Mukhtaran Mai case : Verdict was judges’ failure, says human rights organisation
War Against Rape and lawyers shed light on ‘procedural flaws’.
KARACHI:
The Supreme Court’s verdict in the Mukhtaran Mai case was scrutinised on Tuesday as human rights organisations criticised the “loopholes in the judgment” at a meeting held at the Karachi Press Club. They claimed that after stretching out the case for so long, the courts should have arrived at a more informed decision.
War Against Rape director Sarah Zaman said that the legal outcome of the case was shocking but not entirely unexpected. Even though the case had generated an unprecedented level of interest, nationally and internationally, the outcome was “typical in a long list of rape cases”.
Going through past cases, she cited a number of factors which set the stage for the verdict. “The police are biased, the forensics department is poor and above all there are a number of presumptions which affect such cases.” A delay in filing the FIR points towards “preconceived intent”.
She produced a list of “procedural flaws” - many of which were seen this case as well - that make justice in such cases difficult to attain.
“Legally, when such cases are taken to court there is a lot of interest in the past sexual history of the victim to see if they are telling the truth,” she said, quoting Qanun-e-Shahadat, Article 151.
Supreme Court Senior Advocate Iqbal Haider said that the court had not been able to conclude that Mukhtaran Mai had been raped beyond reasonable doubt. He talked about how the assault on Mukhtaran’s brother — the root of the entire issue — was also questioned. The court wondered why the boy did not go to the police after he was assaulted. “There is enough evidence on record to suggest that the police did not register her (brother’s) case of sodomy due to pressure from the tribal head, Faiz Mastoi,” he said vehemently.
“The judges are demanding evidence, but the biggest evidence is the woman herself,” the advocate quipped.
Sindh High Court advocate Faisal Siddiqi reiterated the same arguments and used the judgment in a 1993 gang rape case as an example. In that case, the woman’s statement was given precedence as there was no other evidence to support it. Addressing the numerous questions about the absence of bruises on Mukhtaran’s body after the incident, he informed the gathering that “not all women put up a resistance during the trauma of rape, most are too shocked to do anything.” Siddiqi dubbed the verdict a “bad judgment” and said that the psychological implications of such judgments are worse.
The majority of Siddiqi’s cases are gang rape survivors, and he claimed that the judgement had set a bad precedent for others - two survivors in a similar situation had already backed out of their hearings. They said that if Mukhtaran Mai could not win, they didn’t stand a chance. “The judges’ queries have collectively implied that Mukhtaran Mai is lying. With all due respect, this verdict reflects on the failure of the two judges and not of criminal justice as such,” he added.
In the middle of the press conference, they made a call to Mukhtaran Mai herself. Despite being “completely let down by the judiciary” she promised to keep fighting for justice.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 27th, 2011.
The Supreme Court’s verdict in the Mukhtaran Mai case was scrutinised on Tuesday as human rights organisations criticised the “loopholes in the judgment” at a meeting held at the Karachi Press Club. They claimed that after stretching out the case for so long, the courts should have arrived at a more informed decision.
War Against Rape director Sarah Zaman said that the legal outcome of the case was shocking but not entirely unexpected. Even though the case had generated an unprecedented level of interest, nationally and internationally, the outcome was “typical in a long list of rape cases”.
Going through past cases, she cited a number of factors which set the stage for the verdict. “The police are biased, the forensics department is poor and above all there are a number of presumptions which affect such cases.” A delay in filing the FIR points towards “preconceived intent”.
She produced a list of “procedural flaws” - many of which were seen this case as well - that make justice in such cases difficult to attain.
“Legally, when such cases are taken to court there is a lot of interest in the past sexual history of the victim to see if they are telling the truth,” she said, quoting Qanun-e-Shahadat, Article 151.
Supreme Court Senior Advocate Iqbal Haider said that the court had not been able to conclude that Mukhtaran Mai had been raped beyond reasonable doubt. He talked about how the assault on Mukhtaran’s brother — the root of the entire issue — was also questioned. The court wondered why the boy did not go to the police after he was assaulted. “There is enough evidence on record to suggest that the police did not register her (brother’s) case of sodomy due to pressure from the tribal head, Faiz Mastoi,” he said vehemently.
“The judges are demanding evidence, but the biggest evidence is the woman herself,” the advocate quipped.
Sindh High Court advocate Faisal Siddiqi reiterated the same arguments and used the judgment in a 1993 gang rape case as an example. In that case, the woman’s statement was given precedence as there was no other evidence to support it. Addressing the numerous questions about the absence of bruises on Mukhtaran’s body after the incident, he informed the gathering that “not all women put up a resistance during the trauma of rape, most are too shocked to do anything.” Siddiqi dubbed the verdict a “bad judgment” and said that the psychological implications of such judgments are worse.
The majority of Siddiqi’s cases are gang rape survivors, and he claimed that the judgement had set a bad precedent for others - two survivors in a similar situation had already backed out of their hearings. They said that if Mukhtaran Mai could not win, they didn’t stand a chance. “The judges’ queries have collectively implied that Mukhtaran Mai is lying. With all due respect, this verdict reflects on the failure of the two judges and not of criminal justice as such,” he added.
In the middle of the press conference, they made a call to Mukhtaran Mai herself. Despite being “completely let down by the judiciary” she promised to keep fighting for justice.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 27th, 2011.