The appreciation of the intrinsic value of a fair trial and the formal recognition of this right have evolved over centuries. Today, these are intricately woven into the fabric of legal systems and human rights principles.

A milestone in this historical journey was the signing of the Magna Carta, in 1215. Although its primary focus was to check the powers of the monarchy, this seminal document also laid the foundation for the notion that individuals possess an inherent right to justice and a fair trial.

In the 17th and 18th Centuries, the ideas of individual rights and separation of powers influenced the framing of legal systems and contributed to the recognition of the idea of the right to fair trial.

In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, drafted in the aftermath of World War II, represented a collective global effort to establish a universal framework safeguarding fundamental human rights. Specifically, Article 10 of the 1948 declaration states that:

“Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.”

Despite the collaborative global endeavour enshrined in the 1948 declaration, the framers of our constitution were not entirely convinced about recognising “fair trial” as a fundamental human right. Notably, it was not until the year 2010 that the right to a fair trial was officially made part of our constitution, through the 18^th Amendment. Article 10-A of the constitution now stipulates that:

“For the determination of his civil rights and obligations or in any criminal charge against him, a person shall be entitled to a fair trial and due process.”

It is essential to emphasise that the right to a fair trial also encapsulates the right to be summoned or cited; the right to know the charges; the right to an investigation; the right to a defence; and the right to a just and public decision, based on due process.

Therefore, while upholding the rights of the citizens, in a multitude of judicial decisions, the superior courts have consistently affirmed that every citizen has an inherent and inalienable right to an expeditious and impartial trial.

Be that as it may, in the pursuit of security, the state has the authority to curtail the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution, no matter how well entrenched such rights may be.

The notion of a fair trial is central to human rights discourse, representing not only a fundamental right in itself but also an essential requirement to safeguard all other fundamental rights.

Without delving into the challenges and hardships that the common man has to face in pursuit of justice, it is noteworthy that even prominent people, such as former prime ministers, federal and provincial ministers and political workers often find themselves embroiled in legal cases, where the principles of natural justice appear, prima facie, compromised.

It is generally accepted that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's conviction and subsequent execution were the result of an unfair trial.

More recently, former prime minister Nawaz Sharif was accused of owning Avenfield apartments in London through illegal means. He was initially convicted and sentenced to 10-year prison term. After four years of self-exile, the former prime minister returned and surrendered to the Islamabad High Court leading to his acquittal. The reversal has led to renewed discussions on the intricacies of the legal processes and their implications.

Currently, another former prime minister, Imran Khan, being tied in the so-called Cipher Case, has had to obtain an order from the Islamabad High Court seeking a direction that he be provided a fair trial. This has, once again, brought to the fore the questions regarding the fairness and transparency of our legal system.

It is apparent that the gaps in the legal system make it convenient to not adhere to the principles of fair trial. However, the flaw cannot remain unaddressed for too long, considering that it not only undermines the legitimacy of individual cases but also erodes public trust in the judiciary as a whole.

The notion of a fair trial is central to human rights discourse, representing not only a fundamental right in itself but also an essential requirement to safeguard all other fundamental rights. Without this right, all others are jeopardised. If the state is unfairly advantaged in the process of conducting a trial, it cannot be prevented in the courts from abusing other fundamental rights.

In Pakistan, the interpretation and application of due process appear to be a work in progress.

The writer is a lawyer based in Lahore. He has a master’s in law from University of California, Berkeley. He can be reached at aitzaz@berkeley.edu