Record of trial of civilians by military court presented to constitutional bench

Islamabad: The Ministry of Defense on Wednesday presented a record of a court with civilians to the Military Court of the Constitutional Bench. Attorney Khawaja Haris introduced a record in the seven envelopes of white documents-for each member of the bench-under instructions of justice Afghan during hearing to appeal against the court against the court against the court against the court. The appeal can be heard by a seven-member bench headed by Judge Amin-Oud-Din Khan. The bench included Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Judge Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Musarat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Shahid Bilal Hassan. The ministry advisor made a record after a short break during hearing. Attorney Haris claimed that the accused was asked before the court proceedings if someone had an objection against Lieutenant Colonel Ammar Ahmed. No one against the officer [as chairman of the officer]. Judge Mandokhail said that the record would be seen in appeal. It is not advisable to check the record right away. Six judges returned the recorder to a lawyer. Mazhar justice returned the record after his viewing. Judge Hilali, however, read the record and asked questions. Attorney Haris pointed out Article 14 and said Judge Ayesha Malik disagreed with one point in her judgment. Judge Hilali questioned that society was registered according to PPC (Pakistani Criminal Code) against the accused. Khawaja Haris said justice that the document was studying in detail and asking questions. Righteousness Hilali has grown that she will ask questions that have come to her mind, whether she was pleased or not. Procedure                       At the beginning of the proceedings, Judge Hilali repeated the question she asked yesterday; Whether the investigation before the accusation or not? Mazhar justice said that the investigation is carried out first and fees are framed. Afghai justice ordered the Ministry of Defense to refer to the decision of the military courts except 9 May. 9. Justice Afghan said that as a high judge of the Supreme Court in Balochistan he heard an appeal against the decision of military courts. When the appeal comes to the Supreme Courts, GHQ provides the entire record of the court proceedings. Judge Mandokhail asked him what reasons could be questioned by court proceedings from the military court. He asked when a lawyer for the Ministry of Defense Khawaja Haris claimed that the case was not under the provisions of 3 Article 184 of the Constitution. Attorney Haris replied that if the case is in court, it is not competent if the proceedings are carried out with anger or if the office is exceeded, the trial may be questioned. If the accused in the military court confess to a crime, he will be exempt according to Islamic law, he added. Justice Mandokhail noted that there was a grant before the judge. Rizvi justice questioned him whether the accused in military court proceedings had the ability to hire a lawyer’s services, is he provided by a lawyer for government expenditure? Attorney Haris responded positively. Judge Mandokhail noted that the accused is generally considered to be a “favorite child” of the court. Is the defendant considered such a military court? The advisor stated that under the Act on the Rules of the Army, the accused is provided with full protection. Judge Mandokhail asked whether there is a power to find out whether the procedure has been followed or not? The advisor replied that the procedure was followed. Justice noted that there should be power that can review this procedure. Life is very important, he continued. The judiciary asked him that the petitioner because of full opportunity [defended] in appeal. Khawaja Haris said Rule 63 deals with the duties of the chairman of the military court. Its responsibility is to meet the requirements of justice and provide an opportunity for a fair trial [accused]. The judge raised another question about the experience of the chairman of the military court official. Are [officers’ presidents] experience or is this responsibility handed over to someone? Khawaja Haris replied that the experience was not a request; However, knowledge of the military act is mandatory. Judge Mandokhail noted that before, when the judges and commissioners also made court proceedings, they distribute the sentence in the case of murder. When there was no evidence in this case, it was stated that there was a murder. The opportunity for a transparent and fair trial should be provided, and justice is followed. The risk of justice asked him whether journalists and relatives would get access to the accused in court. Attorney Haris replied that he had accused equipment under the law, but the access was rejected for security reasons. Later, the constitutional bench postponed the hearing until tomorrow.