Amnesty International’s statement on the Quetta Anti-Terrorism Court’s verdict against Mahrang Baloch and Sibghatullah Shah Jee raises legitimate questions about how international advocacy engages with sovereign judicial processes while promoting a one-sided narrative that completely sidelines bloodshed occurring under the cover of peaceful protest.
Pakistan holds both the right and the obligation to maintain public order and hold accountable those responsible for the loss of life. The Anti-Terrorism Courts operate under parliamentary legislation—the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997—and the verdict in this case followed a prosecution built around Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and Section 7 of the ATA, concerning the death of a Frontier Corps official during unrest in Gwadar in July 2024. The prosecutors maintained that they presented evidence establishing incitement and common intention, and provincial officials, including Balochistan’s Chief Minister, have characterized the verdict as an application of the rule of law rather than a political act.
Responsible international advocacy should engage closely with the evidentiary record and draw a clear line between commentary on peaceful activism and a prosecution centered on a specific violent death. A verdict framed primarily as political while sidelining the murder of an innocent civilian raises serious questions about the legitimacy of Amnesty International.
Furthermore, the claim that these legal outcomes are an “affront” fails to acknowledge that Pakistan’s judiciary operates under a clear constitutional framework where every decision rendered by an Anti-Terrorism Court is subject to comprehensive appellate review. Defendants possess the full right to challenge verdicts in the High Court and, subsequently, the Supreme Court of Pakistan. These domestic remedies are robust, effective, and specifically designed to address concerns regarding trial fairness and judicial procedure. By ignoring these established avenues for legal redress, external reports imply an unfortunate bias, choosing to characterize judicial outcomes as “political” rather than engaging with the actual legal merits of a murder trial.
Responsible international advocacy requires a commitment to accuracy, including an understanding of the evidentiary basis of a case and a clear distinction between peaceful activism and criminal acts that result in the loss of life. The court proceedings in this matter specifically involved considerations of “common intention” and “incitement” during the unrest in Gwadar. The state’s interest in accountability for the death of a law enforcement officer is a standard duty of any functioning government. Using language that undermines the integrity of a nation’s judicial sovereignty under the guise of human rights dialogue is counterproductive, as it ignores the state’s primary obligation to protect its citizens including law enforcement personnel and to maintain public order within its borders.
Pakistan remains steadfast in its commitment to the rule of law and the protection of fundamental human rights. However, the application of constitutional frameworks to combat terrorism and address criminal violence remains a domestic prerogative. International organizations would better serve the cause of justice by engaging with the actual legal records and respecting the appellate processes defined by Pakistan’s laws, rather than issuing statements that rely on a selective and narrow interpretation of events.
