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/180/12(b)-R.1), and to the resolution adopted at its 179th session (October 2006),

Taking account of the hearing the Committee held during the 116th Assembly with members of the Pakistani delegation and of the information they provided,

Recalling the following: Mr. Hashmi, leader of the Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy, was arrested on 29 October 2003 on the grounds that he had, during a press conference in the National Assembly cafeteria, shown an allegedly forged letter written in the name of Pakistani army officers, bearing the stamp of the Army General headquarters and criticizing the army and its leadership; a case was filed against him upon the complaint of a Mr. Kurshid Ahmed, a retired army officer; at the close of the trial which was held inside prison, he was found guilty on all charges (defaming the Government and the army, forgery and incitement to forgery) and sentenced on 12 April 2004 to a 23-year prison term which, as the sentences run concurrently, amounts to seven years of imprisonment,

Considering that, according to the Pakistani delegation, Mr. Hashmi's trial was initially held in open court in Islamabad; at the second or third hearing, a number of Mr. Hashmi's supporters ransacked the court and the judge had to run away in fear of his life; the Government consequently decided to hold the trial inside Adyala jail in Rawalpindi; according to the delegation, lawyers can be present at such trials as can the media if appropriate security measures are taken; recalling that, according to the information provided by the Pakistani delegation during the 111th Assembly (April 2004), the decision to shift the trial to Adyala prison was taken to ensure Mr. Hashmi's own security; noting also that, according to Mr. Hashmi's lawyer, the trial was in fact held in camera as only the daughter and two brothers of Mr. Hashmi were allowed to attend the proceedings; an appeal against the holding of the trial inside the prison was filed but not heard and hence became moot,

Recalling that an application for suspension of sentence was dismissed on 24 February 2005 by a single judge of Lahore High Court, a decision upheld on 9 October 2006 by the Supreme Court; considering that, according to Mr. Hashmi's lawyer, the decision is fundamentally flawed, for which reason a review application was filed on 4 December 2006, which has not yet been heard although it should normally have been heard within four weeks of its filing,

Considering that in April 2004 Mr. Hashmi lodged an appeal against the judgment which has not as yet been set for hearing; recalling in this respect that, according to the information provided by a member of the Pakistani delegation to the 115th IPU Assembly (Geneva, October 2006), the appeal court was expected to rule on the appeal in the ensuing months and that appeals were normally heard within two years, but that, according to information provided by the Pakistani delegation during the 114th Assembly (Nairobi, May 2006), appeals could take up to seven years; considering that, at the hearing held during the 116th Assembly, the Pakistani delegation stated that Mr. Hashmi had failed to file an application for early hearing,

Recalling further the differing information that has been provided by the authorities and the sources of information as to Mr. Hashmi's conditions of detention and access to medical treatment; noting that, while the sources have affirmed that Mr. Hashmi is only afforded C-class standards, the Pakistani delegation reiterated that Mr. Hashmi was provided with A-class facilities, had two servants, received two visits a week from his family, which also provided him with food, and that he received medical treatment outside prison,

Recalling that, according to the source, had Mr. Hashmi been granted the usual remissions granted on such occasions as Eid, Independence Day and Republic Day, he would already have been released; noting that, according to the Pakistani delegation, the rule that remissions were given to every convict was amended three years ago and certain categories of convicts may now be denied remissions, which usually amount to 1.5 months per year,

Recalling lastly that the Speaker of the National Assembly rejected its request for the Committee to conduct an on-site mission regarding Mr. Hashmi on the grounds that Parliament could not discuss matters which were sub judice and that prisons were a provincial matter and neither the National Assembly nor the Federal Government was supposed to interfere in the administrative matters of the Provincial Government,

1. Thanks the Pakistani delegation for the information it provided;

2. Reiterates its concerns at how justice has been and is being administered in Mr. Hashmi's case; stresses in particularthata trial held inside prison can hardly be regarded as compatible with the basic requirement of a public trial; nor can an appeal that has been pending for three years without a single hearing having been scheduled meet the requirement of a trial without undue delay; points out that such delays may render moot legal redress, as was the case of Mr. Hashmi's appeal against the holding of his trial inside prison;

3. Hopes therefore that Mr. Hashmi's application for review of the Supreme Court decision regarding his application for suspension of sentence, in addition to his appeal against the judgment, will be heard without further delay;

4. Is unclear regarding entitlements to remission and would appreciate clarification in this respect;

5. Remains concerned, in the light of thediffering information before it, at Mr. Hashmi's conditions of detention and state of health;

6. Reiterates therefore its wish to carry out an on-site mission and stresses that the mission is in no way intended to interfere in judicial processes but to ascertain first-hand Mr. Hashmi's conditions of detention and state of health;

7. Consequently calls on the Speaker to reconsider his earlier decision and to use his good offices with the Federal Government, as it is firmly convinced that an on-site visit would significantly contribute to a satisfactory settlement of this case;

8. Requests the Secretary General to inform the authorities and the sources accordingly;

9. Requests the Committee to continue examining this case and report to it at its next session, to be held on the occasion of the 117th Assembly (October 2007).

Note: you can download a complete electronic version of the brochure "Results of the 116th IPU Assembly and related meetings" in PDF format (file size 511K approximately ). This version requires Adobe Acrobat Reader, which you can download free of charge.

HOME PAGEHUMAN RIGHTSMAIN AREAS OF ACTIVITYIPU STRUCTURE AND DOCUMENTS