives of the disappeared are often taken care of by the extended family and that, in any case, they can file a civil claim in court in order to obtain compensation. But the issue of “compensation” should be clearly distinguished from the aid that should be provided to the families to cope with the dire consequences of the absence of the main breadwinner.

The WGEID recommends the establishment of mechanisms providing for social allowances or appropriate social and medical measures for relatives of disappeared persons in relation to the physical, mental and economic consequences of the absence of the disappeared. In this respect, we welcome the information provided by the Advisor to the Prime Minister on Human Rights that there is an existing fund dedicated to women which could be used for this purpose.

In no case should the acceptance of financial support for members of the families be considered as a waiver of the right to integral reparation for the damage caused by the crime of enforced disappearances, in accordance with article 19 of the Declaration.

In addition to the punishment of the perpetrators and the right to monetary compensation, the right to obtain reparation for acts of enforced disappearance under article 19 of the Declaration also includes the means for as complete rehabilitation as possible. This obligation refers to medical and psychological care and rehabilitation for any form of physical or mental damage as well as to legal and social rehabilitation, guarantees of non-repetition, restoration of personal liberty, family life, citizenship, employment or property, return to one’s place of residence and similar forms of restitution, satisfaction and reparation which may remove the consequences of the enforced disappearance.

6. Recommendations

The WGEID would like now to share a number of preliminary recommendations to the State of Pakistan. It is to be noted that these recommendations – as well as the conclusions we have just exposed – are not exhaustive and will be complemented in the final report, which will be presented before the Human Rights Council at one of its sessions in 2013:

- As a preventive measure against enforced disappearance, any person deprived of liberty shall be held in an officially recognized place of detention and be brought promptly before a judicial authority.

- The Commission of Inquiry should be reinforced. Its membership should be extended, so as to allow parallel hearings. Its staff and resources should be strengthened and the Commission should be given its own premises.

- The courts and the Commission of Inquiry should use all powers they have to ensure compliance with their orders, including the request of sworn affidavits and writs of contempt of courts.

- As a rule, the families should be heard in confidential meetings before the Commission of Inquiry, without the presence of representatives of law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

- A new and autonomous crime of enforced disappearances should be included in the Criminal Code, following the definition given in the 2006 Convention or the protection of all persons against enforced disappearances, and with all the legal consequences flowing from this qualification.

- Investigation against and punishment of perpetrators should be in accordance with the law, and with all the guarantees of a fair trial. Perpetrators should be punished with appropriate penalties, with the clear exclusion of the death penalty.

- Investigations should be initiated whenever there are reasonable grounds to believe that an enforced disappearance has been committed, even if there has been no formal complaint.

- Measures should be taken to ensure that, in case of human rights violations, suspected perpetrators, including army personnel, are suspended from any official duties during the investigation and are tried only by competent ordinary courts, and not by other special tribunal, in particular military courts.

- Clear rules and dedicated institutions should be created in order to ensure the oversight and the accountability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

- Appropriate training should be given to members of law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the field of human rights, with particular focus on enforced disappearances.

- A comprehensive program for the protection of victims and witnesses should be set up, with a special attention to women as relatives of disappeared persons.

- The State has to guarantee the safety of those who have met with the WGEID during this visit and to protect them against any form of reprisals, threats or intimidation.

- A system of declaration of absence as a result of enforced disappearance should be issued in order to address the legal uncertainties created by the absence of the disappeared person.

- Financial aid should be provided to the relatives of the disappeared persons, in particular women and children, in order to help to cope with the difficulties generated by the absence of the disappeared person.

- A program of integral reparation should be set up for all victims of enforced disappearances, including not only compensation but also full rehabilitation, satisfaction, including restoration of dignity and reputation, and guarantees of non-repetition.

- Ratify the Convention for the protection of all persons against enforced disappearances, and recognize the competence of the Committee to consider individual and inter-state complaints under article 31 and 32.

- If requested by the Government of Pakistan, the United Nations and other international organizations should stand ready to provide technical assistance and consultative services, so as to implement the Working Group’s recommendations.

To conclude, a mother of a disappeared person has asked us to convey a message to all persons in charge of public affairs in Pakistan. She asked: “If your child disappeared, what would you do?”

This question summarizes the ordeal families are going through. As far as the WGEID is concerned, our only – but unsatisfactory response – to such a torturing pain is to recall that the relatives of the disappeared persons have the right to the truth, the right to justice and the right to reparation, and it is the duty of the State of Pakistan to take all necessary measures to make those rights effective.

How To Stop Terror?

From Amnesty’s Book Getting Away with Murder: Political Killings & Disappearances in the 1990s

It takes just one key decision to stop political killings and “disappearances” in any particular country. That is the decision by the government to halt them. Once the political will is there, then a series of measures can be implemented which are known to be effective.

In broad terms these are pre-emptive measures to prevent “disappearances” and political killings happening in the first place, coupled with proper investigation and prosecution if they do happen. The latter two measures contribute to prevention by showing public officials in any part of government that their involvement in such crimes is likely to be exposed and punished.

Amnesty International’s recommendations for ending the terror of “disappearances” and political killings are summarized in two 14-point programs, which are attached to this report as Appendices I and II. The following section identifies some of the key points in these two programs.

Prevention

The first, most obvious, task for governments is to make absolutely clear their total opposition to “disappearances” and political killings. They must demonstrate to all police and security forces that such crimes will not be tolerated under any circumstances.

Condemnation must be accompanied by convincing action, including establishing prompt, independent, impartial and effective investigations, and bringing perpetrators to justice (see below). They must disband special units or paramilitary organizations which carry out “disappearances” and extrajudicial executions, and repeal legislation or emergency regulations that prevent victims or their relatives from getting justice and allow the perpetrators immunity from prosecution.

Governments should ensure that both “disappearances” and political killings are criminal offences under national law, with appropriately severe penalties. The law should be broad enough to cover not just the immediate perpetrators, but also those who order, plan, aid or cover-up the crime.

The authorities must make it clear that senior officers who order or tolerate such crimes will be held criminally responsible for human rights crimes committed by those under their command. Government officials should not be allowed to hide behind the excuse that they did not know what was going on or that they could not control the activities of individual officers.

At the same time, members of the security forces must be instructed that they have the right and duty to disobey any order to commit murder or to perpetrate a “disappearance”: the old refrain of “I was only following orders” must not be tolerated and must not be accepted as a defence.

Officers who disobey orders expose themselves to the risk of severe punishment. The authorities must establish that a soldier’s duty to refuse to commit gross human rights violations takes precedence over the duty to obey orders.

Effective prevention therefore requires proper training for all members of the security forces so that no one can be in any doubt that human rights crimes will not be tolerated. The training should also include education on international human rights standards.

When it comes to the police in the ordinary course of law enforcement, governments should ensure that they are trained to use force only when strictly necessary and only to the minimum extent required in the circumstances as required by international standards. Official guidelines on the use of firearms should specify the circumstances under which they can be used. For example, officers should identify themselves and give clear warnings of their intent to fire, allowing enough time for the warning to be heeded. Detailed reports should follow any use of firearms.

Long experience shows that certain detention procedures often go hand in hand with “disappearances” and political killings and may be designed to evade accountability. Specific safeguards should be implemented for people in custody to make these crimes less likely.

Arrests and detentions should be carried out only by officials who are authorized by law to do so. The officials, who should wear name or number tags, must identify themselves and tell those they arrest why they are being detained at the time of arrest. All this information should be recorded and the records made available to the detainee or his or her lawyer. Details of the place of detention and any transfers should also be made available promptly to relatives, lawyers and courts. All prisoners should be informed immediately of their right to notify family members and others of their whereabouts.

All too often, however, such information is denied to families and friends. If this is the case, those acting on a prisoner’s behalf must be able to invoke the power of the courts to locate the prisoner and ensure his or her safety and release if the detention is arbitrary. This internationally recognized principle is based on the widely accepted legal remedy of habeas corpus. An individual can ask a court to issue a writ commanding the authorities to produce the prisoner in person before the court. The court can then determine the legality of the detention.

Illegal and arbitrary arrests can be prevented by ensuring that all prisoners are brought before a judicial authority promptly, whether or not a writ of habeas corpus or similar order has been issued. Prisoners should also have automatic and prompt access to lawyers, friends and relatives – once a prisoner is seen by concerned people outside it is much less likely that he or she will “disappear” or be killed.

All places of detention should be officially recognized (in other words, not secret) and should be open to regular, independent unannounced and unrestricted visits of inspection.

When prisoners are released, they should be handed over to someone who can verify the release. Officials involved in “disappearances” sometimes try to cover up the crime by falsely claiming the victim was released.

Ultimately none of these measures will be effective unless the political will exists to make them work. Governments can dramatically improve their human rights records in a very short space of time if they decide to do so.

Ending impunity

How can governments change the atmosphere in which security forces feel free to butcher, maim and kidnap ordinary people? The first step is to make sure that whenever such crimes are committed, the truth is exposed. The second is to show ruthless determination in bringing the assassins, torturers and kidnappers to justice. Only the fierce light of justice will eradicate the shadow of fear.

As we have seen, many governments and their security forces go to enormous lengths to conceal their human rights crimes. But the truth must be revealed however complicated, expensive or difficult the task proves to be. Not only do the victims and their relatives have the right to know what happened. Exposing the truth is an essential step for ending states of terror.

Investigations must be prompt, thorough and impartial. They must be carried out whenever there is a complaint or some other reliable report of a “disappearance” or political killing.

The main objectives of an investigation should be to establish the facts, to remedy the injustice to the extent possible, and to assemble the evidence that will allow those responsible to be brought to justice.

An official investigation should be run by people independent of those accused of the crime, who must themselves be impartial and protected from intimidation and reprisals. It must have the necessary powers to call witnesses, conduct on-site investigations, and obtain evidence such as government records. It must also have the human and financial resources necessary to do the job.

The investigations should be completed as quickly as possible and the findings made public.

When there is a pattern or long history of serious human rights violations which cannot be tackled in isolation on a case by case needed. This must consider the institutional changes required to prevent further “disappearances” and unlawful killings.

Of course, unless investigations are acted on, they have little meaning. At the very minimum, the truth must emerge and those responsible must be brought to justice.

The UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances summed up what is required as follows:

“Perhaps the single most important factor contributing to the phenomenon of disappearances may be that of impunity. The Working Group’s experience over the past 10 years has confirmed the age-old adage that impunity breeds contempt for the law. perpetrators of human rights violations, whether civilian or military, will become all the more brazen when they are not held to account before a court of law.” 

GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER

Impunity can be defined as exemption from punishment. In some instances, it arises from laws or decrees that specifically exempt agents of the state from prosecution. In other cases the suspects are not brought to trial, or they are not convicted despite overwhelming evidence of their guilt. Even when they are convicted, they are sometimes sentenced to derisory punishments, or their sentences are not enforced.

If the problem lies with the law, the law must be changed. If it lies with the weakness of the judicial system, the judiciary must be strengthened and its independence assured.

An effective judiciary must, above all, be independent. Only then can it counteract the abuse of power by government.

The judicial process must be prompt, impartial, effective and fair. Trials should be held in civilian courts, which must be properly resourced.

Because “disappearances” and political killings are such serious crimes, time limitations on prosecution – which often apply to other crimes – should be removed. In other words, there should be no provision which prevents prosecution for extrajudicial executions or “disappearances” after a certain length of time.

The officials behind the crimes – those who planned them, gave the orders or helped to organize them – must be brought to justice as well as the people who carried them out.

Not only must the individuals responsible for “disappearances” and political killings be brought to justice. The state itself must be held responsible if it ordered or acquiesced in the crimes.

What does this mean? It should mean that an international court that examines the case can find the state responsible for a violation under international human rights law and can then order the state to compensate the victims or their families.

This was exactly what happened (albeit a rare example) in the case of Velasquez Rodrigues, a Honduran student who “disappeared” in 1981. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled in 1988 that the Honduran government was responsible for the involuntary disappearance of Velasquez Rodrigues and had thus violated several articles of the American Convention on Human Rights. The Court ordered the government to pay compensation to the victim’s next of kin.

In every single country where there is an established pattern of “disappearances” or political killings, impunity is the norm. A determined and consistent government policy of bringing the perpetrators to justice would have an immediate and devastating effect on the minds of past and potential violators. That is why ending impunity is so crucial.

Government officials that proclaim their respect for human rights while allowing impunity to continue must be exposed for the hypocrites they are. Words are not enough. Action is needed.

International laws, standards and institutions

“No state shall practice, permit or tolerate enforced disappearances.”

UN Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, Article 2

“Government shall prohibit by law all extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions…”

UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, Article 1.

Every single extrajudicial execution and “disappearance” cited in this report violated international standards on human rights which all governments have promised to respect.

Such standards mostly began to be set in the wake of the Second World War. Universal revulsion at the horrors perpetrated during that war inspired the formation of the UN in 1945. It was hoped that through this organization governments could resolve their differences peacefully and work together to ensure that human rights atrocities were never again repeated.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948 by the UN, proclaimed that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person” and that no one shall be subjected to torture, arbitrary arrest or detention. These rights apply everywhere, not just in those countries whose governments choose to grant them. This means that all governments are obliged to protect the rights of people under their jurisdiction, and that anyone whose human rights are violated has a claim against the government which violates them. Furthermore, the fact that the world’s governments collectively adopted the Universal Declaration means that violations are of concern to all governments, not just those in countries where violations occur.

Since 1948, international human rights standards have been strengthened by the adoption of more than 50 other instruments by the UN. In 1966 it adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which even more explicitly prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of life – a characteristic of the killings described in this report.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the UN began tackling the issues of “disappearances” and political killings by governments in greater detail, in response to the enormous scale of these human rights crimes in countries such as Argentina, Cambodia (then Kampuchea), Chile and Uganda.

The discussions eventually led to the adoption of two key instruments: The declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance; and The Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (see Appendices III and IV). They came into force in 1992 and 1989 respectively.

Both clearly prohibit “disappearances” and extrajudicial executions under international law and specify detailed measures for their prevention and investigation.

To complement UN functions and standards, governments in different regions have created organizations which cover, among other matters, human rights issues. Three of these regional inter-governmental organizations have adopted human rights treaties which are legally binding on the states in those regions which have become parties to them. They are the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, adopted in 1981; the American Convention on Human Rights, adopted in 1969; and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in 1950.

All three treaties recognize the right to life and, in particular, the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life. They also provide for the right to liberty and security of the person, and clearly prohibit “disappearances” and extrajudicial executions. In addition, each provides for the establishment of institutions to supervise its implementation.

Even if international and regional human rights standards did not exit, “disappearances” and political killings would still be unlawful. All national laws proscribe murder as well as kidnapping and abduction.

Those who violate national law are supposed to be accountable before the law. If governments or their officials order, carry out, acquiesce in or cover up “disappearances” or extrajudicial executions, they are violating the very laws which they are supposed to uphold. Similarly, those who violate international law should be accountable before the international community. If governments collectively fail to take action to stop serious human rights violations, they are also violating the very laws which they are supposed to uphold.

Of course, the greatest problem in trying to eradicate “disappearances” and political killings is how to turn accountability into reality.

The UN Secretary-General reflected the dilemma facing his organization as human rights crises escalated in 1992:

“…the UN has not been able to act effectively to bring to an end massive human rights violations. Faced with barbaric conduct which fills the news media today, the UN cannot stand idle or indifferent. The long-term credibility of our organization as a whole will depend upon the success of our response to this challenge.”

In fact, from its inception the UN recognized the need for action. For example, the preamble to the Universal Declaration refers to “teaching and education to promote respect for these rights” and “progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance”.

The first substantial resolutions on “disappearances” and extrajudicial executions adopted some 30 years later referred to specific actions which should be taken. One dealing with “disappearances” called on governments to “devote appropriate resources” to searching for the “disappeared”, “to undertake speedy and impartial investigations”, and to ensure that law enforcement extrajudicial executions, called on all governments “to take effective measures to prevent such acts”.

The human rights standards must be implemented. These include calling on authorities to conduct impartial investigations into complaints and reports of “disappearances” and extrajudicial executions, to bring the alleged perpetrators to trial and to establish specific safeguards for the prevention of these abuses. Amnesty International believes that these measures are the basic minimum requirements needed to combat these practices and should be undertaken by every government.

There is a need for the human rights instruments and their provisions to be incorporated into national legislation, publicized and incorporated in training programs for relevant officials. It has established institutions and procedures to monitor compliance with the standards, make recommendations and take action. It has, moreover, made funds available to governments through UN public information offices and technical assistance programs.

Other action has been taken to combat human rights crimes. The UN has adopted resolutions expressing concern about violations in particular countries and requesting the government in question to take remedial action. It has set up subsidiary procedures – the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances and the Special Rapporteur on Summary and Arbitrary Executions – to deal with particular human rights violations and has entrusted special investigation and monitoring assignments to individual experts (also often called Special Rapporteurs) on particular countries.

More recently it has incorporated specific measures to address human rights in the context of peace-keeping operations, such as those in Cambodia, EI Salvador and former Yugoslavia. The concept of on-site monitoring of human rights is also beginning to be developed, as, for example, in Haiti, although this concept is still in the early stages.

None of these UN operations has been free from controversy, however. In former Yugoslavia, the UN has been attacked by various groups both for doing too much and too little. In Somalia, following widespread calls for increased UN intervention, UN forces have been accused of taking sides in an internal conflict and of direct responsibility for human rights abuses.

The UN has also been widely criticized for its inconsistency and selectivity when responding to human rights crises. Four years after the terrible events in Beijing in 1989 and in the face of continuing widespread violations by the Chinese government, the UN has still to take any serious action on China. The Iraqi government was allowed for years to murder thousands of its citizens without censure from the UN – which then suddenly sprang into action after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Other governments responsible for gross human rights violations have also been able to get away without so much as a word of condemnation.

The truth is, however, that the UN’s actions are determined by its member states. When member states are guided by narrow political and economic interests, these will be reflected in the decisions taken by the UN. The best human rights standards are meaningless if governments ignore them; the best human rights machinery is powerless if governments refuse to cooperate with it.

Some of these problems were addressed by the World Conference on Human Rights held in Vienna in June 1993. The objectives of the Conference included a review of the UN’s mechanisms and procedures in the field of human rights and the formulation of concrete recommendations to improve their effectiveness.

At the Conference, Amnesty International challenged governments to support its call for the establishment of a UN Special Commissioner for Human Rights, with a wide-ranging mandate and the authority to take urgent and decisive action in human rights emergencies. But governments attending the Conference excluded Amnesty International and other non-governmental organizations from the drafting process, where the final document of the Conference was completed in closed sessions by the official government delegations. The resulting Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action failed to give a strong and unified endorsement to the proposal for a High Commissioner for Human Rights or to come up with an agreed framework for the structure and mandate of such a post. Instead, the Conference recommended only that the 1993 session of the General Assembly should begin consideration of the establishment of a High Commissioner as a matter of priority.

Amnesty International and others also called for significant further resources for the UN human rights program, including for the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances and the UN Special rapporteur on summary or arbitrary executions. Amnesty International pointed out that the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances had reported in 1992 a backlog of around 8,000 cases owing to lack of funds. Its report concluded that “…the members of the staff have reached a point where they can no longer cope with the workload,” and that “unless additional personnel is assigned to the Working Group, an ever-increasing proportion of the cases received by the Group will not be analyzed, processed and transmitted”.

The Conference failed to make any significant contribution to building a world free of human rights violations. Amnesty International’s Secretary General summarized the two week of discussions as “a summit of missed opportunities”. He said: “There has been no reprieve for the victims, as governments fine-tuned their official declarations and reaffirmed the 50-year-old core values of universality, indivisibility and interdependence of human rights.” There was no specific reference at all in the Vienna Programme of Action to stronger measures to combat extrajudicial executions and the reference to “disappearances” most disappointingly adds nothing new and makes no new commitment to ways of eradicating these practices.

As in the past, the development of activities on human rights by the UN and regional organizations will depend on the role played by non-governmental organizations such as voluntary organizations, human rights groups, professional associations and other non-official organizations. They have eloquently made known their concerns and called for action.

The proliferation of international human rights standards and other measures developed by the UN is a step forward, not least because it aids those engaged in campaigns to stop serious human rights violations.

However, the strength of these measures is entirely dependent on the degree to which the governments of the world abide by them. They are not a substitute for government action – the basic responsibility for protecting human rights still lies with individual governments. The continuing nightmare of political killings and “disappearances” can only be ended if governments, both individually and collectively, have the political will to act. Our job is to make sure they do just that.

                                                          Campaigning for action

Victims of human rights violations are often presented as nameless, faceless statistics, massacres are rounded up to the nearest hundred or thousand. The individual pain and devastation is lost in the deadening effect of abstract reporting from a distance.

This report aims to show some of the lives behind the lies. It hopes to convey the suffering felt by ordinary people as well as whole communities when governments use terror to achieve their goals. The purpose of the report and the worldwide campaign being mounted by Amnesty International is simple – to stimulate action. Action to stop “disappearances” and political killings.

The people who are behind the crimes are state officials. They take the decisions. They must be forced to change their ways. Our job is to pile on the pressure until they conform to decent and humane standards of behaviour.

What are we asking governments to do?

.           We demand that they outlaw “disappearances” and extrajudicial executions. 

.           We demand that they make it clear that such crimes will not be tolerated at any level, under any circumstances. 

.           We insist that governments account for victims and promptly conduct full and impartial investigations into all “disappearances” and extrajudicial executions. 

.           We call for the perpetrators and those who ordered the crimes to be brought to justice. 

.           We call for compensation to be offered to victims, their orphans, their widowed partners and their families. 

We are also asking armed political groups to uphold their obligation to respect basic human rights standards. We call on them to observe international humanitarian standards, specifically to: 

.           Stop torture and deliberate and arbitrary killings, including killings of civilians and prisoners. 

.           Release immediately and unconditionally those they hold as hostages and to desist from further hostage-taking. 

.           Ensure that all those belonging to their organization know that hostage-taking and deliberate and arbitrary killings will not be tolerated, and that those who commit them will be held to account. 

Governments have further duties: collectively, through the international community, and individually where they have opportunities to do so, they must take seriously their responsibilities to prevent “disappearances” and political killings wherever they occur in the world. Individual nations must use and support the machinery of the UN and other intergovernmental organizations to stop the bloodshed. They must create international means for bringing perpetrators to justice where national avenues have been closed. 

Moreover, no government should ever forcibly return anyone to a country where he or she risks becoming a victim of “disappearance” or extrajudicial execution.

In addition, governments should recognize their responsibilities when exporting arms, training, knowledge and equipment that can be used to commit “disappearances” and political killings. Their legislation or arms and other related exports should prohibit such exports from taking place unless it can be reasonably demonstrated that they will not facilitate human rights violations. Such exports should be publicly disclosed in advance, reports should be issued on the human rights situation in the receiving country, and parliamentary bodies should exercise proper control over the implementation of such laws.

Sadly, however, history has shown that we cannot rely solely on the actions of governments or international institutions to stop abuses.

When ordinary criminals offend, governments deal with them through the process of law. When governments commit crimes or fail to stop human rights violations, who is to discipline them? Amnesty International was set up over 30 years ago to speak out when governments refuse to abide by basic human rights standards. This report shows the terrifying scale of political killings and “disappearances” which is still going on – perhaps the greatest threat to human rights in today’s world.

With so many governments trampling on the fundamental rights of their citizens and ignoring abuses abroad, it is up to ordinary people to act. Concerted public pressure can make a difference, even to the most apparently intransigent regimes.

As the Director of the Human Rights Division of the UN Observer Mission in EI Salvador said in 1991:

“…over the past decade non-governmental human rights organizations have played a vital role in protecting and promoting the human rights of the most vulnerable sectors of society, in difficult and sometimes tragic circumstances…. Human rights organizations have been violations and to protect their victims.” 

In EI Salvador, as in many other countries around the world, the savagery of government repression would never have come to public knowledge without the brave actions of individuals and groups on the ground. They are the wives, husbands, parents and grandparents of the “disappeared” who visit police stations, army barracks and government offices trying to find out what has happened to their missing relatives. They are the community activists, journalists and human rights workers who badger the authorities for information. They are the lawyers who demand their clients’ rights. All know the risks they run and some have paid the ultimate price. Without them, the information in this report could never have been compiled and countless human rights violations would remain in the dark.

UN Secretary-General paid tribute to these people in these words:

“In our efforts to build a culture of human rights, we must not forget the importance of human rights workers and non-governmental organizations, nor the courage shown by many who risk their lives and security for the rights of others.”

So how can we build a culture of human rights? It means raising and deepening consciousness among officials and the general public about human rights and governments that violate them. It means developing and supporting international and regional institutions which are designed to tackle these violations at source. It means an uncompromising effort to force individual governments to take human rights seriously in their foreign and economic policies. It means insisting that all governments show the political will necessary for decisive action against “disappearances” and political killings at home and abroad.

To achieve this, all those engaged in defending human rights must develop closer links. Often the most horrific violations are allowed to continue because cosy clubs of governments see it could damage their relations with other countries if they took action. WE must unite our forces with similar determination – they may have the heavy artillery, but we have the numbers.

This campaign aims to equip that massive human force with one of our few weapons – the facts. It also provides a framework for people, wherever they are, to take up the issues and direct their demands for change at those in power who make the decisions.

Human rights violations are neither natural nor inevitable. We can move forward to a world where governments can no longer get away with murder, where political killings and “disappearances” are exceptional aberrations, quickly stamped out by popular outrage and pressure from the international community. We can create a “new world order” in which basic human rights are a reality for everyone, not a privilege for the few. These goals will not be achieved by wishful thinking. We must take action. Join our campaign today!

The Disappeared in Balochistan: HRW Report Summary

“Even if the president or chief justice tells us to release you, we won’t. We can torture you, or kill you, or keep you for years at our will. It is only the Army chief and the intelligence chief that we obey.”  

– Pakistani official to Bashir Azeem, the 76-year-old secretary-general of the Baloch Republican Party, during his unacknowledged detention, April 2010

“Disappearances of people of Balochistan are the most burning issue in the country. Due to this issue, the situation in Balochistan is at its worst.”

– Supreme Court Justice Javed Iqbal, commenting on the establishment of the Commission of Inquiry for Missing Persons on May 4, 2010.

“One of them pointed his gun at Abdul Nasir and shouted, ‘Get up!’ As soon as Abdul Nasir got off the ground the man walked him to their car. Since that time I have not seen Abdul.”

– Witness to enforced disappearance of Abdul Nasir, June 2010

On December 11, 2009, a 39-year-old Baloch nationalist activist, Abdul Ghaffar Lango, and his wife were leaving a hospital inPakistan’s southern city ofKarachiafter her discharge from surgery when two whiteToyotapickup trucks suddenly stopped at the main gate. Lango’s wife said that about 10 men in plain clothes approached the couple and one started beating Lango with the butt of an AK-47 assault rifle until he lost consciousness. The men then dragged him into one of the pickups and drove away. When the family went to register the abduction with the police, the police informed them that Lango had been detained because of his political activities, yet refused to provide further information on his whereabouts or specific charges against him.

On July 1, 2011, Lango’s corpse was found in an abandoned hotel near Lakbado area of Gadani town in the Lasbela district of Balochistan. The local police represented by the Station House Officer (SHO) of Gadani Police Station told the local media that “the body bore multiple marks of brutal torture.”

Lango’s case illustrates a disturbingly regular feature of the ongoing conflict inPakistan’s western province of Balochistan: the practice of enforced disappearances, in which the authorities or their agents take people into custody and then deny all responsibility or knowledge of their fate or whereabouts.

Enforced disappearances inflict unbearable cruelty not just on the victims, but on family members, who often wait years or decades to learn of their fate. Many cases result in the extrajudicial killing of the victims.

Under international law, “disappearances” are considered a continuing offense, one that is ongoing so long as the state conceals the fate or the whereabouts of the victim.

The problem of disappearances inPakistanis widespread and is not limited to Balochistan province. This report, however, focuses specifically on “disappearances” in Balochistan, as they are a distinctive feature of the conflict there between government security forces and armed militants that has devastated the province over many years. These disappearances take place in a province in which armed militants, particularly Baloch nationalist armed groups, have attacked security forces and military bases throughout the province.

These groups have been responsible for many targeted killings, including the killing of numerous teachers and other educators. In recent years they have increasingly attacked non-Baloch civilians and their businesses, as well as major gas installations and infrastructure.

Human Rights Watch documented abuses by militants in its 2010 report, “Their Future Is at Stake”: Attacks on Teachers and Schools in Pakistan’s Balochistan Province.

For this report, Human Rights Watch interviewed over 100 individuals inPakistan, including family members of disappeared individuals, persons who had been held in unacknowledged detention and then released, local human rights activists, lawyers, and witnesses.

These cases show thatPakistan’s security forces, particularly its intelligence agencies, targeted for enforced disappearance ethnic Baloch suspected of involvement in the Baloch nationalist movement. Evidence of a broader campaign by the authorities includes detailed accounts of the released detainees and their relatives, witness accounts describing the circumstances of abductions and the identity of the perpetrators, and admissions by government officials. In a few cases representatives of the intelligence agencies admitted responsibility to the families, or during court hearings. None of the victims, their relatives or eyewitnesses to the alleged disappearances interviewed by Human Rights Watch blamed armed Baloch groups. Most blamed Pakistan’s intelligence agencies or the paramilitary Frontier Corps.

Abductions were carried out in broad daylight, often in busy public areas, and in the presence of multiple witnesses. Victims were taken away from shops and hotels, public buses, university campuses, homes, and places of work.

The victims of enforced disappearances in the cases documented were predominantly men in their mid-20s to mid-40s. Three of the disappeared were children, the youngest of whom was 12 years old at the time of the abduction. In three cases, the victims were over 60 years old. Most victims appear to have been targeted because of alleged participation in Baloch nationalist parties and movements, including the Baloch Republican Party (BRP), Baloch National Front (BNF), Baloch National Movement (BNM) and Balochistan National Party (BNP), as well as the Baloch Student Organization (Azad) (BSO-Azad). In several cases, people appeared to have been targeted because of their tribal affiliation, especially when a particular tribe, such as the Bugti or Mengal, was involved in fighting with Pakistan’s armed forces.

Witnesses frequently described the perpetrators as armed men in civilian clothes, usually arriving in one or more four-door pickup trucks. The witnesses typically referred to these assailants as representatives of the “agencies,” a term commonly used to describe the intelligence agencies, including the ISI, Military Intelligence (MI), and the Intelligence Bureau (IB). Other information obtained by Human Rights Watch in many cases corroborates these claims.

In 16 cases documented by Human Rights Watch, the abductions were carried out by, in the presence of, or with the assistance of uniformed personnel of the Frontier Corps (FC), an Interior Ministry paramilitary force. In a number of cases, police assisted by being present at the scene or securing an area while plainclothes intelligence officers abducted individuals who later “disappeared.”

In all the cases Human Rights Watch documented, even evident members of the security forces did not identify themselves, explain the basis for arrest or where they were taking those apprehended. Often instead they beat the victims and dragged them handcuffed and blindfolded into their vehicles. For example, on July 1, 2010, Shams Baloch, the 49-yearold former mayor of Khuzdar town in Balochistan, was abducted from an ambulance while accompanying his sick mother to a hospital inQuetta, Balochistan’s capital. About an hour after they left Khuzdar, men in Frontier Corps uniforms stopped the ambulance at a checkpoint and ordered Baloch to get out.

They proceeded to beat him, while holding others at gunpoint. Four armed men in plain clothes arrived a short time afterwards and took Baloch with them. The police refused to investigate.

Another feature of enforced disappearances in Balochistan is that many of the victims, especially senior political activists, have been “disappeared” more than once. They have been abducted, held in unacknowledged detention for weeks or even months, released, and then abducted again. And sometimes “disappearances” occur after the security forces have made several unsuccessful attempts at abducting a person before finally apprehending and disappearing the victim.

Information on the fate of persons subjected to enforced disappearances inPakistanis scarce. Some of the alleged disappeared are being held in unacknowledged detention in facilities run by the Frontier Corps and the intelligence agencies, such as at the Kuli army cantonment, a military base in Quetta.

Those whom the security forces eventually release are frequently reluctant to talk about their experiences for fear of being disappeared again or facing other repercussions. Many have been threatened with retaliation if they discuss who abducted them or reveal that they were tortured in custody. Without exception in the cases Human Rights Watch investigated, released detainees and relatives who were able to obtain information about the disappeared person’s treatment in custody reported torture and ill-treatment. Methods of torture included prolonged beatings, often with sticks or leather belts, hanging detainees upside down, and food and sleep deprivation.

In seven cases documented by Human Rights Watch, Pakistani authorities attempted to legitimize disappearances by bringing criminal charges against the missing persons. In some cases, the detainees were then transferred into police custody and brought to trial. In other cases, such as that of Dr. Din Mohammad Baloch, the families found out about the charges from the media, yet were still unable to locate or meet with their missing relative.

There is increasing evidence to substantiate the fears of many families that disappeared relatives who have been missing for months or years have been killed in custody. According to media reports, more than 70 bodies of previously disappeared persons have been discovered between July 2010 and February 2011.

While the problem is widespread, the exact number of enforced disappearances perpetrated in recent years by Pakistan’s security forces remains unknown. Antigovernment Baloch nationalists claim thousands of cases. Official numbers of disappeared persons are wildly contradictory. In 2008,Pakistan’s interior minister, Rehman Malik, admitted at least 1,100 victims. In January 2011 Balochistan’s home minister, Mir Zafrullah Zehri, told provincial legislators that only 55 persons were considered missing. The minister provided no explanation for these figures, which are inconsistent with those of credible sources.

Some of the disappeared have been traced by various institutions. The Balochistan home minister claimed in January 2011 that 32 people had been traced. According to separate investigations by the federal Interior Ministry and provincial Home Ministry, 23 victims of disappearances have been traced. The Commission of Inquiry for Missing Persons, established by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, has traced a total of 134 persons throughout Pakistan, of which 23 have so far been released. However, this list is not publicly available and it is not known if disappeared persons from Balochistan are on this list.

Since President Zadari took office in 2008, his government has taken significant steps to address Baloch grievances. It offered a public apology to the people of Balochistan for human rights violations perpetrated by the state under military rule, including large-scale disappearances. In December 2009 the government, seeking political reconciliation in Balochistan, passed the Aghaz-e-Haqooq-e-Balochistan (“Beginning of Rights in Balochistan”) package of constitutional, political, administrative, and economic reforms. It noted the province’s “sense of deprivation in the political and economic structures of the federation” and past failure to implement provisions of the 1973 Pakistan Constitution that sought to empower the provinces.

Yet the government has not kept its promises to address the crisis of enforced disappearances in Balochistan. Those responsible for enforced disappearances in the cases documented in this report have not been held accountable. The security forces have continued to behave with the same impunity they enjoyed under the military government of President Musharraf. This impunity seems to penetrate the system at all levels: police who refuse to register and investigate disappearance cases, courts that appear unwilling or unable to fully enforce the law against the security forces, intelligence agencies that continue to blatantly ignore court orders, and high-level government officials who talk of the need for accountability yet are unwilling or unable to rein in the security forces. The reality is that security forces controlled by the military, including intelligence agencies and the Frontier Corps, continue to act outside all formal mechanisms of civilian oversight.

In the vast majority of cases we documented, relatives of the disappeared reported the cases to the local police. In most cases the police eventually, often after an order from the Supreme Court, registered the cases. Yet that is where official activity usually ended, as no investigations followed. Police often explicitly told the families that they had no powers to investigate disappearances allegedly committed by the intelligence agencies or Frontier Corps personnel.

The right to habeas corpus continues to be largely undermined both by the failure of the courts to meaningfully uphold it and by security agency defiance. In 27 disappearance cases documented in this report, the families of the victims or lawyers acting on their behalf filed petitions with the Balochistan High Court. In none of those cases did the court establish the whereabouts of the disappeared.

The Supreme Court has been more active. In 2009, it reopened the inquiry into disappearance cases acrossPakistanthat it began during the Musharraf period and that had led to a confrontation resulting in Musharraf’s dismissal of the chief justice. In May 2010 the Supreme Court formed the Commission of Inquiry for Missing Persons, with a mandate to investigate enforced disappearances and provide recommendations for eliminating this practice. A new Commission of Inquiry for Missing Persons was established by the federal Ministry of Interior on March 1, 2011. While some of the disappeared were traced by the first commission, no perpetrators were brought to account, possibly because of fears within the courts about confrontingPakistan’s powerful intelligence and security agencies.

The inability of law enforcement agencies and the criminal justice system to tackle the problem of disappearances is exacerbated by the continuing failure of Pakistani authorities at the national and provincial level to exert the political will to address the issue of disappearances in Balochistan. The authorities have failed so far to send a strong message to the security forces and intelligence agencies and to implement a set of concrete measures that would put an end to the practice of enforced disappearances.

This failure remains one of the key factors contributing to the persistent cycle of abuse and impunity in the region, which takes a heavy toll on the Baloch community. It not only affects the victims whose lives are brutalized and lost, but also their families who live in the anguish that they may never learn the fate of their loved ones. It also deeply undermines the efforts of the Pakistani government to win the trust of the Baloch people and achieve reconciliation in the province.

Key Recommendations

To the Government ofPakistanand the Provincial Government of Balochistan:

• Investigate all allegations of enforced disappearances until the fate of each victim is clearly and publicly established. Investigate all related allegations of torture, extrajudicial killings, or other abuses.

• Account for every person detained by all authorities in Balochistan, and in particular those accused of involvement in attacks by Baloch armed groups or arrested in military operations in Balochistan.

• Instruct the police to register all cases of abductions and unlawful arrests, even if the alleged perpetrators include the personnel of the intelligence agencies, the Frontier Corps, or other security forces.

• Ensure that the police and Commission of Inquiry for Missing Persons (CIMP) have the necessary authority and resources to vigorously investigate cases of disappearance, including those perpetrated by the intelligence agencies and paramilitary forces.

• Authorize the police and the CIMP to obtain information from any state agencies, including the military and intelligence agencies, about the whereabouts and status of the disappeared. Provide the police and the CIMP with investigative powers to make unannounced and unaccompanied searches of security force facilities and records.

• Dismiss from service and prosecute as appropriate all officials, regardless of rank, found responsible for committing or ordering disappearances or related abuses. Hold superior officers, whether civilian or military, criminally accountable if they knew, or should have known, that forces under their command had committed or were about to commit criminal acts, and they did not take reasonable steps to prevent such acts or punish those responsible.

• Require arresting officers to identify themselves and present official identification.

• Inform detainees immediately of the reasons for arrest and any charges against them.

• Inform the family promptly of the arrest and location of the detainee. Allow direct contact with family and unhindered access to legal counsel as soon as possible, but in all cases within 24 hours.

• Bring detainees promptly before a judge and inform them of the reasons for arrest and any charges.

• Ensure that all persons detained by security forces are held at recognized places of detention.

• Order the military, intelligence agencies, the Frontier Corps, the police, and all other security and intelligence agencies to promptly respond to inquiries and comply with all habeas corpus orders issued by the courts.

• Release accurate information on all those formally arrested or otherwise taken into custody, detained, and released in Balochistan and elsewhere in Pakistan.

• Introduce legislation making enforced disappearances a criminal offense punishable by sanctions commensurate with the gravity of the crime.

• Sign and ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and enact national legislation that gives force to its provisions.

• Repeal or revise all laws that allow arrest and detention on vaguely defined charges and grant sweeping immunity to the security forces. These laws include Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (1960), the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the “Sedition Law” Section 124-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, and the Security of Pakistan Act, 1952.

To Pakistan’s International Partners, in particular those such as the United States and United Kingdom that have relationships with Pakistan’s security and intelligence agencies:

• Demand the government of Pakistan make it a priority to end the practice of disappearances and arbitrary detentions and that it hold all persons who order or carry out disappearances accountable.

• Communicate directly to the agencies responsible for disappearances, including the army, ISI, IB, Frontier Corps, police and other law enforcement and intelligence agencies they have relationships with, and demand an end to disappearances. Make it clear that continued disappearances will result in conditions on or an end to relationships with those agencies.

• Suspend police and military assistance and cooperation programs with Frontier Corps , police and Pakistan Army units based in Balochistan until military and civilian authorities fully investigate and take appropriate action regarding allegations of disappearance and other abuses by their forces.

• Ensure that adequate mechanisms are in place to ensure that no security unit funded and trained by external forces is responsible for human rights violations and that adequate vetting and oversight mechanisms are in place to help deter abuse in the future.

• The US should fully implement the Leahy Law which prohibits the provision of military assistance to any unit of the security forces or a foreign country where there is credible evidence that such unit has committed gross violations of human rights.

Protest for Release of Afia Siddiqui: Oct 29/ 2008

Wearing pink badges marked with No. 650, signifying the prisoner number of an unidentified woman in Bagram Jail, the relatives of missing persons on Wednesday gathered in front of Geo TV building for yet another peaceful effort to press for the release of their dear ones.

This time joined by a large number of civil society representatives, members of Jamaat-e-Islami and Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf, the speakers at the protest urged the government to halt all cooperation with the US till the release of all missing persons held in Pakistan and in other countries.

The protesters held placards demanding release of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui and other missing persons and condemned former president Pervez Musharraf for selling Pakistani citizens to other countries. Representatives of Pakistan Professional Forum and common citizens were also part of the protest.

Describing her struggle to reach Prisoner No. 650, she said that prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and those who fled the notorious Bagram Jail confirmed the presence of a woman in Bagram who was brutally tortured and repeatedly raped. “The cries of a helpless woman used to echo in the jail that prompted prisoners to go on a hunger strike,” she said.

Marium said that “There are many Muslim women in the captivity of American forces and are in the same or even worse condition than that of Dr. Aafia,” she said adding that if public remained silent, they would lose their sisters forever. “I beg you to join in my struggle of finding prisoner 650.” She expressed disappointment over the insensitive attitude of the public towards the miserable condition of missing persons. She said that Taliban who were labelled barbaric and uncivilised gave her complete privacy in the prison. “No one used to enter my room without my permission,” she said.

Leading figure in the movement of missing persons, Amina Masood said that it was not difficult to imagine her misery, as she knew that her husband was alive but she was not allowed to even listen to his voice for the past three years. “If our relatives were sold to the American government then the present government should buy them back,” she said begging the leadership to end their ordeal.

She said that the government had promised to constitute a committee to look into the matter yet nothing practical had been done so far. “We do not want any committee, all we want is our dear ones,” she said adding that despite commitments made by the leaders in the government and opposition, the number of missing persons was continuously increasing.

Only a day before, Amina said that a mother of three daughters, Najma Bibi, was taken away by the agencies to an unknown place. She said that Pakistani government should make it clear to the American government that they could not be friends until all missing persons were released.

“The system of missing persons is causing great pain to the citizens of the country and is creating environment of distrust hence it should be completely eliminated,” she said with tears rolling down her eyes.

When Will the Baloch Stop Disappearing in Pakistan?

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has learned that a man who went missing nine months ago near Karachi has resurfaced this month in the custody of the Frontier Corp (FC).

 

The man’s family were prevented from filing a report by police when he was abducted and so acted through the Balochistan High Court, where his case has been pending since August 2009.

 

 The man’s name has featured in various a government-issued lists of disappeared persons, yet in a press conference on 27 March 2010 FC representatives produced him as a recent arrestee, who had been caught crossing the border from Afghanistan in to Balochistan carrying explosives, and foreign currencies and SIM cards. They have proceeded to charge him with the murder of six Chinese engineers.seen pictured here along with a press statement made by the victims mother on 28 March 2010).

Four relatives who went to visit him in detention were arbitrarily arrested and kept in a police station by the FC for three days.

According to information received from the Voice of Balochistan – an NGO for missing persons – and the victim’s family, Mr. Murad Khan Marri, 45, was arrested by uniformed and plain clothed persons near the Aachar Hotel in Hub Chowki, Balochistan on 27 June 2009.

On Sakran Road he was seen being loaded into a red Toyota that had no number plate. The next day his son went to file a case at the Hub Chowki police station with other relatives, where the police reportedly refused to comply and denied Murri’s arrest.

After other attempts to file the case with the police failed, the victim’s mother Mrs. Nazi filed a constitutional petition in the High Court of Balochistan on 17 August 2009. The petition made allegations of arbitrary arrest, and challenged the ministry of interior in Islamabad, military intelligence agencies, the commander of the ISI and of the Federal Investigation unit (FIU), and the government of Balochistan, through the ministry of interior and the FC. Military intelligence and government representatives denied that Marri was in their custody and the petition is pending in the high court before the Chief Justice of Balochistan.

While hearing petitions on disappearances in January the Supreme Court ordered the police to allow families of the disappeared to file their complaints. After further obstacles we are told that Mrs Nazi was able to file an FIR for Marri’s disappearance on 10 February at the HITE (Hub Industrial and Trading Estate) police station, which is near the area of his abduction. Police have yet to launch an investigation.

Marri’s name has since appeared in various lists of missing persons, including the latest list (of 65 persons) issued by National Crises Management Cell of the government, and in a Balochistan list of the disappeared (at No. 1060,

However on 27 March Marri was produced at a press conference, called by Colonel Asad Shehzad Khatak of the FC. The colonel claimed that Marri was captured crossing the Afghan border illegally while carrying Indian rupees, explosives and a number of cell phones bearing SIM cards from of Afghanistan, India and Pakistan. He claimed that Marri has confessed to involvement in the murder of six Chinese engineers as an active member of the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA).

 

The detainee’s family report that he looked thin, unwell and scared; journalists noted that he was not able to walk properly and appeared to be in pain. He was not allowed to speak with them. The situation bears strong signs of illegal detention and torture among other violations, and the AHRC is extremely doubtful that he will be given a fair trial.

Disappearances have become endemic in Balochistan, even after military offensives were suspended in 2008 by the current government. The list of the missing maintained by the NCMC shows that 65 persons have disappeared since the civilian government took power, when law and order was largely handed to the FC. The AHRC has reported many of these cases, including UAC-041-2009 http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2009/3145/, in which three political activists were arrested by the FC from the office of a lawyer and days later, were found brutalized and murdered in a remote area; a year on, no one has been held to account for their deaths.

 

In Balochistan the hallmarks of such arbitrary arrests are plain clothed persons in red or white Toyotas without number plates.

 

 In July 2009 during a meeting with the Indian PM in Egypt, the Pakistan PM announced its conviction that India is involved in the Balochistan independence movement, something it has often hinted.

 

Many of the recent disappearances and false arrests appear to be linked to the increased pressure felt by law enforcement agents to provide evidence to support this claim.

 

Please read more about the issue – from the uncovering of secret torture cells to violations committed against the Baloch student population – in our statements, such as STM-157-2009, STM-019-2010  and STM-158-2008 

 

A few days later, he has again disappeared while in the custody of FC.

After his arrest, he was lodged at Saddar police station, Chaman city for further investigation without being produced before any court as claimed by his lawyer, Agha Zahid. His lawyer says that Marri was not found in the police station and his whereabouts are unknown. He was neither found in the prison of Chaman district. There is every possibility that he may have been kept incommunicado for the purpose of extracting a confessional statement from him using torture.

The FC is active in the province where there is a strong nationalist movement for autonomy of the province. The province was under military action several times since the creation of Pakistan. During the eight years of the rule of former president General Musharraf, the province was continuously under military operations and hundreds of people were made to disappear by the state intelligence agencies, soon after their arrest. The persons, who remained missing for months, when released, claimed that they were kept in different military torture cells to confess that they were on the run or belonged to the Balochistan Liberation Army, an organization banned by the military government.

After the formation of the civilian set-up, the government announced the withdrawal of military operation and handed over the law and order situation of the province to the FC, which is a Para military force. Immediately after the FC took control, three political activists were abducted by the plainclothes men and three days later, their mutilated bodies were found. These three persons were members of the committee which was probing the cases of disappearances. These persons also went missing for many months and were kept in different military torture cells.

The re-disappearance of Murad Marri is alarming. This shows that law enforcement authorities in the province are taking the law in their hands. They do not produce the accused persons before the court of law within 24 hours of their arrest, which is legally mandatory.

As defined in the Preamble of the Declaration of the UN working group on enforced or involuntary disappearances (WGEID), enforced disappearances occur when persons are arrested, detained or abducted against their will or otherwise deprived of their liberty by officials of different branches or levels of Government or by organized groups or private individuals acting on behalf of, or with the support, direct or indirect, consent or acquiescence of the Government, followed by a refusal to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the persons concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of their liberty, which places such persons outside the protection of the law.

The case of Murad Marri is a clear violation of UN Charter and various Conventions pertaining to the freedom of individuals and their inalienable rights. The government should take immediate action on the re-disappearance of Murad Marri; get his release from the law enforcement authorities and initiate an enquiry into cases where arrested persons are kept incommunicado for extracting confessional statements. It is feared by the family of Murad Marri that he must be going through severe kind of torture and that he would be killed in an encounter. Therefore, government should immediately reveal the whereabouts of Murad Khan Marri.

On May 25, Mr. Marri was produced before the chief justice of the Balochistan High Court. He told the court that he had been kept in different places of detention and severely tortured since his actual arrest on June 27, 2009.

During the hearing on the May 25 of a constitutional petition filed on August 17, 2009 by his mother Mrs. Nazi, Mr. Marri told Mr. Faiz Essa, the chief justice of the High Court, that at the time his arrest was mentioned by the FC he had already been in their custody since his arrest on June 27, 2009.

According to his lawyer the victim said before the court that during his eight month’s detention he was kept in different places and tortured severely. Most of the time during his detention he was kept blind folded so he was unable to say where he had been held.

Due to the continuous torture he had fainted many times and on three occasions was brought to the CMH (at the time he did not realise that it was the Combined Military Hospital) for treatment. He is also unaware of the dates on which he was taken to the hospital. He was particularly treated about pain in his kidneys.

On one occasion he was brought to the Cantt (Cantonment Police Station), Quetta, where Mr. Deen Mohammad, the station house officer (SHO) refused to take charge of him because of his fragile condition.

Mr. Marri argued before the court that if he had been taken to the hospital and police station at Quetta by the FC during his custody before his supposed arrest in March then how is it possible that he was only arrested while crossing the Afghan border in March 2010 as claimed by the FC.

His statement about his illegal detention of eight months by the FC, his torture at their hands and the declaration by the FC of his fake arrest eight months after his disappearance placed the chief justice in an awkward position. The judge was dumbfounded by his revelations could not even ask him why he was tortured and kept incommunicado. Mr. Marri’s lawyer, Mr. Agha, made several requests of the chief justice to order the quashing of the FIR in which he was falsely charged with crossing the Afghan border for the motive of militant activities inside Pakistan, carrying explosive materials and Indian currency. But the chief justice was unable to respond. The lawyer also requested that he should be transferred from the Anti Terrorist Force (ATF) Jail to the district jail of Quetta city and that all cases pending before the Anti Terrorist Court (ATC) should be stopped. The Judge replied that he would prepare a report for the ATC but that it was up to the ATC to decide.

This was the first time after his ‘official’ arrest on March 27 that he was produced before the High Court and allowed to give his statement. He has never been allowed to meet his family members. Each time he was brought to the Anti Terrorist Court it was under heavy security and even his lawyer was not allowed to meet him. During the hearing at the ATC the brief on behalf of the lawyer was not signed directly by the lawyer but instead signed by the victim from the police lock-up at the ATC.

In the ATC court he was first produced on April 22, 2010, but for a while was in judicial remand at ATF jail. This time he requested a policeman to inform his lawyer that his next hearing would be on May 11. At that hearing his wife and son were there but the FC did not allow them to enter the court building. The victim was only produced when the timings of the court were over and his lawyer, Mr. Aman Ullah Kandhrani had already left.

On May 13 he was again produced at the ATC and the judge ordered the prosecutor to produce witnesses for the government side on May 26. However, the same order had to be repeated at the May 26 hearing when it was announced that the next hearing would be on June 7.

It is to be mentioned here that the government made an announcement of the head money (bounty) for the arrest of Mr. Marri in January 2010. Within two months the FC announced his arrest and claimed the reward. But the government has refused to pay any money after receiving reports that it had been shown that Mr. Marri was falsely arrested on March 27.

It is outrageous that the FC has a free hand in the Balochistan province to arrest people and implicate them in cases of anti-state activities. The civilian government after coming into power announced in 2009 that it would stop the military action in the province. However, in contradiction of this announcement the government then handed over the responsibility for law and order in the province to the FC. Since then there have been hundreds of cases of illegal arrests and disappearances involving the FC and also attacks on people protesting peacefully about the increase in cases of disappearances.

From 2005 to-date the FC has taken Rs. 12 Billion from the government for maintaining law and order which, in fact, has deteriorated since the deployment of the FC.

It has also been observed that the higher courts are not taking the cases of disappearances seriously. It is claimed that around 5000 persons have disappeared after arrest by the security forces and there are more than 400 cases in the higher courts of Pakistan including the Supreme Court. However, the courts have not shown any determination to hold the state security agencies responsible for these disappearances despite of overwhelming testimony by family members implicating the state agencies.

The Forced Disappearance of Political Opponents

The forced disappearance of political opponents which are attributed to the state intelligence services continues in spite of the newly elected government’s claims that they will swiftly deal with this problem. Since the Pakistan Peoples’ Party (PPP) came to power one year ago, no serious or credible steps have been taken to address these disappearances. The state intelligence agencies are operating in opposition to the government’s efforts. In fact, since April 2008 and during the first year of the newly elected government, more than 350 persons have been disappeared after arrest. Meanwhile officers of the state intelligence agencies claim that they have been excused from the obligation of attending courts to give evidence due to reasons of national security.

The government of Pakistan is failing to take credible steps to probe cases of disappearances that have been ongoing for decades in the country. The Asian Human Rights Commission has repeatedly brought the problem of disappearances in Pakistan, which is amongst the highest numbers of such cases in Asia, before the authorities in Pakistan as well as before the international communities. But the seriousness of the government of Pakistan can be judged by the fact that it has not taken any initiative.

The Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) and Military Intelligence (MI) agencies are suspected by the families of the disappeared of carrying out the arrest and disappearances of thousands of people since the start of the ‘war on terror’. In the two years of the PPP’s government only around a dozen people who were abducted have resurfaced, as claimed by the government, but there is no substantive evidence to prove the government’s claim.

In the province of Balochistan, there are reports of more than 4000 persons being missing after their arrest by the plain clothed persons from the state intelligence agencies. The nationalist group claim that around 8000 persons are missing. On the other hand chief minister of Balochistan has issued a list of 1100 missing persons. The government of Pakistan through its attorney general submitted a list of 1600 persons missing since 2005.

Over 168 children and 148 women are also missing and their names are in the official lists. The case of Zarina Baloch is worth mentioning as she was used as a sex slave in the military torture cell in Karachi, Sindh province. In the NWFP more than 1000 persons are missing including some officers from Pakistani army. The nationalist forces of Sindh province claim that about 100 persons have been disappeared and the same position from Punjab province where more than 200 persons are disappeared after their arrests.

By signing the petition every one can voice their disapproval and concerns about the forced disappearances and the impunity of the state intelligence agencies and law enforcing authorities. The name and other personal details will be kept confidential if required.

# # # 

About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.

Afia my daughter is a Slap on Face of US Justice

Feb 9 2010

By Yvonne Ridley

Many of us are still in a state of shock over the guilty verdict returned on Dr Aafia Siddiqui.

The response from the people of Pakistan was predictable and overwhelming and I salute their spontaneous actions.

From Peshawar to Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore and beyond they marched in their thousands demanding the return of Aafia.

Even some of the US media expressed discomfort over the verdict returned by the jurors … there was a general feeling that something was not right.

Everyone had something to say, everyone that is except the usually verbose US Ambassador Anne Patterson who has spent the last two years briefing against Dr Aafia and her supporters.

This is the same woman who claimed I was a fantasist when I gave a press conference with Tehreek e Insaf leader Imran Khan back in July 2008 revealing the plight of a female prisoner in Bagram called the Grey Lady.

She said I was talking nonsense and stated categorically that the prisoner I referred to as “650” did not exist.

By the end of the month she changed her story and said there had been a female prisoner but that she was most definitely not Dr Aafia Siddiqui.

By that time Aafia had been gunned down at virtually point blank range in an Afghan prison cell jammed full of more than a dozen US soldiers, FBI agents and Afghan police.

Her Excellency briefed the media that the prisoner had wrested an M4 gun from one soldier and fired off two rounds and had to be subdued. The fact these bullets failed to hit a single person in the cell and simply disappeared did not resonate with the diplomat.

In a letter dripping in untruths on August 16 2008 she decried the “erroneous and irresponsible media reports regarding the arrest of Aafia Siddiqui”. She went on to say: “Unfortunately, there are some who have an interest in simply distorting the facts in an effort to manipulate and inflame public opinion. The truth is never served by sensationalism…”

When Jamaat Islami invited me on a national tour of Pakistan to address people about the continued abuse of Dr Aafia and the truth about her incarceration in Bagram, the US Ambassador continued to issue rebuttals. She assured us all that Dr Aafia was being treated humanely had been given consular access as set out in international law … hmm.

Well I have a challenge for Ms Patterson today. I challenge her to repeat every single word she said back then and swear it is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. As Dr Aafia Siddiqui’s trial got underway, the US Ambassador and some of her stooges from the intelligence world laid on a lavish party at the US Embassy in Islamabad for some hand-picked journalists where I’ve no doubt in between the dancing, drinks and music they were carefully briefed about the so-called facts of the case.

Interesting that some of the potentially incriminating pictures taken at the private party managed to find the Ambassador was probably hoping to minimize the impact the trial would have on the streets of Pakistan proving that, for the years she has been holed up and barricaded behind concrete bunkers and barbed wire, she has learned nothing about this great country of Pakistan or its people.

One astute Pakistani columnist wrote about her: “The respected lady seems to have forgotten the words of her own country’s 16th president Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865): “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time”. And the people of Pakistan proved they are nobody’s fool and responded to the guilty verdict in New York in an appropriate way.

When injustice is the law it is the duty of everyone to rise up and challenge that injustice in any way possible. The response – so far – has been restrained and measured but it is just the start.

A sentence has yet to be delivered by Judge Richard Berman in May.

Of course there has been a great deal of finger pointing and blame towards the jury in New York who found Dr Aafia guilty of attempted murder.

Observers asked how they could ignore the science and the irrefutable facts … there was absolutely no evidence linking Dr Aafia to the gun, no bullets, no residue from firing it. But I really don’t think we can blame the jurors for the verdict – you see the jury simply could not handle the truth. Had they taken the logical route and gone for the science and the hard, cold, clinical facts it would have meant two things.

It would have meant around eight US soldiers took the oath and lied in court to save their own skins and careers or it would have meant that Dr Aafia Siddiqui was telling the truth. And, as I said before, the jury couldn’t handle the truth. Because that would have meant that the defendant really had been kidnapped, abused, tortured and held in dark, secret prisons by the US before being shot and put on a rendition flight to New York.

It would have meant that her three children – two of them US citizens – would also have been kidnapped, abused and tortured by the US. They say ignorance is bliss and this jury so desperately wanted not to believe that the US could have had a hand in the kidnapping of a five-month -old baby boy, a five-year-old girl and her seven-year-old brother. They couldn’t handle the truth … it is as simple as that. Well I, and many others across the world like me, can’t handle any more lies. America’s reputation is lying in the lowest gutters in Pakistan at the moment and it can’t sink any lower.

The trust has gone, there is only a burning hatred and resentment towards a superpower which sends unmanned drones into villages to slaughter innocents. It is fair to say that America’s goodwill and credibility is all but washed up with most honest, decent citizens of Pakistan.

And I think even Anne Patterson recognizes that fact which is why she is now keeping her mouth shut. If she has any integrity and any self respect left she should stand before the Pakistan people and ask for their forgiveness for the drone murders, the extra judicial killings, the black operations, the kidnapping, torture and rendition of its citizens, the water-boarding, the bribery, the corruption and, not least of all, the injustice handed out to Dr Aafia Siddiqui and her family.

She should then pick up the phone to the US President and tell him to release Aafia and return Pakistan’s most loved, respected and famous daughter and reunite her with the two children who are still missing. Then she should re-read her letter of August 16, 2008 and write another … one of resignation. *

Yvonne Ridley is a patron of Cageprisoners which first brought the plight of Dr Aafia Siddiqui to the world’s attention shortly after her kidnap in March 2003. The award-winning, investigative journalist also co-produced the documentary In Search of Prisoner 650 with film-maker Hassan al Banna Ghani which concluded that the Grey Lady of Bagram was Dr Aafia Siddiqui. Source : http://therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com/ and http://yvonneridley.org/

3 Legal Options to Handle Afia Siddiqui

by ahmersoofi@hotmail.com

The jury of the Manhattan court found Dr Afia Siddiqui guilty of charges of attempted murder and convicted her. Now on the next date of hearing, the judge after listening to the lawyers shall sentence her.

The conviction prevents the executive branch of the US government from intervening. Therefore no matter how much effort the Pakistani government puts in on a diplomatic level, the conviction cannot be reversed through political or diplomatic means. This is the system of the separation of powers under the US constitution.

So the question is what should be done to bring Dr Afia to Pakistan given that notwithstanding the merits of the case it has become an emotional issue for the people of Pakistan and political parties, putting further pressure on the government to ‘force’ America to return Dr Afia.

Under these circumstances there are three legal options available to the Pakistani government.

Firstly the government can provide or further strengthen the legal team so that they can file an appeal against the conviction and also the forthcoming sentence.

In the appeal the lawyers need to question the inadequacy of the evidence, the extra-legal considerations that may have weighed with the jury and plead other grounds that the US appellate lawyers would be familiar with, based on US jurisprudence and precedents of the US Supreme Court. In this regard the government must make available to Dr Afia any additional specialised appellate lawyer so that from a legal point of view all necessary grounds are raised and well pleaded.

The second legal option to bring back Dr Afia would be for the US president to pardon her. The US president has the legal competence to pardon both, the conviction and the sentence.

This power is exercisable normally by all heads of state and is part of the executive competence of the president’s office. The Pakistan government through the US ambassador or State Department can lobby that in this particular case circumstances warrant that President Obama should exercise his presidential discretion to grant a pardon as this would have a strong bearing on improving relations between the people of Paksitan and the US government.

This may not be an easy route as President Obama will feel the domestic pressure not to extend pardon to a woman who was facing serious charges. With the Department of Justice and the attorney general’s office taking the decision to prosecute her and incurring expenses on the said trial, it may feel compelled to disregard the initial decision-making of the executive on the basis of political considerations alone.

The third option to bring back Dr Afia is that she can be transferred to Pakistan to complete her sentence here.

This option has not been explored by the Pakistani government and perhaps even the US government so far. Neither has it been debated in parliament or deliberated in a parliamentary committee.

There exists in Pakistan a specialised statute called the Transfer of Offenders Ordinance 2002. This ordinance as a prerequisite only requires that Pakistan should have a bilateral agreement with US, for the mutual transfer of offenders. Pakistan may already have this agreement and if not it can be made and executed without delay.

The advantage will accrue to both countries. Offenders in Pakistan can be transferred to the US, and offenders in the US can be transferred to Pakistan to complete their sentences. It is a kind of post-conviction extradition. This way the foreign country can fulfil its constitutional mandate of bringing a perpetrator to justice by obtaining a conviction successfully and, thereafter sending him to his country of origin, for completion of the sentence.

The power to transfer an offender exists in US law under Title 18, Part III, Chapter 306, Section 4100 of the US Code, which states “an offender may be transferred from the United States pursuant to this chapter only to a country of which the offender is a citizen or national”.

Once she is transferred to Pakistan to complete her sentence under the above-mentioned ordinance of 2002 or under US law, then her house can also be notified as a sub jail, or she could be put in a separate premises in Pakistan somewhere. She would be entitled to remissions as per Pakistan’s jail manual.

Although she would continue to be in custody to complete the sentence the fact that she will be doing so in Pakistan would be extremely reassuring to the people of Pakistan and would also be taken as a very positive gesture by the US administration given the circumstances. This would hopefully resolve tensions surrounding this issue between the people of Pakistan and the US administration.

This option will result in a win-win situation for all concerned. Firstly the US government would have fulfilled its mandate of bringing Dr Afia to justice, secondly the Pakistani government would have brought back Dr Afia to Pakistan and thirdly Dr Afia would be close to her relatives and friends.

Sister of a Disappeared Person in Balochistan

Zaibun Nisa Gharshin forwarded by the Asian Human
Rights Commission

“My brother was picked up by the state intelligence agencies when he was returning home from office,” recalled Hani Baloch, the sister of a missing Baloch person, as she broke into tears while saying this.

Baloch Women’s Panel (BWP) has been observing a hunger strike camp in front of Quetta Press Club for the past many years for the recovery of several missing persons.

The participants of this camp are predominantly the ones whose loved ones have been whisked away by the state intelligence agencies. But not many people have returned home yet. Unfortunately, many among these families which are observing hunger strike for the recovery of the missing persons comprise of those whose livelihood largely depends on the earnings of the male members of the family who have gone missing. Due to their disappearance, the families have come under intense economic burden and the families are starving.

“We are even uncertain if my brother is dead or alive. The
government should at least tell us what the charges against my brother are. Why is he denied justice by being refused a legal trial? When is my brother going to return home?” asked Hani.

The cycle of enforced disappearance in Balochistan started several
years ago. No practical measure has been taken by the government
except some shallow statements. 99 missing persons were
recovered out of 1000 on 22 May, 2008. These missing persons belonged to different parts of Balochistan. There were 16 such people who were already spending a term inside the jail due to their alleged involvement in various forms of criminal cases.

Many of the missing persons’ families were unwilling to come forward to speak publicly. Those missing persons, who were recovered on 22 May, 2008 also included 141 women about whose
disappearance no family member ever contacted anybody. However, different Baloch groups are raising voice about the immediate recovery of the missing persons.

Eight of these missing women have been kept at Edhi Foundation.
These women had been forced to flee their homes after being accused of having illicit relations with some other men. Thus, they refrain from going home as they fear being honor-killed by
their parents and siblings.

A written statement of Asian Legal Resource Center was presented at United Nations Human Rights Council which appealed to the United Nations to intervene and play its role for the release of those who were subjected to enforced disappearance. The report said that 100 students, political workers and human rights activists, majority of whom belong to Balochistan, went missing since 2002. Half of them were released after being detained for one year.

Before being released, these missing persons were brutally tortured in military torture cells in Dera Ghazai Khan during custody. Before Musharraf took over, there were few cases of enforced disappearance in Pakistan. Now the situation is so grave, that there are plenty of cases of people who go missing and are
subjected to torture.

The cases of missing persons began in Balochistan even before 9/11 because the government wanted to establish some cantonments in resource rich parts of Balochistan which the Baloch nationalists resisted. Under the disguise of war against terror, the government of Pervez Musharraf continued to whisk away people and put them into unknown torture cells. Sadly, these unlawful actions of General Musharraf regime were backed by some powerful
countries of the world.

When the country’s judiciary tried to take notice of the widespread
violation of human rights in the wake of issue of the missing persons, Musharraf sacked the then Chief Justice of Pakistan’s Supreme Court.

The reinstatement of the Chief Justice gave a ray of hope to the families of the missing persons that the judiciary would its due role for the release of all went missing for obscure reasons.

Similarly, when former president Musharraf had to resign after the
restoration of democracy in the country and coming of the PPP in the government, the new government extended an apology to the people of Balochistan and vowed to undo the injustices of the past with the people of the resource-rich province.

Hence, the government issued a verified list of the 992 missing
persons and promised that all of them would be released soon.
Likewise, the government announced a multi-pronged Balochistan Package after holding exhaustive consultation with various stakeholders. The Package pledged to instantly resolve the issue of missing persons. The government has embarked upon a process of recovering the missing persons in Balochistan as the issue is being discussed in high-level meetings. Political experts are hoping that some progress would be made in the near future about the recovery of all missing persons as the issue is a cause of constant unrest in Balochistan.