JHR Blog

Putting an End to the Epidemic of Enforced Disappearances in Pakistan

Momin bin Mohsin | November 24, 2024

I. Introduction

A boy stands outside Courtroom Number One of the Islamabad High Court. Surrounded by lawyers draped in black gowns and his grandparents, he cuts a cake.[1] Onlookers wish him a happy birthday.[2] He has just turned four.[3] The boy’s name is Sachal, and for the past three years, court visits have become a norm for him.[4] But where are Sachal’s parents? This simple question can strike fear in most Pakistanis’ hearts. Sachal’s father, Mudassar Naaru, is a journalist who went “missing” in August 2018 when he went on vacation to the Kaghan Valley in Northern Pakistan.[5] Fearing Naaru might have been a natural accident victim, his family tried to register a report with the police, who refused to cooperate.[6] Later, Naaru’s family learned that he was seen at a detention center for missing persons.[7]

And what about Sachal’s mother? Sachal’s mother, Sadaf, has campaigned for Naaru’s release since 2018.[8] From lobbying parliamentarians to holding protests or attending court hearings, Sadaf left no stone unturned to recover her husband alive. Sadly, this took a toll on Sadaf.[9] On Mother’s Day in 2021, she passed away in her sleep.[10] Even today, the four-year-old Sachal continues the struggle to safely recover his father.

The phenomenon of enforced disappearances, as seen in Naaru’s case, entails the abduction or detention of an individual by state authorities or their agents, occurring without acknowledgment or legal recourse.[11] The Naaru family’s story of separation and despair is not uncommon.[12] In fact, similar stories echo throughout Pakistan.[13] From March 2011 to October 2022, the Government of Pakistan’s Commission Of Inquiry On Enforced Disappearances (CoIED) has received 9,035 enforced disappearance cases.[14] But there is reason to doubt this number.[15] Manzoor Pashteen,[16] the leader of the Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement (Movement for the Protection of Pashtuns), has alleged that over 5,000 Pashtun community members alone have been subject to enforced disappearances.[17] Diverse voices spanning ethnic and religious communities, along with mainstream political parties, have raised similar allegations.[18] This article traces Pakistan’s practice of enforced disappearances and recommends approaches for the Pakistani authorities and the international community to address them in the future.

Section II will describe the historical context under which the practice of enforced disappearances emerged in Pakistan and how and why they continue today. Section III will look at provisions of the Pakistani Constitution, the Pakistani Penal Code, legislation, and case law to understand the protections afforded against enforced disappearance victims in Pakistan. Lastly, Section IV proposes strengthening domestic accountability through reforms in the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances (CoIED) and domestic legislation.

II. Background

A. Defining Enforced Disappearances Under International Law

Different international legal instruments have their own definitions of what constitutes an enforced disappearance.[19] However, all definitions have four generally accepted elements.[20] First, there must be an arrest, detention, or abduction of a person(s).[21] Second, the arrest, detention, or abduction must be carried by or with the State’s authorization—or through people acting on the State’s behalf.[22] Third, there must be an intent to remove the arrested, detained, or abducted person from the ambit of the law for a long time. Fourth, there must be a denial of information from the State or its agents regarding the person or persons’ whereabouts.[23]

The 1992 Declaration on the Protection of All Persons From Enforced Disappearances (1992 Declaration) adds another dimension to the definition.[24] The declaration recognizes that enforced disappearances not only inflict suffering on its victims but also inflict suffering on their families.[25] It further states that the practice of enforced disappearances breaches fundamental rights, such as the right to recognition as a person before the law, the right to liberty and security of the person, and the right to freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.[26]

B. The Pakistani Military’s Role

Before exploring the practice of enforced disappearances in Pakistan and who to hold responsible for it, it is important to understand the Pakistani State’s structure. In 1947, India was carved up, and Pakistan gained its dominion status from British rule.[27] Pakistan then became a republic in 1956.[28] In 1958, the first ever martial law was imposed, and consequently, Pakistan remained a dictatorship until 1971.[29] After 1971, Pakistan enacted its third Constitution (1973 Constitution).[30] This Constitution remains in force today.[31]

Article 243 of the 1973 Constitution tasks the Federal Government with the control and command of the Armed Forces.[32] Pakistan’s President is vested with the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces.[33] While the Constitution envisaged a military subservient to the Federal Government, the situation on the ground is quite the contrary.[34] In Pakistan, it is actually the Pakistani Army that rules the country through direct coups or soft interventions.[35] Similarly, although Pakistan’s intelligence service, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), is supposed to report to the Prime Minister, the ISI acts as the military’s second arm.[36] One reason for the ISI’s subservience to the military is that it has always been headed by a Pakistani Army general.[37] Thus, while the ISI reports to the Prime Minister, its Director General—a Pakistani Army general—is bound to follow the Pakistani Army’s chain of command.

The intertwining of military and intelligence structures in Pakistan profoundly affects enforced disappearances. The unchecked power of the Pakistani Army and the ISI’s alignment with military interests compromise accountability. Furthermore, the military’s overwhelming influence often compels the government to align its policies and actions with the army’s interests. The government, aware of the military’s considerable power, frequently finds itself toeing the line dictated by the army to maintain stability and political survival. This dynamic perpetuates a system where the military exerts disproportionate control over other state institutions.

C. The Historical Practice of Enforced Disappearances in Pakistan

Enforced disappearance practices in Pakistan can be traced back to as early as the 1970s.[38] In the 1970s, the Pakistani military engaged in a brutal civil war in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh).[39] During this conflict, many Bengali intellectuals were abducted, and their whereabouts remained unknown until their bodies were discovered.[40] A few years later, the Pakistani army helped suppress another insurgency in the Balochistan province.[41] This conflict also included enforced disappearances of political activists and leaders.[42]

After 9/11 occurred in the United States, Pakistan’s entry into the War on Terror allowed it to engage in enforced disappearances with new vigor.[43] Amnesty International estimates that Pakistani authorities kidnapped and handed over hundreds of individuals to the United States—or held the individuals in secret locations without any recourse to courts of law.[44] The Pakistani State acted with impunity, with former President General Musharraf later boasting that his government captured and handed over 369 suspected militants to the United States in exchange for multi-million-dollar bounties.[45] One notable case is that of Murat Kurnaz, who was apprehended by Pakistani authorities in October 2001 and subsequently transferred to US custody.[46] A memo from German intelligence authorities indicated that the US came to believe in his innocence.[47] However, it was not until 2006 that Kurnaz was finally released by US authorities following a District Court ruling citing insufficient evidence against him.[48]

D.  Why Enforced Disappearances Continue Today

Over the past few decades, the Pakistani state has mastered the art of enforced disappearances.[49] For example, the Pakistani military widely used this practice to suppress the 2005 Baloch insurgency—and silence ethnic and minority groups that raised their voices to protest against different state policies.[50] The military defended itself by arguing that the issue of missing persons is overly exaggerated and is part of a “fifth-generation warfare” imposed on Pakistan by its regional adversaries.[51]

While the military could deny the practice of enforced disappearances in the past by controlling mainstream media, the advent of social media has changed the dynamics.[52] Social media has been used not only to run campaigns to highlight the military’s illegal practices but also to record videos of individuals associated with the military engaging in enforced disappearances.[53] While one would assume that social media would change the military’s modus operandi, the reverse has happened. Since early 2023, the military has engaged in a sustained campaign to abduct members and supporters of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) – Pakistan’s most popular political party.[54] Journalists perceived as sympathetic to the party have been subjected to a harrowing series of events, including coercion into exile, illegal disappearances, torture, and tragic deaths.[55] The military has made no efforts to hide its involvement in PTI members’ disappearances. A video widely shared by the military’s proxies, targeting PTI members, features a scene where military vehicles are seen compelling someone to enter.[56] The accompanying caption states that “[t]he [military’s] black cars influence those who ride in them, guiding them toward the right path.”[57]

III. Enforced Disappearances and their Legality Under Pakistani Law

A. The Constitution

Pakistan’s Constitution guarantees the liberty of the people.[58] The Constitution’s first chapter (Articles 8 – 28) deals exclusively with fundamental rights.[59] Article 9 provides that no one will be deprived of life or liberty except in accordance with the law, while Article 10 extensively deals with safeguards to arrest and detention.[60] Pakistan’s courts consider these articles, along with other Chapter 1 articles, to be the most cherished and valuable fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.[61]

Article 10(1) states that anyone who is arrested should be informed of the grounds of their arrest.[62] Further, Article 10(2) provides that a detained individual shall appear before a magistrate within twenty-four hours of their arrest, and no individualshall be detained beyond the said period without the magistrate’s consent.[63]  In Human Rights Case No. 29388- K of 2013, the Supreme Court interpreted Article 10 to provide direct protection from enforced disappearances.[64] On their face, these provisions indicate that the practice of enforced disappearances is clearly unlawful and unconstitutional.

B. The Pakistani Penal Code

The Pakistani Penal Code 1860 (PPC) does not recognize enforced disappearances.[65] The PPC treats all enforced disappearance cases as kidnapping or abduction.[66] The PPC prescribes different types of punishments for different types of kidnappings and abductions.[67] These punishments range from life imprisonment for kidnapping with an intent to murder, up to seven years of imprisonment, and a fine for kidnapping or abducting with the intent to secretly and wrongfully confine an individual.[68]

While the PPC’s provisions provide a remedy for cases where there is abduction or kidnapping for ransom or personal vengeance—they do not address cases where disappearances take place with the state security apparatus’s acquiescence.[69]

C.  Pakistani Case Law and Developments

Courts in Pakistan have made admirable, yet ultimately futile, attempts to address enforced disappearances.[70] The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry tried to reign in these practices by exercising the Court’s suo motu powers under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.[71] The suo motu powers allow the Supreme Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and assume jurisdiction of matters involving questions of ‘public importance’ with reference to the “enforcement of any of the [f]undamental [r]ights” of the citizens.[72] Although the Chaudhry court tried its best to resolve these cases, it frequently encountered resistance from other organs of the state.[73]

For example, the Mohabbat Shah case starkly illustrates Pakistani security services’ involvement in enforced disappearances.[74] The case involved an application by Mohabbat Shah alleging that his brother (Yaseen Shah) had been missing since a joint operation had been conducted by law enforcement agencies against terrorists in the city of Mardan.[75] Mohabbat Shah claimed that his brother had been held at an internment center in the city of Malakand, but his family had not been allowed to see him.[76] The superintendent of the Malakand internment center admitted that sixty-six detainees had been brought to the center, and thirty-five of them (including Yaseen Shah) had later been removed from the center at the behest of the army. Despite repeated orders of the Supreme Court, only seven people out of the thirty-five were produced before the Court.[77] Perhaps the most striking criticism from the Court came when it termed the military’s workings as “Kafkaesque.”[78] 

After Mohabbat Shah, the Supreme Court’s active role in enforced disappearance cases diminished. The explicit cause was the establishment of the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances, exclusively tasked with such cases. The implicit reason, however, was that the military began controlling and exerting its influence on the judicial and political process.[79]

D.  Attempts to and End Enforced Disappearances via the CoIED

 In light of the increased reporting of cases concerning enforced disappearances, the Federal Government (on directions of the Supreme Court) constituted the CoIED pursuant to the Pakistan Commission of Inquiry Act 1956 (Inquiry Act).[80] The Inquiry Act allows the CoIED to exercise powers similar to those of a civil court.[81] The power to appoint members of the commission lies exclusively with the Federal Government.[82] Moreover, Article 8 provides flexibility to the commission to frame its own procedure and rules[83]

Presently, the CoIED consists of four members – three former judges and one former police officer.[84] The Chairman of the CoIED is Justice Javed Iqbal (a retired Supreme Court judge), who has served in this capacity since the inception of the CoIED.[85] Justice Iqbal’s tenure has not been without controversy.[86] Justice Iqbal’s commitment to his role is questionable, taking on an additional position as Chairman of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).[87] He faced controversy in a video leak scandal, where inappropriate advances towards an individual named Tayyaba Gul were revealed.[88] In a parliamentary committee session, Gul narrated her ordeal and recounted how she had first come into contact with Justice Iqbal in a case related to a missing person.[89] Gul disclosed how Justice Iqbal obtained her mobile number from the petition she had filed with CoIED. She stated that Justice Iqbal persistently pursued her and threatened to destroy her life within minutes if she rejected his advances.[90] Despite calls for resignation, Justice Iqbal, allegedly supported by the military, continues to head the Commission.[91]  

 E.   Legislative Attempts to Criminalize Enforced Disappearances

An attempt was made to criminalize enforced disappearances through an express Act. A bill was introduced in the National Assembly (lower house) that proposed amendments to the Pakistani Penal Code, 1860, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.[92] After the National Assembly passed the bill, it went “missing” when it went to the Senate (upper house) for review.[93] It was not until October 2022 that the National Assembly passed the bill for a second time titled the Criminal Laws (Amendment) Bill 2022 (2022 Bill).[94]

The 2022 Bill introduced a new section in the PPC (§ 52B) that defines an enforced disappearance.[95] As per this definition, an enforced disappearance occurs when there is “illegal[ly] and without lawful authority arrest, detention, abduction . . . by a public official followed by their refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty . . . or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which places such a person outside the protection of the law.”[96]

Moreover, the 2022 Bill also inserted new sections (§§ 512, 513) in the PPC that provide the criminal elements of enforced disappearance while also proscribing penalties for it.[97] As per the 2022 Bill, a person(s) commits the crime of forcible or involuntary disappearance when they: “. . . illegally and without lawful authority” commit, order, solicit, or induce the commission of attempts to commit the forcible or involuntary disappearance of a person or group.[98] This definition also covers cases where a third party is an accomplice to another person’s enforced disappearance.[99] Lastly, the new § 513 proscribes a punishment that includes a prison sentence—which may extend to ten years—and a fine.[100]

The Bill also included another provision that stated that an individual could be punished with five years’ imprisonment if his or her complaint regarding a missing person was proven false.[101] However, recent reports indicate the government has decided to repeal this provision over concerns that it would prevent people from lodging a missing person complaint.[102] As of the writing of this article, the Bill still requires the Senate’s passage before becoming law.[103]

IV. Recommendations

A. Strengthening the CoIED

The CoIED has multiple defects that have rendered it completely futile for the purposes of tracing missing persons and holding state functionaries accountable. Although the CoIED can exercise powers equivalent to a civil court,[104] little or no evidence suggests that the CoIED uses these powers effectively. This is because all members of the CoIED have served as state employees at one time or another and, therefore, understand that going against the military can lead to serious repercussions for them and their families.[105]

The retention of Justice Iqbal as Chairman of the CoIED, even after the controversial video leak, shows that the military prefers the presence of compromised individuals in important posts.[106] Thus, CoIED’s member composition must be replaced with independent individuals with no conflicts of interest stemming from their current or previous state employment.

Therefore, members should be drawn from human rights activists, journalists, members of marginalized groups, and civil society members—since such individuals have felt the worst of the state’s excesses.[107] Not only have many faced enforced disappearances themselves, but they have an in-depth idea of how the system works. Such individuals can prevent state institutions from using delaying tactics when it comes to recovering a disappeared individual. Additionally, members should have a fixed term limit of three years without the possibility of an extension. As a result, the military will be unable to use the continuation of financial remuneration and other perks that a CoIED member is entitled to as leverage to influence members to do their bidding. Lastly, members of the CoIED should be prohibited from assuming any other governmental position during their tenure. This prohibition should continue to apply until at least three years after an individual has ceased to be a member. The controversy surrounding Justice Iqbal highlights the risks of holding dual roles as a CoIED member and Chairman of the NAB. His alleged involvement in a video leak scandal, where he made inappropriate advances towards Tayyaba Gul, calls into question his dedication to his duties and integrity. This dual role not only compromises CoIED’s integrity but also exposes its members to external pressures, such as blackmail by the military. Implementing strict regulations to prevent CoIED members from holding other governmental positions would safeguard its independence and effectiveness in addressing enforced disappearances, free from external influences.[108]

The National Assembly must also introduce a new provision to Article 3 of the Inquiry Act to change how CoIED members are appointed.[109] Presently, Article 3(2) of the Inquiry Act vests the federal government with total power to appoint members to a commission.[110] Since the Inquiry Act is a general piece of legislation used by the government to form commissions on a wide variety of issues, it would be imprudent to deprive the government of the power to appoint members in all situations. Hence, the National Assembly should insert a new provision called Article 3(3) – which will only come into effect when a commission formed pursuant to the Inquiry Act is investigating fundamental rights violations enshrined in the Constitution. Under this new provision, the government shall only appoint members to the commission from a pool consisting of human rights activists, journalists, members of marginalized groups, and civil society members. This provision will also make it obligatory for the government to seek public feedback on any potential commission appointee.

Article 8 of the Inquiry Act allows the commission to frame its rules and procedures.[111] Hence, the changes suggested above, such as conflict of interest disclosure and limitations to the tenure of members, can be brought into effect by simply amending the current rules and regulations that the CoIED has drafted for itself.[112] 

The proposed inclusion of Article 3(3) to the Inquiry Act is bound to face certain obstacles. This is because any amendment to the Inquiry Act would have to be made via Parliament. Considering the military’s role in every sphere of Pakistan’s political landscape, it is predictable that the military would put pressure on political parties in Parliament to oppose such reform.[113] However, changes made to the regulations of the CoIED would be relatively easy to accomplish since such changes do not require any parliamentary intervention.

B. International Oversight of the CoIED

A permanent seat must be established on the CoIED for an international observer. There is nothing in the Inquiry Act or in the CoIED’s regulations that prevents such an appointment.[114] Since the Inquiry Act allows the CoIED to form its own regulations, the National Assembly can amend the CoIED’s regulations to allow for the presence of such an international observer.[115] The international observer must be affiliated with a reputed human rights organization such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) or the United Nation’s Committee on Enforced Disappearances, and their role should be limited to simply observing the CoIED’s proceedings. At the end of a six-month period, the international observer would be obligated to publish a report with a focus on three main factors: 1) the number of cases filed with the CoIED, 2) the number of people recovered, and 3) an analysis on the co-operation of law-enforcement agencies with the CoIED.

Many human rights activists in Pakistan have doubted the creditability of the CoIED when it comes to reporting the number of forcibly disappeared individuals.[116] A report by an international observer focusing on factors 1 and 2 listed above will provide a credible picture of the on-the-ground situation in Pakistan—and will prevent Pakistani authorities from trivializing the issue of enforced disappearances in the country. Moreover, by focusing on factor 3, the report can help identify state institutions that pose a major impediment to the CoIED’s work. The release of this information is likely to exert both international and domestic pressure on Pakistani authorities, potentially compelling them to collaborate more willingly with the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances (CoIED).

There are two main reasons why this paper proposes a limitation to the international observer’s role. First, such a limitation can more easily garner domestic support for this proposal. Even if there are any legal or statutory impediments to an international observer’s appointment, the government could use this support to pass any legislation necessary for the appointment. Second, the military previously expelled international human rights organizations from the country for allegedly infringing the country’s sovereignty.[117] Thus, a limitation on the independent observer’s role would prevent the military from converting a legitimate debate about its human rights violations to one about the infringement of Pakistan’s sovereignty.

C. Amendments in the Domestic Law

While the 2022 Bill is a big leap in modernizing the law regarding enforced disappearances, it is still not enough. Although the 1992 Declaration and Pakistani courts have recognized the effects that enforced disappearances can have on victims’ families, the 2022 Bill offers no such recognition.[118] For example, in Mahera Sajid v. Station House Officer, the courtawarded reparations to a disappeared individual’s family members.[119] Thus, the 2022 Bill should include a special provision that allows family members to claim compensation from the State for its actions. Since the compensation of PKR 117, 500 (518. 78 USD) per month awarded in the Mahera Sajid case[120] is too inadequate to act as a deterrent, this paper proposes that the bill should stipulate that courts cannot set compensation below PKR 1,000,000 (USD 4,904.86) per month.

This measure can compel state organizations to carefully reconsider before engaging in enforced disappearances. By establishing a minimum threshold, the bill seeks to enhance the effectiveness of compensation as a deterrent against such egregious actions. Although such compensation can never make families whole, it can act as a form of recognition for people who have been grossly wronged by the state. Furthermore, since victims’ families suffer life-long trauma due to their loved ones’ disappearances, the 2022 Bill should include a provision that makes it mandatory for the government to provide free, adequate mental health services to eligible individuals. In situations where the government cannot provide such services, it should cover the costs for families who decide to approach a private mental health service provider.

Including these provisions would not lead to a revolutionary change but would simply effectuate an explicit stipulation in Article 4 of the Constitution that “. . . no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with law.”[121]

V. Conclusion

The issue of enforced disappearances endures in Pakistan, spanning from the 1970s to the present day. The country’s legal framework—including its Constitution, Penal Code, and case law, presents further complexities surrounding enforced disappearances and possibilities for reform. Such reforms are necessary since Pakistan’s Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances (CoIED) has proven ineffective in addressing the issue.

Certain practical recommendations can address the epidemic of enforced disappearances in Pakistan. Such recommendations include strengthening the CoIED by proposing changes in its composition and advocating for the appointment of an international observer to provide oversight. Minor adjustments to expand the 2022 Bill’s scope can also meaningfully address the ongoing enforced disappearance epidemic. While these recommendations might not completely end the practice of enforced disappearances in Pakistan, these measures can reduce potential Sachals from celebrating their birthdays alone.

The Author, Momin bin Mohsin, has practical experience in three legal jurisdictions and holds both a JD and an LLB. He is currently pursuing an LLM specializing in International Dispute Resolution. His areas of interest include public international law, international human rights law, and international arbitration.

[1] Asif Naveed, Mudassar Naru Case: Missing person’s son marks 4th birthday at court appearance, Aaj News (Feb. 14, 2022, 12:35 PM), https://www.aaj.tv/news/30278557; Shiraz Hassan (@ShirazHassan), Twitter (Feb. 14, 2022, 12:57 AM), https://twitter.com/ShirazHassan/status/1493102153501753346?s=20&t=VMj2kowqBkIew91ZdOlCcQ.

[2] Naveed, supra note 1.

[3] Id.

[4] Imaan Zainab Mazari -Hazir, Mudassar Naaru Is Missing And His Family Has Been Torn Apart, Naya Daur (July 5, 2021), https://nayadaur.tv/2021/07/mudassar-naaru-is-missing-and-his-family-has-been-torn-apart/.

[5] See Saim Saeed, On ‘incidents’ and other euphuisms, Express Trib. (Nov. 27, 2013),https://tribune.com.pk/story/637921/on-incidents-and-other-euphemisms (the term “missing persons” is a euphuism used to denote individuals subject to enforced disappearances in Pakistan); Tahir Naseer, Mudassar Naaru case: Justice Minallah terms enforced disappearances ‘worst form of corruption’, DAWN News (Dec. 13, 2021),https://www.dawn.com/news/1663551.

[6] Naseer, supra note 5.

[7] Id.

[8] Abbas Nasir, No Eid for Sachal, Dawn News (May 16, 2021), https://www.dawn.com/news/1623870/no-eid-for-sachal.

[9] Activist Sadaf Chugtai found dead under mysterious circumstances, MN News (May 11, 2021), https://mmnews.tv/activist-sadaf-chughtai-found-dead-under-mysterious-circumstances/.

[10] Id.

[11] Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, art. 1, § 1, G.A. Res. 47/133, U.N. Doc. A/RES/47/133 (Dec. 18, 1992) [hereinafter 1992 Convention]; Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, art. 7, § 2, cl. i, July 17, 1998, 2187 U.N.T.S. 90 [hereinafter Rome Statute]; International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, art. 2, G.A. Res. A/RES/61/177, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/RES/2006/I (Dec. 20, 2006) [hereinafter Enforced Disappearance Convention].

[12] See Press Release, Asian Hum. Rts. Comm’n, PAKISTAN: Statement to mark the International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances(Aug. 29, 2014), http://www.humanrights.asia/news/ahrc-news/AHRC-STM-167-2014/ (stating that enforced disappearances in Pakistan have become a routine occurrence).

[13] Id.

[14] Submission of Monthly Summary Nov.- 2022, Comm’n Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances, (last visited Jan. 3, 2023), http://coioed.pk/; Enforced Disappearances endemic to Pak, wave of ‘missing persons’: Report, Bus. Standard(Mar. 12, 2022, 11:17 AM), https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/enforced-disappearances-endemic-to-pak-wave-of-missing-persons-report-122031101418_1.html (the CoIED was constituted by the Federal Government under directions of the Supreme Court in order to trace and investigate cases of missing persons).

[15] See Zahra Kazmi, Enforced disappearances in Pakistan raise questions over the role of secret services, DW News (Sept. 4, 2022), https://www.dw.com/en/enforced-disappearances-in-pakistan-raise-questions-over-role-of-secret-services/a-62969115 (explaining why statistics do not accurately reflect the truth of disappearance cases).

[16] Manzoor Pashteen is a human rights activist. See Manzoor Pashteen: Activist who dared to challenge the Pakistani military held, BBC News (Jan. 27, 2020), https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51262639.

[17]  Kazmi, supra note 15.

[18] Sammi Deen Baloch, More than 5,000 people are missing in Balochistan. I want my father back, Guardian (July 6, 2022, 07:00 AM), https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/jul/06/pakistan-5000-people-disappeared-missing-balochistan; Moosa Kaleem, Reasons behind the increase in missing persons in Sindh, Herald (Nov. 13, 2017, 01:11 PM), http://herald.dawn.com/news/1153890/reasons-behind-the-increase-in-missing-persons-in-sindh; Missing persons’ case: MQM submits list of 171 workers, Express Trib. (May 3, 2016), https://tribune.com.pk/story/1096064/missing-persons-case-mqm-submits-list-of-171-workers; JAC warns of countrywide protest for recovery of missing Shia persons, News (Apr. 24, 2022),https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/952876-jac-warns-of-countrywide-protest-for-recovery-of-missing-shia-persons; PTI calls upon PM, CEC for recovery of leaders, workers, Express Trib. (Oct. 3, 2023), https://tribune.com.pk/story/2438984/pti-calls-upon-pm-cec-for-recovery-of-leaders-workers.

[19] Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, art. 1, § 1, G.A. Res. 47/133, U.N. Docs. A/RES/47/133 (Dec. 18, 1992) [hereinafter 1992 Convention]; Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, art. 7, § 2, cl. i, July 17, 1998, 2187 U.N.T.S. 90 [hereinafter Rome Statute]; International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, art. 2, G.A. Res. A/RES/61/177, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/RES/2006/I (Dec. 20, 2006) [hereinafter Enforced Disappearance Convention].

[20] See Rome Statute, supra note 11; Enforced Disappearances Convention, supra note 11.

[21] Id.

[22] Id.

[23] Id.

[24] 1992 Convention, supra note 19.

[25] Id. art. 1, § 2.

[26] Id.

[27] Partition: Why was British India divided 75 years ago?,BBC News, Aug. 14, 2022, https://perma.cc/83ML-K8C2; Pakistan’s day of rejoicing, The Guardian, Mar. 23, 1956, at 7.

[28]  Pakistan’s day of rejoicing, supra note 27.

[29] Flashback: The Martial Law of 1958, Dawn News(Oct. 8, 2011), https://www.dawn.com/news/664894/flashback-the-martial-law-of-1958; Malcolm W. Brown, Pakistan Asserts President Yayha Is Quitting Today, N.Y. Times, Dec. 20, 1971, at 1.

[30] New Constitution is Approved by Pakistan’s Assembly, N.Y. Times, Apr. 11, 1973, at 10.

[31] See generally Jayshree Bajoria, Pakistan’s Constitution, Council on Foreign Relations (Apr. 21, 2010), https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/pakistans-constitution.

[32] Pakistan Const. art. 243, § 1 [hereinafter Pak. Const.].

[33] Id. at § 2.

[34] Id. at § 1; Isaac Chotiner, An Army With a Country, Wall St. J., (Aug. 14, 2016),   https://www.wsj.com/articles/an-army-with-a-country-1471208655.

[35] Chotiner, supra note 34.

[36] See Umer Farooq, Who Controls the ISI?, Friday Times (Oct. 12, 2021), https://www.thefridaytimes.com/2021/10/12/who-controls-the-isi/.

[37] Ashok Krishna, The Inter-Services Intel. (ISI) of Pakistan, Inst. of Peace & Conflict Studies (May 25, 1999), http://www.ipcs.org/comm_select.php?articleNo=191; Sabir Shah, Average tenure of 22 ISI Chiefs in 70 years has been 3.18 years, The News (Oct. 12, 2018), https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/379832-average-tenure-of-22-isi-chiefs-in-70-years-has-been-3-18-years.

[38] Int’l Comm’n Jurists, No More “Missing Persons”: The Criminalization of Enforced Disappearances in South Asia 25 (Aug. 2017), https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/South-Asia-Enforced-Disappearance-Publications-Reports-Thematic-Reports-2017-ENG.pdf.

[39] Mohammad Tanzimuddin Khan, Enforced Disappearances and answers to two questions, New Age (Dec. 17, 2017, 3:47 PM), https://www.newagebd.net/article/30625/enforced-disappearances-and-answers-to-two-questions.

[40]  Odhikar, Bangladesh: Annual Human Rights Report 14 (2016), https://www.omct.org/site-resources/ legacy/odhikar_annual_report_2016_2020-12-11-144534.pdf.

[41]Rules of Law Chronicles, Enforced Disappearances of Pakistan’s Balochi People, Jurist (Oct. 18, 2022) at 1, https://www.jurist.org/features/2022/10/18/rule-of-law-chronicles-enforced-disappearances-of-pakistans-balochi-people/.

[42]  Sanaullah Baloch, Balochistan: Epidemic of Enforced Disappearance, News Int’l (Aug. 30, 2012), https://old.unpo.org/article/14781#:~:text=Writing%20in%20The%20News,%20Senator%20Sanaullah%20Baloch%20discusses%20the%20failure.

[43] Salman Hussain, War on Terror to War on Dissent: Enforced Disappearances in Pakistan, 53 Econ. & Pol. Weekly 19, 19 (2018).

[44] Amnesty Int’l, Musharraf is gone, but still no sign of the disappeared, (Sept. 2, 2008), https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2008/09/musharraf-gone-still-no-sign-disappeared-20080902/.

[45] Hussain, supra note 43, at 20.

[46] Craig Whitlock, U.S. Frees Longtime Detainee, Wash. Post (Aug. 25, 2006), https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2006/08/25/us-frees-longtime-detainee-span-classbankheadcourt-had-ruled-in-favor-of-turk-span/86dcf703-1eda-4df1-b96f-aac5670be708/.

[47] See Carol D. Leonnig, Tribunal rejected evidence on detainee, NBC News (Dec. 5, 2007), https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna22106473.

[48] Whitlock, supra note 46; In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases, 355 F. Supp. 2d 443, 470 (D.D.C. 2005).

[49] Sanaullah Baloch, Balochistan: Epidemic of Enforced Disappearance, News Int‘l (Aug. 30, 2012),  https://unpo.org/article/14781.

[50] Baloch, supra note 18; Kaleem, supra note 18; Manzoor Pashteen: Activist Who Dared to Challenge the Pakistani Military Held, supra note 16; Missing Persons’ Case: MQM Submits List of 171 Workers,supra note 18.

[51] Bashir Ahmad Gwakh, A Year After His Disappearance, Pakistani Activist Granted Visit With Daughter, Gandhara (Nov. 18, 2020), https://gandhara.rferl.org/a/a-year-after-his-disappearance-pakistani-activist-granted-visit-with-daughter/30957256.html; Pakistan being subjected to 5th – generation warfare in “massive way” but we are aware of the threats: DG ISPR, Dawn (Dec. 3, 2020), https://www.dawn.com/news/1593804; See Waseem A. Qureshi, Fourth- and Fifth-Generation Warfare: Technology and Perceptions, 21 San Diego Int’l L.J. 187, 209 (2019) (defining Fifth- Generation Warfare as the secret deliberative manipulation of actors, networks, institutions, states or any [0GW, 1GW] 2GW/3GW/4GW forces to achieve a goal or set of goals across a combination of socioeconomic and political domains while attempting to avoid or minimize the retaliatory offensive or defensive actions/reactions of 2GW, 3GW, 4GW powered actors, networks, institutions, and/ or states).

[52] See “Missing” Baloch: Protestors chastise media for ignoring issue, Express Trib. (Nov. 11, 2013), https://tribune.com.pk/story/630160/missing-baloch-protesters-chastise-media-for-ignoring-issue/.

[53] Enforced Disappearances in Pakistan: Campaign with #EndEnforcedDisappearences launched on social media continued PST 8:00 PM to 11:30 PM,E. Times (Jan. 28, 2019), https://www.easterntimes.pk/en/enforced-disappearances-in-pakistan-campaign-with-endenforceddisappearances-launched-on-social-media-continued-pst-800-pm-to-1130-pm/; Journalist Matiuallah Jan released 13 hours after being abducted from Islamabad,Dawn (July 21, 2020), https://www.dawn.com/news/1570325.

[54] PTI calls upon PM, CEC for recovery of leaders, workers, Express Trib. (Oct. 3, 2023), https://tribune.com.pk/story/2438984/pti-calls-upon-pm-cec-for-recovery-of-leaders-workers.

[55] Abid Hussain, Missing Pakistani journalist Imran Riaz Khan returns home after four months, Al Jazeera (Sept. 25, 2023), https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/25/missing-pakistani-journalist-imran-riaz-khan-returns-home-after-four-months; Bethlehem Feleke & Larry Madowo, Arshad Sharif’s family demand justice as they grieve ‘kind-hearted’ journalist killed in Kenya, CNN News (Dec. 2, 2022, 9:02 AM), https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/02/africa/arshad-journalist-pakistan-kenya-cmd-intl/index.html; Abid Hussain, Rights, press bodies slam Pakistan crackdown on ‘critical voices’, Al Jazeera (Jun. 16, 2023), https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/6/16/rights-press-bodies-slam-pakistan-crackdown-on-critical-voices.

[56] Ahmed Abdullah, Asim Munir Hafiz Ye Markhor Waly | Pak Army | New Song, YouTube (June 16, 2023), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rtix1MualME.

[57] Id.

[58] Pak. Const., supra note 32, art. 4(2)(a) (explaining “. . . no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with law. . . .”).

[59] See Pakistan Const.,supra note 32, art. 8-28.

[60] Pak. Const., supra note 32,art. 9, art. 10.

[61] See Pak. Const., supra note 32, art. 12-19, 25; Mahera Sajid v. Station House Officer, Police Station Shalimar & 6 others, (2018) CLC 1858, para. 17 (Pak.).

[62] Pak. Const., supra note 32, art. 10.

[63] Id. § 2.

[64] Application by Mohabbat Shah for Recovery of Yaseen Shah, Missing Person, (2014) Human Rights Case No. 29388-K/13  PLD (SC) 305, para. 6 (Pak.).

[65] See generally Pakistan Penal Code [Pak. Penal Code]; Amir Wasim, NA again passes bill criminalizing enforced disappearances, Dawn News (Oct. 22, 2022), https://www.dawn.com/news/1716295.

[66] See Pak. Penal Code, supra note 65, §§ 359, 362.

[67] See id. §§ 363, 364, 365, 368.

[68] Id. §§ 364, 365.  

[69] Ahrar Jawaid, Law of Enforced Disappearances in Pakistan: Discrepancies and Comparison with International Law, Courting The Law (Jan. 30, 2021), https://courtingthelaw.com/2021/01/30/commentary/law-of-enforced-disappearances-in-pakistan-discrepancies-and-comparison-with-international-law.

[70] See Hussain, supra note 43, at 21.

[71] Id. at 19-21; Pak. Const., supra note 32, art. 184, § 3.

[72] Pak. Const., supra note 32, art. 184, § 3.

[73] See Hussain, supra note 43; See President Balochistan High Court Ass’n v. Fed. of Pak. (Balochistan Law & Order), (2014) SCMR 176 at para. 49(2), (6) (2013) (Pak.) (holding that there was a complete breakdown of law and order in the province, and it was beyond doubt that security agencies interfered in the affairs of the province).

[74] See Application by Mohabbat Shah S/o Kabul Shah for Recovery of Yaseen Shah, supra note 64.

[75] Id.  ¶ 1.

[76] Id.

[77] Id.  ¶¶ 3, 6.

[78] Id. ¶ 15; New Oxford American Dictionary (3rd ed. 2010) https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/3285434271 (defining Kafkaesque  as  “characteristic or reminiscent of the oppressive or nightmarish qualities of Franz Kafka’s fictional world”).

[79] See Yasser Kureshi, Politics at the Bench: The Pakistani Judiciary’s Ambitions and Interventions, Carnegie Endowment For Int’l Peace (June 23, 2022), https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2022/06/politics-at-the-bench-the-pakistani-judiciarys-ambitions-and-interventions?lang=en.

[80] See Ministry of Interior, “Statutory notification by the Ministry of Interior”, (2011) S.R.O. 149 (I), (Pak.).; The Pakistan Commission of Inquiry Act, No. 6 of 1956, art. 3, Pak. Code (1956), repealed by Act 9 of 2017) https://www.pakistancode.gov.pk/english/UY2FqaJw1-apaUY2Fqa-ap%2Baaw%3D%3D-sg-jjjjjjjjjjjjj  (explaining the Federal Government may, “if it is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint a Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of making an inquiry into any definite matter of public importance and performing such functions and within such time as may be specified into the notification, and the Commission so appointed shall make the inquiry and perform the functions accordingly.”).

[81] The Pakistan Commission of Inquiry Act, supra note 80, art. 4 (The CoIED can summon and enforce attendance of individuals and examine them under oath. It can also require discovery and production of any documents and receive evidence on affidavits. Further, it can issue summons for the examination of witnesses or documents).

[82] Id. art. 3, § 2.

[83] Id. art. 8.

[84] See Comm’n Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances, http://coioed.pk/ (last visited Dec. 17, 2023).

[85]  Id.

[86] Azaz Syed (@AzazSyed), Twitter (May 23, 2019, 1:36 PM), https://twitter.com/AzazSyed/status/1131614901942849536?s=20&t=HtL1DmtYiXLJy7WcB1b3VQ.

[87] Mohammad Hussain Khan, Justice (retrd) Javed Iqbal appointed NAB Chairman, Dawn News (Oct. 8, 2017), https://www.dawn.com/news/1362485; See Pakistan: End Anti-Corruption Agency’s Abuses, Hum. Rights Watch (Aug. 6, 2020), https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/08/06/pakistan-end-anti-corruption-agencys-abuses (The NAB is an anti-corruption body that is charged with the responsibility of elimination of corruption, but has been accused of political victimization).

[88] Supra note 86.

[89] Woman at center of video leak scandal speaks up against former NAB chairman, Daily Pakistan (July 7, 2022, 11:21 PM),  https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/07-Jul-2022/woman-at-centre-of-video-leak-scandal-speaks-up-against-former-nab-chairman.

[90] Id.

[91] Usman Khan, Senators want Javed Iqbal removed as missing persons commission chairman, SAMAA News (Sep. 29, 2022), https://www.samaaenglish.tv/news/40018067/pakistan-senators-want-javed-iqbal-removed-as-missing-persons-commission-chairman.

[92] Rizwan Shehzad, Bill criminalizing enforced disappearance introduced in NA, Express Trib. (June 08, 2021), https://tribune.com.pk/story/2304170/bill-criminalising-enforced-disappearance-introduced-in-na.

[93] Saad Ahmed Khan, The curious case of missing bills and missing persons, Geo News (Jan. 11, 2022), https://www.geo.tv/latest/392774-the-curious-case-of-missing-bills-and-missing-persons.

[94] NA passes amended bill on enforced disappearances, Express Trib. (Oct. 22, 2022), https://tribune.com.pk/story/2382956/na-passes-amended-bill-on-enforced-disappearances.

[95] The Criminal Laws (Amendment) Bill 2022 [hereinafter Bill 2022], § 2, https://senate.gov.pk/en/billsDetails.php?type=2&id=-.

[96] Id.

[97] Id. § 3.

[98] Id.

[99] Id. § 2.

[100] Id. § 3.

[101] Bill 2022, supra note 95, § 3.

[102] NA passes amended bill on enforced disappearances, supra note 94.

[103] Id.

[104] The Pakistan Commission of Inquiry Act, supra note 80, art. 4; Comm’n Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances, supra note 84.

[105] Comm’n Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances, supra note 84.

[106] See Khan, supra note 87; see Ghulam Hasnain, Judges ruling on general faced sex blackmail, Times  (Nov. 11, 2007, 12:00 AM), https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/judges-ruling-on-general-faced-sex-blackmail-887ms9xt239.

[107] Manzoor Pashteen: Activist who dared to challenge the Pakistani military held, supra note 16; Kaleem, supra note 18; Mohammad Taqi, What Does a Journalist’s Abduction and Release Portend for Pakistan?, The Wire (July 25, 2020), https://thewire.in/south-asia/pakistan-media-freedom-matiullah-jan.

[108] See Woman at center of video leak scandal speaks up against former NAB chairman, Daily Pakistan (July 7, 2022, 11:21 PM), https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/08-Jul-2022/woman-at-centre-of-video-leak-scandal-speaks-up-against-former-nab-chairman.

[109] See The Pakistan Commission of Inquiry Act, supra note 80.

[110] Id. art. 3, § 2.

[111] Id. art. 8.

[112] See generally Regul. of the Comm’n [Regulations], No. CoIoED – 2/1/11, Mar. 13, 2011, http://coioed.pk/notification2/.

[113] See generally Pak. Const., supra note 32, art. 243, §1; Chotiner, supra note 34.

[114] The Pakistan Commission of Inquiry Act, supra note 80; See generally Regul. of the Comm’n [Regulations], No. CoIoED – 2/1/11, Mar. 13, 2011, http://coioed.pk/notification2/.

[115] See The Pakistan Commission of Inquiry Act, supra note 80, art. 8.

[116] Kazmi, supra note 15.

[117]  Kiran Stacey & Farhan Bokhari, Pakistan orders expulsion of 29 international NGOs, Fin. Times (Dec. 13, 2017), https://www.ft.com/content/15d38124-de54-11e7-a8a4-0a1e63a52f9c.

[118] Enforced Disappearances Convention, supra note 18, art. 1, § 2; Mahera Sajid, (2018) CLC 1858, ¶ 28 (Pak.).

[119] Mahera Sajid, supra note 119, ¶ 32.

[120] Id.

[121] Pak. Const., supra note 32, art. 4, § 2