The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has stayed the execution of five ex-Navy officers who were previously sentenced to death through a general court martial decree, it emerged on Tuesday.

IHC’s Justice Babar Sattar issued a written order for Monday’s hearing on the request of Navy officers who said they were not provided legal assistance during the general court martial order.

The court order, a copy of which is available with Dawn.com, said the counsels for the petitioners argued that the documents permissible to be shared with their clients, such as the abstract of evidence and court of inquiry, were also not shared with them.

The lawyers asserted that an appeal was filed against the death sentence without access to these documents and was dismissed, adding that the reasons for the appeal court upholding the sentence were not shared with the petitioners.

Furthermore, the lawyers said that they were given limited access to documents despite a court order and this prevented the petitioners from defending their rights.

Meanwhile, Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Akeel Akhtar Raja said that Chief of the Naval Staff Admiral Naveed Ashraf had the authority to access the documents and according to rule 193 of the Pakistan Navy Rules, 1961, discretion was vested with him to form “an opinion that supply of any proceedings may be prejudicial to the safety or interests of the state”.

The AAG that in terms of the above rule, the naval chief had formed an opinion in the cases that sharing details of the proceedings, including the findings recorded by the general court martial and the order passed in appeal upholding the death penalty, “would be detrimental to the safety or the interests of the state”.

When asked as to whether the naval chief’s opinion was placed on file, the AAG replied in the negative and Deputy Judge Advocate General Hamid Hayat said that it would be available with the Pakistan Navy headquarters.

“The question before the court is as to how the interests of the state are to be balanced against the interests of an individual to his right to live as well as his right to due process guaranteed by Articles 9 and 10A of the Constitution.

“It appears to be the contention of the state is that given the opinion of the chief of naval staff that proceedings and reasoning for passing the death sentence cannot be shared with those against whom such death sentences have been passed, they have no further remedy under the law and the Constitution.

“The question therefore arises as to how the interests of the state in secrecy are to be balanced against the interests of a citizen to be informed of the reasons for which the state has decided to hang him and to provide him the relevant reasoning and material to be able to defend himself,” the order reads.

It directed that “given that the fundamental question of protection of right to life and due process is in question, the petitioners shall not be executed till the disposal of the petition.”

The order instructed the respondents to file the naval chief’s opinion within three weeks, along with the reasoning, about why he formed the opinion that sharing the proceedings about the petitioners would be detrimental to the state’s interests.

The case was adjourned to July 1.