|
|
| 17 April 2004 | Saturday | 26 Safar 1425 |
Hashmi's trial: US criticism rejected
ISLAMABAD, April 16: Mind your own business. This was the loud and clear message Pakistan conveyed to the United States on Friday when it strongly rejected the US State Department's statement and a subsequent demarche by the US Embassy on the trial of opposition leader Javed Hashmi, calling it an unwarranted interference in the country's internal affairs.
In a hard-hitting statement, Foreign Office Spokesman Masood Khan said: "We hope that the US will desist from issuing statements on the internal matters and the judicial process of Pakistan."
In its strong protest to the US Embassy on Friday, Pakistan pointed out that "the US statement is not only unwarranted and misplaced, but it is tantamount to interference in the internal affairs and the judicial process of Pakistan."
Islamabad's tough response to Washington's call for judicial fairness conveyed the heat it has been feeling on the controversial Hashmi trial. Even the EU has expressed serious concerns about it.
The US Embassy in Islamabad confirmed the demarche was delivered at the Foreign Office on Wednesday. It came a day after a terse statement by the US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, who called upon Pakistan to administer justice fairly and in a transparent manner in the case of Mr Hashmi.
On the question of the 'closed trial' of Mr Hashmi Pakistan reminded the US Government that it too had taken several steps to protect its national security, including detentions as well as trials in camera, that constituted a departure from its own laws and international norms.
"But Pakistan has not commented on these cases or the procedures adopted to handle them," the spokesman hit back. Other arguments advanced by Pakistan in its rebuttal to the US demarche were: "A court of competent jurisdiction gave the verdict in Mr. Hashmi's case.
Mr Hashmi was represented by a counsel of his choice. The conviction and sentence can be appealed. It has been announced that Mr Hashmi is appealing. The matter is therefore subjudice and it is inappropriate for foreign governments to make any comments or prejudge the outcome of the process."
|
|