Death penalty workshop: Lawyers distracted by US government policies
Speakers say defence lawyers must be vigilant against torture of their clients.
LAHORE:
The American speakers at a workshop to train lawyers dealing with cases of death penalty were aggressively questioned by local lawyers on ‘American policies against Muslims’.
The drone attacks, the trial of Dr Aafia Siddiqui and the release of Central Intelligence Agency contractor Raymond Davis were some of the topics that came up during the defence against death penalty workshop.
The Second Annual Death Penalty Defence Conference held at the Punjab Bar Council came to an end on Thursday, the second day of the conference. The two-day conference was organised by Reprieve, a British charity that helps condemned helps condemned prisoners, and Justice Project Pakistan which aims to train criminal lawyers in how to protect their clients from a death sentence.
Clive Stafford Smith, one of the speakers at the workshop had apologised for Dr Siddiqui’s conviction on the opening day, calling it the result of an unfair trial. However, local lawyers did not let up on Thursday and Smith, once again, apologised for Siddiqui’s conviction.
A lawyer started shouting at Smith saying that he was in Pakistan with a hidden agenda. Another lawyer jumped in describing the topic of the workshop as anti-Islamic. Pakistan Bar Council member Azam Nazeer had to intervene and said that although Pakistanis were against the US regime they did not have to be against all US citizens.
Danny LeBoeuf, responding to a question, said “Aafia had an unfair trial and her conviction was wrong. I hope she will be released through diplomatic channels.”
Advocate Muhammad Waseem, a legal consultant at the Justice Project Pakistan, told The Express Tribune that they had been receiving death threats prior to the conference. He said their stance against the death penalty was seen by some extremists as a deviation from Islam. He said they had submitted an application in this regard to the DIG (Operations) Lahore.
In the workshop, Smith said lawyers were duty bound to try to get their clients released. He praised the Shariah Law, pointing out that the requirement for two eye-witnesses for a death sentence to be given out was missing in the US law.
Smith said lawyers should be aware of any torture perpetrated on their client during interrogation or trial. Also, a lawyer needed to point out to the court if any witness perjured himself, he said. He said expert opinions of medical and forensic experts should be challenged where needed.
Nazeer, delivering a lecture on litigation in capital cases, said that lawyers should first go over the FIR and the Medico Legal Report (MLR). He said if there was a delay in filing of the two, it would benefit the accused during the trial.
He said if a counsel cannot win acquittal for his client, he should try for a lesser punishment.
LeBoeuf said that internationally all citizens and non-citizens are equal before the law in any country. Every convict, she said, should be awarded the sentence by a competent court and have the right to appeal. She said every accused should be informed of the charges against him in a language that he understands. Trials, she added, must be conducted by a competent, impartial and independent tribunal and no one should be given a death penalty in absentia.
Marc Calcutt, another Reprieve expert, spoke about different kinds of torture employed to obtain information from the accused. The worst kind, he said, was psychological torture. He said lawyers should develop a close relationship with their clients and keep a lookout for any signs of torture. Sometimes, he added, clients feel humiliated and cannot tell anyone about the torture they have experienced.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 15th, 2011.
The American speakers at a workshop to train lawyers dealing with cases of death penalty were aggressively questioned by local lawyers on ‘American policies against Muslims’.
The drone attacks, the trial of Dr Aafia Siddiqui and the release of Central Intelligence Agency contractor Raymond Davis were some of the topics that came up during the defence against death penalty workshop.
The Second Annual Death Penalty Defence Conference held at the Punjab Bar Council came to an end on Thursday, the second day of the conference. The two-day conference was organised by Reprieve, a British charity that helps condemned helps condemned prisoners, and Justice Project Pakistan which aims to train criminal lawyers in how to protect their clients from a death sentence.
Clive Stafford Smith, one of the speakers at the workshop had apologised for Dr Siddiqui’s conviction on the opening day, calling it the result of an unfair trial. However, local lawyers did not let up on Thursday and Smith, once again, apologised for Siddiqui’s conviction.
A lawyer started shouting at Smith saying that he was in Pakistan with a hidden agenda. Another lawyer jumped in describing the topic of the workshop as anti-Islamic. Pakistan Bar Council member Azam Nazeer had to intervene and said that although Pakistanis were against the US regime they did not have to be against all US citizens.
Danny LeBoeuf, responding to a question, said “Aafia had an unfair trial and her conviction was wrong. I hope she will be released through diplomatic channels.”
Advocate Muhammad Waseem, a legal consultant at the Justice Project Pakistan, told The Express Tribune that they had been receiving death threats prior to the conference. He said their stance against the death penalty was seen by some extremists as a deviation from Islam. He said they had submitted an application in this regard to the DIG (Operations) Lahore.
In the workshop, Smith said lawyers were duty bound to try to get their clients released. He praised the Shariah Law, pointing out that the requirement for two eye-witnesses for a death sentence to be given out was missing in the US law.
Smith said lawyers should be aware of any torture perpetrated on their client during interrogation or trial. Also, a lawyer needed to point out to the court if any witness perjured himself, he said. He said expert opinions of medical and forensic experts should be challenged where needed.
Nazeer, delivering a lecture on litigation in capital cases, said that lawyers should first go over the FIR and the Medico Legal Report (MLR). He said if there was a delay in filing of the two, it would benefit the accused during the trial.
He said if a counsel cannot win acquittal for his client, he should try for a lesser punishment.
LeBoeuf said that internationally all citizens and non-citizens are equal before the law in any country. Every convict, she said, should be awarded the sentence by a competent court and have the right to appeal. She said every accused should be informed of the charges against him in a language that he understands. Trials, she added, must be conducted by a competent, impartial and independent tribunal and no one should be given a death penalty in absentia.
Marc Calcutt, another Reprieve expert, spoke about different kinds of torture employed to obtain information from the accused. The worst kind, he said, was psychological torture. He said lawyers should develop a close relationship with their clients and keep a lookout for any signs of torture. Sometimes, he added, clients feel humiliated and cannot tell anyone about the torture they have experienced.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 15th, 2011.