JUDICIAL RESPONSES TO TORTURE: EVALUATING THE EFFICACY OF PAKISTAN’S LEGAL SYSTEM

Abstract

The use of torture continues to be a systemic problem within Pakistan’s criminal justice system – despite constitutional safeguards, and international obligations to eliminate it. This article provides a critical analysis of the effectiveness of judicial remedies against torture in Pakistan through an assessment of relevant legal structures, jurisprudence, and institutional processes. Despite its ratification of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) in 2010, Pakistan has a long way to go to ensure full domestic compliance with its international obligations. The lack of specific anti-torture legislation and the continued acceptance of confessions made under torture demonstrate the ineffectiveness of existing systems of judicial oversight. Trawling through superior court decisions, this research rock-tossed the judiciary’s performance with respect to torture allegations and made a determination if legal redress was available to claimants. It also examines wider sociopolitical and institutional obstacles to the implementation of anti-torture measures, such as lack of judicial independence, police impunity and dysfunctional forensic and investigatory systems. It concludes that, despite some positive court judgements that have denounced torture and reforms, inconsistent implementation and political limitations often pose the greatest obstacles to overcoming this practice. The paper ends with policy level suggestions with a view to reinforce the legal and institutional framework to ensure accountability, protect human dignity and harmonize Pakistan’s domestic practice with its international obligations. This inquiry is vital for human rights and for rebuilding confidence in the legal system of the country.