Here’s a partial list of countries where terrorists are tried in military courts or tribunals: United States, United Kingdom, France, Israel, Egypt, Turkey, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Russia, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Colombia, Nigeria, Kenya, Philippines and Sri Lanka. There exists a clear connection between terrorism and the delayed dispensation of justice.
The effectiveness of justice as a deterrent is maximized when the punishment for terrorist acts is both certain and severe. Swift and decisive justice conveys a resolute message to society at large, firmly establishing a stance of zero tolerance towards terrorism. With a clear understanding of the inevitable consequences, potential terrorists may be deterred from participating in such activities.
Pakistan serves as a prominent illustration, where prolonged legal proceedings and delays in cases related to terrorism have significantly undermined the deterrent effect. Exploiting the gaps in the justice system, terrorists strategize and carry out further attacks with increased impunity.
The deterrence theory is directly linked to the rational choice theory, suggesting that potential terrorists weigh the potential benefits and costs of their actions. If the perceived cost (punishment) outweighs the benefits (committing terrorist acts), individuals are less likely to engage in terrorism.
To be certain, protracted trials in Pakistan have yielded two discernible outcomes: prolonged public anxiety and fear.
Delayed justice in terrorist cases has meant degradation of witness testimonies, rendering it exceedingly challenging to secure convictions. An instructive example can be drawn from Iraq, where terrorism trials have been characterized by significant delays. Witnesses in these cases encounter security threats, resulting in alterations to their testimonies or a reluctance to testify altogether, thereby fostering an environment conducive to further acts of terrorism. In Egypt, prolonged detentions of suspected terrorists have been linked to the radicalization of individuals inside prisons, exacerbating the overall terrorism threat. Pakistan can draw valuable lessons from Nigeria, where, akin to the situation in Pakistan, the legal system grapples with a substantial backlog of cases.
The constraints in resources and efficiency impede the capacity to respond effectively to the ever-changing security landscape in both countries. If the United States, United Kingdom, France, Israel, Egypt, Turkey, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Russia, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Colombia, Nigeria, Kenya, Philippines and Sri Lanka are employing military courts to address terrorism, the imperative for swift and decisive justice is undeniable.
The definite correlation between delayed justice and heightened security threats, must serve as a compelling cautionary tale. For Pakistan to take a proactive approach is imperative. Pakistan must ensure that justice becomes a potent deterrent against terrorism, safeguarding the nation and its people from the perils of prolonged insecurity.
Court asked appellants to satisfy it on next hearing that how decision of single bench was not right
Petitioner’s lawyer informed court that parliament had passed 26th Constitutional Amendment
CM urged people to choose between resisting oppression and embracing freedom or continuing under shackles of slavery
Committee emphasised need for effective legislation to safeguard rights of parliamentarians
Muzammil Aslam highlighted need for 5,000 watersheds in KP, requiring an investment of Rs 115 billion
Justice Shahzad observed that with support of appellant, 85% power theft was witnessed in his locality
