HE supposed `crime` did not justify a trial under terrorism laws, and certainly not the punishment. On Thursday, human rights lawyer Imaan Mazari-Hazir and her husband and fellow lawyer, Hadi Ali Chattha, were sentenced to 10 years each for moving a security barrier reportedly placed to protect a touring cricket team, as well as for `incitement to public unrest` during a face-off with police. The trial, held in jail, drew persistent criticism over an alleged lack of due process. The judge held that Ms MazariHazir and Mr Chattha had attempted to `compromise the security arrangements [made for the team] through pressuring security officials`. The judgement cited the 2009 attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore an assault that had been perpetrated by more than a dozen terrorists armed with heavy weapons to reason that the lawyers` act of removing the barrier and `assaulting` police personnel `put the security of an international team visiting Pakistan at risk [and] clearly shows the intentions and objective of the accused to create sense of terror [sic]`.

Just last month, after a lengthy appeals process, the Supreme Court ordered the suspension of the sentence handed to the two lawyers in the so-called social media posts case and ordered their release pending the Islamabad High Court`s decision on their appeal against the trial court`s verdict. However, they were promptly rearrested in connection with this case, and have now been handed a lengthy sentence that will keep them behind bars while they appeal. Ms Mazari-Hazir is one of the most prominent champions of civil and human rights from the legal community, and has often taken cases involving some of Pakistan`s most vulnerable citizens pro bono. She is also an outspoken critic of government and state excesses. It is unfortunate to see her and her husband punished so harshly for acts that seem downright frivolous compared to the violence actual terrorists routinely perpetrate. The higher courts must hear their appeal swiftly, and the state must stop stretching antiterrorism laws to cover acts that bear no resemblance to terrorism. Such verdicts send a chilling message to every lawyer willing to defend the vulnerable. The law need only appear to serve narrow interests, rather than justice, for public faith in it to be shaken.