ISLAMABAD: Human rights lawyer Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her spouse, Hadi Ali Chattha, on Friday filed appeals in the Islamabad High Court against their convictions by an anti-terrorism court (ATC) in the security breach case.
They also moved applications seeking the suspension of their sentences and release on bail pending the outcome of their appeals.
The appeals were filed by advocates Faisal Siddiqui, Riasat Ali Azad and Zainab Janjua.
On Oct 29, an ATC sentenced Ms Imaan and Mr Chattha to 10 years in prison each in the security breach case.
The court also handed down one-year sentences and imposed fines of Rs50,000 each under Section 186 (obstructing a public servant in the discharge of public functions) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC).
They were also sentenced to two years each under Section 353 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging his duty) of the PPC.
In the identical appeals, the counsel contended that the trial court failed to meet the requirements of a fair trial and that the conviction was the result of patently illegal and arbitrary proceedings.
It was argued that the charge was framed without providing copies under Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and that a plea of ‘not guilty’ was recorded on the appellants’ behalf although none was taken.
They further submitted that the prosecution evidence was recorded in the absence of the appellants and their counsel, contrary to Section 353 CrPC and Article 10-A of the Constitution.
The appeal also challenged the jail trial, arguing that it was conducted in a manner akin to a secret trial and without lawful authority, and that the appellants were not allowed a proper and confidential consultation with their counsel.
It further contended that state counselwas imposed on the appellants against their stated wishes and that the trial court proceeded with the case despite a transfer application pending before the high court,in violation ofSection526(8) of the CrPC.
On the merits, the appeal argued that the conviction under Section 7 of the ATA was unsustainable because the prosecutionfailed to prove the design or purpose required under Section 6 of the ATA.
It said the trial court itself described the incident as ‘a very common nature, ordinary type of incident’ and that the evidence showed the appellants were on their way to court when they were held up at the barrier.
The appellants have asked that the impugned judgement be set aside and they be acquitted.
Meanwhile, in the accompanying suspension applications, their counsel sought suspension of the sentences and release on bail, contending that the conviction was rendered during the pendency of a transfer application and that the bar under Section 25(8) of the ATA was not absolute when read with Section 25(5) of the law.
‘Misuse of criminal justice system’ Separately, over 20 international human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, called on the government to ‘immediately and unconditionally’ release the couple.
In a joint statement on Friday, 23 organisations condemned the recent sentences and sought an end to the ‘extensive misuse’ of the criminal justice system against the two lawyers.
It said that the convictions raised serious concerns over anti-terrorism legislation being used ‘to criminally punish and intimidate lawyers undertaking permissible human rights work’.
Referring to the case proceedings, the statement noted that the verdict was delivered despite a petition pending in the Supreme Court.
‘Proceedings in these circumstances raise concerns about respect for due process and the right to an effective judicial remedy,’ the organisations said.