IPU Logo-top>>> VERSION FRANÇAISE  
 IPU Logo-middleInter-Parliamentary Union  
IPU Logo-bottomChemin du Pommier 5, C.P. 330, CH-1218 Le Grand-Saconnex/Geneva, Switzerland  

PAKISTAN
CASE N° PAK/16 - MAKHDOOM JAVED HASHMI
Resolution adopted unanimously by the Governing Council
at its 176th session (Manila, 8th April 2005)


The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union,

Referring to the case of Mr. Makhdoom Javed Hashmi, a member of the National Assembly of Pakistan, as outlined in the report of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians (CL/176/13(b)-R.1), and to the resolution adopted at its 175th session (October 2004),

Taking account of the information provided by the Pakistani delegation at the hearing held on the occasion of the 112th Assembly (April 2005); also taking account of information provided by the source on 18 January and 3 April 2005,

Recalling that Mr. Hashmi, a member of parliament and the leader of the Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy, was arrested on 29 October 2003 on the grounds that he had circulated an allegedly forged letter written in the name of Pakistani army officers, which criticised the army and its leadership; at the end of the trial, which was held in jail and for the most part held in camera, he was found guilty on all charges, namely defaming the Government and the army, forgery and incitement to mutiny, and was sentenced on 12 April 2004 to a 23-year prison term; it transpires from the judgement that the judge in the case heard only prosecution witnesses, and not a single witness for the defence, although the latter had pointed to the necessity of calling certain witnesses,

Considering that, according to the Pakistani delegation, Mr. Hashmi's trial was conducted in jail for security reasons and that public access to prison trials is naturally more restricted; noting that Mr. Hashmi's petition for leave to appeal challenging the order to conduct his trial in jail has not as yet been decided, and has therefore become irrelevant since the first-instance trial is over; noting that, according to a communication from the Attorney General's Office which the Pakistani delegation conveyed at the hearing, "no formal order, however, has been passed in the matter, as yet",

Recalling further that, on 24 April 2004, Mr. Hashmi filed an appeal against the judgement, which is pending; considering that, according to the Pakistani delegation, owing to the court's backlog of cases, appeals are normally heard after two years,

Considering that Mr. Hashmi filed a bail application; although, according to the source, such applications are normally heard within two to three weeks, the court returned it after seven months under the pretext that it did not bear the appeal number when such number has to attributed by the court; the application was dismissed after a short hearing on 24 February 2005 on the ground that the case against Mr. Hashmi was very strong and that he could therefore not be released; according to the source, a judge deciding on a bail application should not comment on the substance of a case; considering that, according to the Pakistani delegation, a distinction has to be made between bail applications and appeal for release on suspension of sentences, such release being normally granted only if there is poor evidence in a case; noting that an appeal in this matter is now pending before the Supreme Court,

Considering that, according to the source, Mr. Hashmi remains in solitary confinement in Adyala prison, which means that he cannot communicate with his fellow prisoners and can see his counsel only once every two weeks and his family once a week, for one hour; according to the source, this is in violation of the Pakistani Penal Code, as only the court can order such confinement, which it has not done in this case; moreover, according to the source, Mr. Hashmi is entitled to A treatment and facilities, he is being treated at C class standards; considering that, according to the Pakistani delegation, Mr. Hashmi enjoys the facilities of a better prison class and has a separate kitchen and a servant; noting that, as regards his state of health, while the source states that he was operated for hernia in October 2003 and suffered post-operative complications for which he has not as yet been treated, the Pakistani delegation stated he was in good health and has not complained in this respect either to the court or to the parliament,

Recalling finally that the Speaker of the National Assembly refused on several occasions to issue an order under Rule 90 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the National Assembly ordering that Mr. Hashmi be produced in the parliament; before Mr. Hashmi’s sentencing, he argued that there was no important business being dealt with in the parliament requiring Mr. Hashmi's presence, and after his sentencing he argued that Rule 90 did not apply to a member who had been convicted in court; noting in this respect that the Judge hearing Mr. Hashmi's appeal for his release on suspension of sentence refused to allow Mr. Hashmi to perform parliamentary duties,

  1. Thanks the Pakistani delegation for the information provided;

  2. Remains deeply concerned that Mr. Hashmi was found guilty and sentenced to a heavy prison term at the close of a trial which, given the secrecy of the proceedings and the disregard of the rights of the defence, fell far short of fundamental fair trial guarantees and suggested partiality on the part of the judge;

  3. Notes that Mr. Hashmi's petition challenging the decision to hold his trial inside jail has not as yet been decided, and considers that such incapacity of courts to deliver decisions in due time makes a mockery of the whole system of judicial redress;

  4. Notes that Mr. Hashmi has lodged an appeal for release on suspension of sentence before the Supreme Court; endorses the Committee's decision to observe those appeal proceedings; and requests the Secretary General to take the necessary steps to this end;

  5. Remains concerned at the allegation that Mr. Hashmi is held in solitary confinement in prison in the absence of a court order to this effect, and would appreciate receiving clarification in this respect;

  6. Reiterates its regret that the Speaker has not exercised his power to order Mr. Hashmi’s production in the National Assembly, despite several requests to this end, all of which were widely supported by the parliamentary opposition and should therefore have carried additional weight;

  7. Stresses in this respect that Mr. Hashmi was sentenced only at first instance, and that consequently, by virtue of the principle of presumption of innocence which carries through until a conviction is confirmed at final instance, he should be presumed innocent;

  8. Would appreciate information as to legal provisions regulating the respective powers of the Speaker and the judiciary with respect to authorisation of a member of parliament who has only been convicted at first instance to attend parliamentary meetings and thus ensure that his constituents are represented in parliament,

  9. Requests the Secretary General to convey this resolution to the competent executive, parliamentary and judicial authorities and to the sources;

  10. Requests the Committee to continue examining this case and report to it at its next session, to be held on the occasion of the 113th IPU Assembly (October 2005).

Note: you can download a complete electronic version of the brochure "Results of the 112th IPU Assembly and related meetings in PDF format (file size 495K approximately ). This version requires Adobe Acrobat Reader, which you can download free of charge.Get Acrobat Reader

HOME PAGEred cubeHUMAN RIGHTSred cubeMAIN AREAS OF ACTIVITYred cubeIPU STRUCTURE AND DOCUMENTS