To give “blanket immunity” to violators of human rights, Pakistan’s new FATA law, euphemistically called “Patriot Act” and which is virtually applicable to whole of the country, validates all actions, even violations of fundamental human rights by the armed forces with retrospective effect from 2008 and protects them in the future as well.
According to the law, the armed forces could detain any person in the country on suspicion of being involved in terrorist activities and could possibly be awarded with the death sentence or life imprisonment for the crimes falling under the regulation. The regulation has given blanket immunity to the armed forces for their actions, whatsoever, in this regard.
As per Chapter-VIII of the document, “Anything done, action taken, orders passed, proceedings initiated, processes or communication issued, powers conferred, assumed or exercised, by the armed forces or its members duly authorised in this behalf, on or after the 1st February 2008 and before the commencement of this regulation, shall be deemed to have validly done, issued, taken, initiated, conferred, assumed, and exercised and provisions of this regulation shall have, and shall be deemed always to have had, effect accordingly”.
No accountability: Giving legal cover to the forces’ actions, the law further states that no legal proceedings, whatsoever, could be initiated against the regulation. “No suit or other legal proceedings shall lie against any person for anything done or intended to be done in good faith under the regulation,” the law says. The internment period would not constitute the trial period and a person’s prosecution could be started only after withdrawal of the internment orders.
In Chapter–VII relating to offences and punishments, it has been said, “Whosoever commits an offence under this regulation shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment up to 10 years, and may also be liable to fine. The convict shall also be liable to forfeiture of his property and his prosecution shall be proceeded against under the Frontier Crimes Regulation 1901 or Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 or Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 or any applicable law as the case may be, and shall be handed over to the prosecuting or investigating agency concerned for effecting formal arrest only after his order of internment has been withdrawn”, the regulation says.
Mechanism: The law also provides an oversight mechanism, but does not answer the question how an official, invested with sweeping powers, could be held back from inhuman treatment.
In Chapter-VI regarding human rights and oversight, it says: (1) The governor shall notify an Oversight Board for each Internment Centre comprising two civilians and two military officers to review the case of each person interned within a period of time, not exceeding 120 days, from the issuance of the order of internment, and prepare a report for consideration of the governor (2) The Oversight Board shall periodically review the conditions of Internment Centres and recommend suitable action for consideration of the governor. (3) The Oversight Board may also take notice of any complaint or information in respect of any degrading treatment of any person interned or any torture or any in-dignified treatment and in this regard, carry out any inquiry into the matter and where necessary recommend suitable departmental action against the official concerned.
(4) The Oversight Board shall also be responsible to impart training and awareness regarding human rights standards and laws applicable on the conduct actions in aid of civil power of this nature, to all the concerned officials of the interning authority and no person interned under this regulation, shall be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or torture. Noted lawyer Waqas Mir said it was a “draconian law”.
“It is related to FATA or PATA, but practically covers the whole of the country. It allows the armed forces to establish Guantanamo Bay-like detention facilities across the country and no mechanism has been put in place or given on how long one can remain under detention or interrogated. Mere suspicion is a blanket term and allows armed forces to do whatever they like and nothing holds them accountable,’ Mir said.
Asked if there was a provision pertaining to “human rights and oversight” in the law, he said, “If you read that chapter, it does not ensure any strong mechanism of oversight and all such provisions remain subject to the discretion of the interning authority. How will justice be served if the interning authority, and the one probing human rights violations, are the same?” Mir added.
