The European Union (EU) has raised concerns regarding recent verdicts issued by Pakistan’s military courts against 25 civilians being guilty for attacks on military installations during the May 9 riots.
EU has mentioned that these sentences do not meet with the Pakistan’s commitment regarding fair and public trial of every person.
“The European Union expresses concern with the conviction of of 25 civilians by a military court on 21 December in Pakistan,” European External Action Service (EEAS) in Brussels issued a statement.
This statement come after military courts sentenced 25 citizens to prison terms ranging from 2 to 10 years for attacking military installations during the May 9 protests.
The EU contends that these rulings contravene Pakistan’s international commitments under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Pakistan is a signatory.
Under Article 14 of the ICCPR, individuals have rights to an impartial, independent, and competent tribunal. The article further read that courts must make criminal judgments public.
The EU expressed alarm that such convictions by military courts appear inconsistent with Pakistan’s international human rights obligations.
The EU also reminded Pakistan of its obligations under the Generalized Scheme of Preferences (GSP+). GSP+ grants Pakistan trade access to the European market, contingent on implementing 27 international conventions, including the ICCPR.
The GSP+ status offers significant economic benefits, allowing Pakistan duty-free access for key exports. However, this status is conditional on Pakistan demonstrating progress in areas like governance, human rights and environmental protection.
Since Pakistan joined the GSP+ program in 2014, its exports to the EU have surged by 65%, making it a vital driver of the country’s trade.
Now, EU have expressed its concerns over the GSP+ program continuity. The EU emphasized the importance of Pakistan adhering to international legal standards and ensuring transparent judicial processes to further collaborate.
In response of these concerns from EU, the military defended the sentences, stating “Rulings followed comprehensive evidence reviews and legal procedures”. It further stated that the defendants were granted their legal rights during the trials.
