SOUTH ASIA - House Foreign Affairs Committee Democrats

2299The Hudood ordinances criminalize nonmarital rape, extramarital sex (includingadultery and fornication), and various gambling, alcohol, and property offenses. Offensesare distinguished according to punishment, with some offenses liable toHadd, or Koranic, punishment (see Section 1.c.), and others to Tazir, or secular punishment.Although both types of cases are tried in ordinary criminal courts, special,more stringent rules of evidence apply in Hadd cases; Hadd punishments are mandatoryif there is enough evidence to support them. Hadd punishments regardingsexual offences are most severe for married Muslims; for example, if a married Muslimman confesses to rape or there are four adult male Muslim witnesses to the act,the accused must be stoned to death; if the accused rapist is not Muslim or married,if he confesses, or if the act is witnessed by four adult males (not all Muslim), theaccused must be sentenced to 100 lashes with a whip, and such other punishment,including death, as the court may deem fit. The testimony of four female witnesses,or that of the victim alone, is insufficient to impose Hadd punishments. If the evidencefalls short of Hadd criteria, then the accused may be sentenced to a lesserclass of penalties (Tazir). Since it is difficult to obtain sufficient evidence to supportthe Hadd punishments, most rape cases are tried at the Tazir level, under whichsentences may be imposed up to 25 years in prison and 30 lashes. No Hadd punishmenthas ever been applied in the more than 20 years that the Hudood ordinanceshave been in force. For Tazir punishments, there is no distinction between Muslimand non-Muslim offenders. Under Tazir the evidentiary requirement for financial orfuture obligations is for two male witnesses or one male and two female witnesses;in all other matters, the court may accept the testimony of one man or one woman(see Section 5).Administration of justice in the FATA is normally the responsibility of tribal eldersand maliks, or leaders. They may conduct hearings according to Islamic lawand tribal custom. In such proceedings, the accused have no right to legal representation,bail, or appeal. The usual penalties consist of fines, even for murder. However,the Government’s political agents, who are federal civil servants assigned totribal agencies, oversee such proceedings and may impose prison terms of up to 14years. Paramilitary forces under the direction of the political agents frequently conductpunitive actions during enforcement operations. For example, in raids on criminalactivities, the authorities have damaged surrounding homes as extrajudicialpunishment of residents for having tolerated nearby criminal activity (see Sections1.c. and 1.f.).In remote areas outside the jurisdiction of federal political agents, tribal councilsoccasionally levy harsher, unsanctioned punishments, including flogging or death byshooting or stoning.Another related form of rough justice operating in the NWFP, particularly in thetribal areas, is the concept of Pakhtunwali, or the Pakhtun Tribal Code, in whichrevenge is an important element. Under this code, a man, his family, and his tribeare obligated to take revenge for wrongs—either real or perceived—to redeem theirhonor. More often than not, these disputes arise over women and land, and frequentlyresult in violence (see Section 5).There are limited numbers of political prisoners. Sections of the Penal Code directlytarget members of the Ahmadi faith; according to Ahmadi sources, approximately200 Ahmadis have been incarcerated under these provisions since their inception.Several minority religious groups argue that other sections of the PenalCode—particularly the related blasphemy laws—are used in a discriminatory fashionby local officials or private individuals to punish religious minorities. While precisenumbers are unavailable, the Ahmadis estimate that 80 of their coreligionistswere charged in criminal cases ‘‘on a religious basis’’ in 1999 (see Sections 2.c. and5). On April 12, the Government announced its intention to require that deputycommissioners review all blasphemy cases prior to the filing of a FIR; however, theGovernment reversed this decision on May 16 due to intense pressure from someIslamic groups (see Section 2.c.).Some political groups also argue that they are marked for arrest based on theirpolitical affiliation (see Section 1.d.). The Muttahida Quami Movement, in particular,has argued that the Government used Anti-terrorist court convictions inSindh to silence its activists.f. Arbitrary Interference With Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence.—TheGovernment infringes on citizens’ privacy rights. The Anti-terrorist Act allowed policeor military personnel acting as police to enter and to search homes and officeswithout search warrants, and to confiscate property or arms likely to be used in analleged terrorist act (which is defined very broadly). This provision was never testedin the courts. While the Anti-terrorist Act was partially suspended in 1998, the Governmentpromulgated new Anti-terrorist Ordinances in October 1998 and in April1999. Under these new ordinances, many blasphemy cases are now tried by anti-VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:46 Sep 20, 2001 Jkt 071555 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\COUNTRYR\S71555\71555.036 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1