The justice of Hasan Azhar Rizvi of the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of reforms in all courts on Friday, be it countermeasures or other judicial authority to improve. “Reforms are necessary for progress, regardless of whether they relate to the anti -terrorist court or another,” he said during the negotiations on suffering against court proceedings in military courts. Bench, led by justice aminuddin Khan – including justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Judge Musarrat Hilali, justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and judge Shahid Bilal and Justice Shahid Bilal and Bill Bill. Responsible for attacks on 16 December. Khawaja Ahmad Hussain – an advisor to the former chief judge Jawad Shawaja, who opposed the military courts, presented arguments in today’s hearing. He said civilians do not fall into military courts. The advisor also explained that he was not entirely questioned by the Army Act, but only his specific aspect. He pointed out that Judge Muneeb Akhtar also mentioned the same argument in his judgment. Judge Jamal Khan Mandokhail said he said in the case of FB Ali that there was a dispute over various possibilities. “Nowadays, there is also a view that if the political party involve in such events that should be carried out,” he noted, recalling his observation yesterday hearing, mentioning the basic attack of Mehran and several other incidents. Judge Hilali stated that the court was convinced during the previous hearing that the military court proceedings were provided by a fair court. That was when she asked the difference between individuals involved in the unrest on May 9. May and attack on the Army Public School in Peshaware 16 December 2014. In response to this, Hussain said that individuals involved in the APS attack were associated with terrorist acts. He explained that a change must be made to facilitate their courts after which the accusations were prosecuted. The lawyer further stated that the Pakistani Army Act applies to civilian employees of the armed forces. At this point, the judge asked Rizvi: “Is the Army law paid to those attacking air bases?” In response to the question of Hussain, he pointed to a statement on public relations between services (ISPR) concerning incidents of May 9. He noted that the media wing of the army issued a statement on May 15, 2023 on the events of 9 May. He clarified that he had no objection to the statement, but he stressed that he had expressed sorrows and sadness during the institution. The statement also mentioned the presence of undeniable evidence concerning the events of 9 May. “How can a fair trial in a military court secure after such a statement?” he asked. The lawyer stressed that their case was not outside the institute. He said that suspects of 9 May should be prosecuted, but not in military courts, and claim that “the affected party cannot provide a fair judgment”. Mazhar justice noted here that the abolition of section 2 (d)) (2) of the Army Act could affect cases, such as the Indian case of Spy Kulbhushan Jadhav. To do this, Judge Rizvi asked where the anti -State spies would be tried in the future if the clause was removed. Hussain’s lawyer replied that such cases should be resolved by courts against terrorism. Justice aminuddin has expressed concern about legal contradictions and said: “It is strange to include the legal provisions while allowing exceptions to special cases.” Judge Mazhar also asked whether Pakistani armed forces could still use section 2 par. D) (2) (2) to which Hussain replied that he would no longer be paid. He also pointed to a restriction in military court proceedings and claimed that the defendant could not choose a lawyer from his own preference in the Field Court (FGCM). He explained that in court proceedings the legal representation is provided only by the approval of the Chief of the Army. If the army boss does not provide permission, the accused cannot hire a lawyer from their choice. He further argued that one office would decide while the other would confirm it. He warned that within such a system, the confirmation authority could overturn the verdict of “not guilt” and instead announce the accused wine. Judge Hilali has currently noted, “You are arguing on behalf of the suspects who are not even present before us.” Meanwhile, the judge said Rizvi: “In your opinion, the civilian should not be tried in the military court, but against the anti -oterrorism court. At present, two and a half province of the Earth are affected by terrorism. There is no Mukti Bahini movement. in the ground; The attackers are also civilians. ” Mandokhail then stated that the prevention of terrorism is the responsibility of administration. “Their duty is to collect evidence. If the court does not have evidence yet, how can the judgment be issued? Then people say that Pakistani judiciary is 123. At this point, Judge Rizvi stated that reforms were necessary for improvement, whether it was an anti -terrorist court or any other. Judge Mandokhail noted here that it is more injustice to punish one innocent person than to let 100 individuals free. “Our role is only decision -making; real righteousness is in the hands of God.” The judge noted that even if the murder is committed before everyone, no one will come to testify. “Witnesses are not provided with protection, and in the case of murder, lawyers receive up to 25 hearing data.” Mandokhail also asked whether 21 was convenient – which was enacted for four years and under which special courts were set up. Later, the court postponed the hearing of a case concerning court proceedings with civilians in military courts until 3 February.
