The constitutional bench was shown the record of the civilian trial conducted by the military court.

The record of civilian trials by military courts was given to the constitutional bench by the Ministry of Defence on Wednesday.

According to Justice Afghan’s instructions, Advocate Khawaja Haris delivered the record in seven white paper envelopes, one for each member of the bench, during the hearing of intra-court appeals against the verdicts of civilian trials in military courts.

Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan is leading a seven-member court that is considering the appeals. Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Musarat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Shahid Bilal Hassan were among the members of the bench.

During the hearing, the ministry’s counsel briefly paused before presenting the record.

Advocate Haris contended that the accused were questioned about any objections against Lieutenant Colonel Ammar Ahmed prior to the trial commencing. As a presiding officer, the officer was not opposed by anyone.

According to Justice Mandokhail, the appeal will view the record. Now is not the time to study the record.

The lawyer was given the record back by six judges on the bench. Justice Mazhar looked over the record and gave it back. Nonetheless, Justice Hilali questioned and reviewed the record.

Advocate Haris stated that Justice Ayesha Malik had disagreed with one aspect of her ruling, citing Article 14.

The fact that the FIR was filed against the accused under the PPC (Pakistan Penal Code) was questioned by Justice Hilali. Khawaja Haris informed the judge that she was carefully reviewing the material and posing enquiries.

Whether it pleases someone or not, Justice Hilali responded that she would ask the questions that spring to mind.

PRIOR ACTIONS

The question Justice Hilali posed yesterday—whether an inquiry occurs prior to indictment or not—was reiterated at the beginning of the proceeding.

Charges are established after investigations are completed, according to Justice Mazhar.

The Ministry of Defence was instructed by Justice Afghan to provide references to military court rulings in addition to the cases from May 9.

As the top justice of the Balochistan High Court, Justice Afghan stated that he considered appeals against military court rulings. The whole trial record is provided by the GHQ when an appeal is brought before the high courts as a writ.

Justice Mandokhail asked him what grounds there were to contest a military court trial. He posed the query after Khawaja Haris, the Ministry of Defense’s attorney, contended that the matter in question did not fall within Clause 3 of Article 184 of the Constitution.

“The trial can be challenged if the case is before a court that is not competent to proceed, if the proceedings are carried out maliciously, or if the authority is exceeded,” Advocate Haris responded. According to Islamic law, an accused person in a military court is immune if he confesses to the offence, he continued.

According to Justice Mandokhail, a confession occurs in front of a magistrate.

Justice Rizvi questioned him if an accused in a military trial does not have the capacity to hire the services of a lawyer, is he provided with a lawyer at the government expenses? Advocate Haris replied in the affirmative.

Justice Mandokhail observed that generally an accused is considered the “favorite child” of the court. Is the accused considered as such in the military court as well? The counsel said that under the rules of the Army Act, the accused is given full protection.

Justice Mandokhail questioned if there is any authority to see whether the procedure has been followed or not? The counsel replied that the entire procedure is followed.

The justice observed that there should be an authority that can review the procedure. The life is very important, he continued.

Justice Rizvi asked him is the appellant given full opportunity [to defend himself] in the appeal. Khawaja Haris said that Rule 63 deals with the responsibilities of the presiding officer of the military court. It is his responsibility to fulfill the requirements of justice and provide an opportunity for a fair trial [to the accused].

Justice Rizvi asked another question about the experience of the presiding officers of the military court. Are they [presiding officers] experienced or is this responsibility given to anyone? Khawaja Haris replied that experience is not a requirement; but familiarity with the Military Act is compulsory.

Justice Mandokhail remarked that earlier, when magistrates and commissioners also conducted trials, they hand down sentence in murder cases. When it was argued that there was no evidence in the case, it was stated that a murder had taken place.

The opportunity for a transparent and fair trial should be provided [to the accused], the justice observed.

Justice Rizvi asked him whether journalists and relatives are given access to the accused in a trial in the military court. Advocate Haris replied that under the law, the accused has the facility, but access is denied due to security reasons.

Later, the Constitutional Bench adjourned the hearing until tomorrow.