THE government has little reason to be satisfied with its performance last week before the UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) that was discussing its initial report under the UN Convention against Torture (UNCAT).

The official delegation was led by Pakistan’s human rights minister, Kamran Michael, who enjoys a good reputation for understanding his task. It included Barrister Zafarullah Khan, the government’s principal expert on laws and human rights. But they had a brief no one could defend.

The problem began with an unsatisfactory initial report although its authors had plenty of time to make it a little more presentable, since it was submitted in 2016, four years after it was due.

This report claimed Pakistan was an almost torture-free country. The articles of the Constitution and penal laws that touched on torture were quoted to give the impression that these instruments had eliminated the practice. Article 3 of the Constitution was quoted to argue that exploitation had ended, Article 14 was quoted to prove that the dignity of the human person had become inviolable, the Extradition Act was supposed to have ruled out refoulement (handing over of persons to parties who could subject them to torture), and the laws adequately defined torture and made punishment for it unavoidable.

An informed Pakistani would have thought he or she was reading a report about a country other than Pakistan.

The disconnect between the report and the reality on the ground was total. An informed Pakistani would have thought he or she was reading a report about a country other than Pakistan.

The Pakistan delegation’s difficulties were aggravated by the presentation of several shadow reports submitted by international and Pakistani NGOs.

One of these shadow reports took due notice of the fundamental rights in the Constitution that prohibited the use of torture for the purpose of extracting confessions, and declared the dignity of man to be inviolable. Also criminal law did not admit testimony recorded by the police to reduce the risk of torture, and unnatural deaths were supposed to be judicially probed.

However, the report pointed out, there was no law which specifically defined and criminalised torture and which provided for a fair and accessible mechanism for redress and reparation.

Further, the report pointed out, existing laws as well as the requirements under CAT were poorly implemented. The incidence of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was systematic.

It was said that while pursuing the ‘war on terror’ the government had adopted several policies and laws which were in violation of the established norms of justice. The presidential decree called Actions (in Aid of Civil Power) Regulation 2011 was cited for retroactively authorising incommunicado detention of suspects. The military courts established in 2015 had weakened the right to a fair trial and helped continuation of enforced disappearances by providing a cover to the perpetrators.

The report further highlighted the culture of impunity and the almost complete lack of accountability for torture. (In the initial report submitted by the government, no data had been presented to substantiate the claim that torture was unacceptable not just constitutionally and legally but also in practice.)

Finally, the report voiced concern about violence against women. The state continued to fail half its population by its failure to eliminate the impunity of those perpetrating violence on women.

As if this were not enough, the National Commission for Human Rights (NCHR) filed a virtual rebuttal of the state party’s report.

The commission complained that it had not been associated with the preparation of the initial report, and was more candid and truthful than the authors of that report.

As regards Article 1 of the UNCAT (definition of torture), the commission observed that “laws in Pakistan are non-compliant with the article” and “torture has not been explicitly defined in national laws”. Referring to Article 14 of the Pakistani Constitution, the NCHR proposed an enlargement of the prohibitory clause to cover torture in all its forms. The commission also suggested changes in the relevant sections of the Penal Code and the Police Order 2002.

About prevention of torture (Article 2), the NCHR noted the numerous articles of the Constitution, sections of the Criminal Procedure Code, Qanun-i-Shahadat, the Police Order and High Court Rules and Orders that shaped the national preventive mechanism. “But this mechanism is ineffective in preventing incidents of torture,” the commission declared.

The NCHR was equally forthright while stating that “Pakistan’s counter-terror initiatives have practically failed to fully comply with its international, legal obligations”.

Similarly, as regards non-refoulement (Article 3 of UNCAT), the NCHR found that the relevant laws, the Extradition Act and the Foreigners Order, “are not fully consistent with the Convention”.

The NCHR was also critical of the measures taken to promote education and information regarding the prohibition of torture (Article 10 of UNCAT), or for prompt and impartial investigation (Article 12), or for guaranteeing the right to redress and compensation/rehabilitation (Article 14), or for statements obtained through torture.

CAT noted the discrepancies in the three reports and launched a barrage of questions that could not be answered and the delegation was reduced to seeking refuge in an Urdu poem that reflected its helplessness.

This unfortunate situation was the result of the government’s failure to consult the NCHR and civil society organisations in a proper manner. The government should have realised that the bureaucratic system of writing sub accha reports for gullible politicians won’t work at the UN.

There is a need to derive lessons from the poor apology for torture. Instead of venting its spleen against civil society or the NCHR, Islamabad must admit that torture is endemic in Pakistan and that it is necessary to revamp the criminal justice

system, check deviation from due process, and raise effective barriers to torture in law and

practice. The UN committee will be less angry if it is offered a truthful account and if the line of reform is clearly delineated.

Published in Dawn, April 27th, 2017