IT is a strange pattern: the army chief endorses death sentences handed down by military courts operating under the 21st Amendment and the Supreme Court suspends the executions pending a decision on the judicial appeals.

This week has seen 12 more individuals accused by the military of terrorism being condemned to death, and the death sentences of four earlier terrorism convicts suspended by the Supreme Court.

As noted by the Supreme Court judges hearing the appeals, the endorsement by the court of military courts in the 21st Amendment judgement has left a narrow window for appeal by those convicted by military courts.

What is troubling is that neither is there any light emerging from the military court trials nor is the Supreme Court moving swiftly enough to examine if justice is indeed being carried out. This newspaper stands against the death penalty in all its manifestations — but the conveyor-belt manner in which military courts are handing down death sentences is especially troubling.

The approach so far by the military has been to give no details to the public or the media about ongoing trials and then revealing the sentences and the crimes the terror suspects are accused of at the time of endorsement by the army chief.

No evidence is provided — often to even the family members — and the trial record is withheld. This in trials of individuals the state has accused of being ‘jet-black terrorists’ — how can evidence be so lacking and the willingness to produce it so low when it comes to terrorist acts that are some of the worst in the country’s history?

There are few answers. More than halfway through the life of the 21st Amendment, the state’s approach has only seemed to worsen.

Perhaps the only hope is the Supreme Court. Some of the justices have shown a willingness to examine military court convictions and, at least in verbal remarks, acknowledged the heavy burden on them when it comes to ensuring justice is done.

While the 21st Amendment judgement left only relatively narrow grounds on which military court convictions can be overturned, there are two things that the court can still do.

One, it can expedite the appeals process, prioritising them over normal court work. Two, the Supreme Court can act to set aside death sentences in cases where basic doubts still exist and the trial is deemed patently unfair.

The death penalty is fundamentally and morally wrong — the court must act to curb it where it can.

Published in Dawn, February 14th, 2016