Denying DNA

Hopes of getting justice for rape victims fade with the recommendation of the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII).

Editorial September 24, 2013
While the CII has said courts could use DNA as secondary evidence, the stance taken, after much dithering over the matter, will inevitably hold back convictions and discourage women from reporting rape. PHOTO: FILE

We have had an unusually high number of cases of rape reported over the last week or so, possibly in response to the brutal assault this month on a five-year-old in Lahore. But the hopes these women, girls and their families may have had of getting justice fade with the recommendation of the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) that DNA evidence should not be admissible as primary evidence in rape cases. This, of course, makes it far more likely that perpetrators of rape will escape punishment, given that DNA has become the most widely used method worldwide to pin down rapists. It has been used regularly by the police at home too.



However, Maulana Muhammad Khan Sheerani of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl, who heads the CII — a body constitutionally mandated to ‘Islamise’ the country’s laws — has held that the Council has decided that DNA findings could not override religious injunctions requiring rape be verified by four, male Muslims of ‘good standing’. As we saw in the past, prior to the advent of DNA testing, victims of rape, for obvious reasons, generally failed to produce this bevy of witnesses. While the CII has said courts could use DNA as secondary evidence, the stance taken, after much dithering over the matter, will inevitably hold back convictions and discourage women from reporting rape in a country where under 20 per cent of cases, according to monitoring groups, are reported anyway.

The CII also opposed the death penalty for those who made false accusations of blasphemy and rejected the 2006 Women’s Protection Act which replaced the Zia-era Hudood Ordinance. The blasphemy issue had caused some debate within the CII, with Allama Tahir Ashrafi, according to reports, advocating death for false accusers. The final outcomes from the CII have not, however, been very positive. Indeed they seem to take us backwards, by making it harder to bring rapists to justice, leaving the much misused blasphemy laws unchanged and resurrecting the Hudood Ordinance with all its issues. This is not a positive attitude and reflects the issues involved with the CII itself as a body and forces us to ask if we should not be taking steps to discourage rape.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 25th,  2013.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

Facebook Conversations

COMMENTS (8)

haroon | 6 years ago | Reply | Recommend

To speak of logic. DNA only confirms sex, and does not confirm whether it was done in consent or by force. This is what CII said, i read it somewhere. ET should not twist it.

arslan | 6 years ago | Reply | Recommend

look, DNA can prove sexual intercourse but NOT rape. it is not a CCTV camera. you need witnesses and if there is none and the woman is the only witness then investigation is carried out by authorities (including DNA tests) and tazeer is handed out in islamic shariah if the suspect is proven guilty. tazeer can be anyt punishment but death. the culprit can be fined, jailed, flogged etc based on available evidence.

for a death sentence you need four witnesses of the rape. not for tazeer.

see mufti taqi's article on al-balagh that explains this better.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ

Load Next Story