"\u003chtml xmlns:o=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office\"\r\nxmlns:w=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word\"\r\nxmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chead\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta http-equiv=Content-Type content=\"text/html; charset=windows-1252\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=ProgId content=Word.Document\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Generator content=\"Microsoft Word 11\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Originator content=\"Microsoft Word 11\"\u003e\r\n\u003clink rel=File-List href=\"2021J4_files/filelist.xml\"\u003e\r\n\u003ctitle\u003eCONVICTING THE INNOCENT: LESSONS LEARNT \u003c/title\u003e\r\n\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003co:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Author\u003eUser\u003c/o:Author\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Template\u003eNormal\u003c/o:Template\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastAuthor\u003eUser\u003c/o:LastAuthor\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Revision\u003e2\u003c/o:Revision\u003e\r\n  \u003co:TotalTime\u003e0\u003c/o:TotalTime\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Created\u003e2021-10-19T01:29:00Z\u003c/o:Created\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastSaved\u003e2021-10-19T01:29:00Z\u003c/o:LastSaved\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Pages\u003e1\u003c/o:Pages\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Words\u003e3013\u003c/o:Words\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Characters\u003e17179\u003c/o:Characters\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Company\u003eHOME\u003c/o:Company\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Lines\u003e143\u003c/o:Lines\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Paragraphs\u003e40\u003c/o:Paragraphs\u003e\r\n  \u003co:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e20152\u003c/o:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Version\u003e11.5606\u003c/o:Version\u003e\r\n \u003c/o:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003cw:WordDocument\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DoNotHyphenateCaps/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:PunctuationKerning/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing\u003e6 pt\u003c/w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing\u003e6 pt\u003c/w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery\u003e0\u003c/w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery\u003e3\u003c/w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:UseMarginsForDrawingGridOrigin/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:ValidateAgainstSchemas\u003efalse\u003c/w:ValidateAgainstSchemas\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003efalse\u003c/w:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:IgnoreMixedContent\u003efalse\u003c/w:IgnoreMixedContent\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003efalse\u003c/w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DoNotUnderlineInvalidXML/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DoNotShadeFormData/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:Compatibility\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:FootnoteLayoutLikeWW8/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:ShapeLayoutLikeWW8/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:AlignTablesRowByRow/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:ForgetLastTabAlignment/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:LayoutRawTableWidth/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:LayoutTableRowsApart/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:UseWord97LineBreakingRules/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:SelectEntireFieldWithStartOrEnd/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:UseWord2002TableStyleRules/\u003e\r\n  \u003c/w:Compatibility\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:BrowserLevel\u003eMicrosoftInternetExplorer4\u003c/w:BrowserLevel\u003e\r\n \u003c/w:WordDocument\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003cw:LatentStyles DefLockedState=\"false\" LatentStyleCount=\"156\"\u003e\r\n \u003c/w:LatentStyles\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\r\n\u003cstyle\u003e\r\n\u003c!--\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\n p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal\r\n\t{mso-style-parent:\"\";\r\n\tmargin:0in;\r\n\tmargin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tfont-size:12.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tmso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";}\r\n /* Page Definitions */\r\n @page\r\n\t{mso-page-border-surround-header:no;\r\n\tmso-page-border-surround-footer:no;}\r\n@page Section1\r\n\t{size:8.5in 11.0in;\r\n\tmargin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;\r\n\tmso-header-margin:.5in;\r\n\tmso-footer-margin:.5in;\r\n\tmso-paper-source:0;}\r\ndiv.Section1\r\n\t{page:Section1;}\r\n--\u003e\r\n\u003c/style\u003e\r\n\u003c!--[if gte mso 10]\u003e\r\n\u003cstyle\u003e\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\n table.MsoNormalTable\r\n\t{mso-style-name:\"Table Normal\";\r\n\tmso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;\r\n\tmso-tstyle-colband-size:0;\r\n\tmso-style-noshow:yes;\r\n\tmso-style-parent:\"\";\r\n\tmso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\r\n\tmso-para-margin:0in;\r\n\tmso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tfont-size:10.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tmso-ansi-language:#0400;\r\n\tmso-fareast-language:#0400;\r\n\tmso-bidi-language:#0400;}\r\n\u003c/style\u003e\r\n\u003c![endif]--\u003e\r\n\u003c/head\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cbody lang=EN-US style=\u0027tab-interval:.5in;text-justify-trim:punctuation\u0027\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=Section1\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:6.5pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eCONVICTING THE\r\nINNOCENT: LESSONS LEARNT \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:6.5pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eBy\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:6.5pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eMichelle Shahid \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:6.5pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(Bertha Justice\r\nFellow at the Foundation for Fundamental Rights)\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:6.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe strength of our criminal justice\r\nsystem depends on its accuracy - its ability to convict the guilty and\r\nexonerate the innocent. In Pakistan, a failure of justice is no longer an\r\nexception to the norm: thousands of people have been wrongfully convicted in a\r\nsystem defined by official indifference to innocence and error. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eWhile miscarriages of justice occur daily\r\nthrough the negligence of one or more actors of the criminal justice system,\r\nthese instances largely go unnoticed and consequently, unaccounted for. A\r\nrecent report by the Foundation for Fundamental Rights and Reprieve, \u003ci\u003e\u003cu\u003eThe\r\nPakistan Capital Punishment Study\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/i\u003e, reveals a harsh reality: in the 9\r\nyears from 2010 to 2018, the Supreme Court overruled decisions made by lower\r\ncourts in 78% of capital cases, of which 39% were acquittals. Thus, nearly two\r\nin every five prisoners sentenced to death were determined to have been wrongfully\r\nconvicted and may in fact be innocent of the crime for which they had been\r\nconvicted, if their cases reached the apex Court at all. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThese statistics reveal systemic flaws in\r\nPakistan\u0027s criminal justice system, resulting in grave, often irreversible,\r\nmiscarriages of justice. Behind these miscarriages of justice, there are\r\nserious evidential and prosecutorial failings at the trial and the High Court\r\nlevels, and unquestionably, human lives at stake. As FFR\u0027s study reveals, the\r\nSupreme Court of Pakistan has effectively been forced to \u0027correct\u0027 evidential\r\nerrors made by the lower courts in capital cases. However, lack of\r\naccountability of the police, prosecutors, judges and jail officials inevitably\r\npaves way for a justice system that permits malpractice at each stage of the\r\nprocess - from arrest, to trial, appeal and post-conviction review. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe \u003ci\u003ePakistan Capital Punishment Study \u003c/i\u003efurther\r\nelucidates the most recurrent reasons for which a conviction is found to be\r\nunsafe by the Supreme Court, providing direct evidence of the pervasiveness of\r\nacts that constitute miscarriages of justice in Pakistan. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe Supreme Court\u0027s most serious\r\ncriticisms of proceedings in the lower courts have arisen from reliance on\r\ndubious eye-witness testimony, especially where that testimony is not\r\ncorroborated by independent physical evidence. In 70% of the cases where the\r\nSupreme Court acquitted the accused, the reason for the acquittal was that the\r\nlower courts wrongly relied on weak witness testimony.\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eMoreover, in 74% of the acquittals in capital\r\ncases from 2015 - 2018, the apex Court found that the trial court had imposed a\r\ndeath sentence without sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused,\r\nspecifically where the evidence produced was based on weapons. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eImproper identification of the accused\r\nand flawed identification parade procedures further exacerbates the\r\nmiscarriages stemming from the justice system. According to the study, in one\r\nof six judgements where an acquittal was ordered, the Supreme Court found that\r\nthe trial court had sentenced an accused to death despite him not having been\r\nproperly identified as the culprit who caused the fatal injury.\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eIn one out of eleven acquittal cases from\r\n2015 - 2018, the Supreme Court found that the lower courts had sentenced an\r\naccused to death by relying on an identification parade that did not follow\r\nproper procedures, meaning the accused spent years on death row without being\r\nproperly identified as the guilty party. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIn addition to the evidentiary failings\r\nat the trial level, irregularities at the investigation level, which the\r\nSupreme Court finds indicative of police misconduct, take several forms, such\r\nas an unexplained delay in registering the First Information Report (which\r\nserves as the initial report of the crime and the basis for all future\r\ninvestigation) or in conducting the post-mortem examination. In cases where the\r\nSupreme Court identified signs of police corruption in the course of the\r\ncriminal investigation, it overwhelmingly found the evidence insufficient to prove\r\nthe accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and thus acquitted on all\r\ncharges.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eThe frequent references to\r\nuntrustworthy and suspicious evidence make clear that the Supreme Court itself\r\nrecognizes the prevalence of corruption and falsity in police investigations.\r\nUnsurprisingly, in 14% of reported cases where the Supreme Court acquitted the\r\naccused, it found that a confession relied upon by the lower courts was\r\ninvoluntary, retracted or obtained using improper procedure during the\r\ninvestigation stage. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eLack of criminal intent also remains one\r\nof the foremost causes of the high rate of acquittals - a review of capital\r\ncases from 2015 to 2017 showed that in 40% of acquittals, the Supreme Court\r\nfound that the prosecution had failed to establish the very basic element of\r\n\u0026quot;\u003ci\u003eintention, guilty mind or motive\u003c/i\u003e\u0026quot; of the accused. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eEach of the systemic failings described\r\nabove constitute human rights violations, that the supreme law of the land, the\r\nConstitution of Pakistan, guarantees for all citizens, including those that\r\nhave been accused of committing a criminal offence. Where investigations and\r\ntrials are conducted without conforming to criminal justice safeguards and are\r\nrife with negligence at various stages, convictions cannot be said to be \u0026quot;\u003ci\u003efair\u003c/i\u003e\u0026quot;\r\nunder Article 10-A and \u0026quot;\u003ci\u003ein accordance with law\u003c/i\u003e\u0026quot; under Article\r\n4 of the Constitution. Any consequent deprivation of liberty and life,\r\ntherefore, violates Article 9 of the Constitution. Moreover, condemning\r\ninnocent persons to live in squalid, overcrowded conditions is nothing short of\r\nundignified, degrading treatment, violating Article 14 of the Constitution.\r\nThese violations compel the conclusion that Pakistan\u0027s justice system is\r\nunreliable; where its failure infringes Fundamental Rights, liability must\r\nensue. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eEven the most efficiently functioning\r\nlegal systems are prone to mistakes that can have dire consequences on\r\nindividuals and communities. Persons who have spent years in prison struggle to\r\nadjust to life after their incarceration and are often unable to find employment.\r\nFor this reason, most criminal law jurisdictions affirm the right of\r\nindividuals to seek compensation from the State for wrongful convictions. A\r\nredressal mechanism in several jurisdictions stems from Article 14(6) of the\r\nInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). It states:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;6. When a person has by a final decision been\r\nconvicted of a criminal offence and when subsequently his conviction has been\r\nreversed or he has been pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered\r\nfact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice, the\r\nperson who has suffered punishment as a result of such conviction shall be\r\ncompensated according to law, unless it is proved that the non-disclosure of\r\nthe unknown fact in time is wholly or partly attributable to him.\u0026quot;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe United Nations Human Rights\r\nCommittee, in its General Comment No.32 (2007), expounded upon Article 14(6),\r\nstating that \u003ci\u003e\u0026quot;It is necessary that State parties enact legislation\r\nensuring that compensation as required by this provision can in fact be paid\r\nand that payment is made within a reasonable period of time.\u0026quot;\u003c/i\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe ICCPR and the UN Human Rights\r\nCommittee cumulatively emphasise the need for a legislative framework for\r\npayment of compensation to victims of miscarriage of justice. Pakistan, despite\r\nbeing a signatory to the ICCPR, is yet to incorporate a compensatory regime in\r\nits domestic law - a grim reality for a system oriented more towards the need\r\nto secure blame through convictions than to impart justice.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eCompensatory regimes: A comparative analysis\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eWhile several legal systems have adopted\r\nArticle 14(6) of the ICCPR, these also present widely divergent views on what\r\ncourse of events and which factual scenarios fall within the net of statutorily\r\nrecognized and consequently, compensable miscarriages of justice. In the UK,\r\nfor example, a two pronged and thereby highly exclusionary definition is\r\nemployed. For a claim for compensation for a miscarriage of justice, the\r\nCriminal Justice Act, 1988 requires, firstly, that the conviction be reversed\r\nor the convict be pardoned on the grounds of a \u003ci\u003e\u0027new or newly discovered\r\nfact\u0027\u003c/i\u003e and additionally, the individual whose prior conviction has been\r\nquashed by the Court must also show \u0027\u003ci\u003ebeyond reasonable doubt\u003c/i\u003e\u0027 that they \u003ci\u003e\u0027did\r\nnot commit the offence\u003c/i\u003e,\u0027 unless the non-disclosure of this fact was wholly\r\nor partly attributable to the applicant. The test for compensation, therefore,\r\nrequires the applicant to establish that a new fact proves his innocence beyond\r\nreasonable doubt, effectively introducing a third verdict, other than \u0027\u003ci\u003eguilty\u003c/i\u003e\u0027\r\nand \u0027\u003ci\u003enot guilty\u003c/i\u003e,\u0027 or \u0027\u003ci\u003efactually innocent.\u003c/i\u003e\u0027\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe consequence of recognizing a verdict\r\nof \u0027\u003ci\u003efactually innocent\u003c/i\u003e\u0027 in claims of compensation is such that there now\r\nexists a differentiation between two tests: the criminal one (whereby the\r\napplicant is declared \u0027\u003ci\u003enot guilty\u003c/i\u003e\u0027 and acquitted of all charges or is\r\npardoned) and the following, separate, civil one (for which a new fact must\r\nestablish innocence beyond reasonable doubt). This places the applicant as innocent\r\nin the eyes of the criminal law but requires a different and stricter level of\r\nproof to substantiate the civil claim to compensation.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIn assessing any compensation payable\r\nunder the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as is attributable to suffering, harm to\r\nreputation or similar damage, the statute specifically requires the assessor to\r\nconsider (a) the seriousness of the offence of which the person was convicted\r\nand the severity of the punishment suffered as a result of the conviction, and\r\n(b) the conduct of the investigation and prosecution of the offence.\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eNotably, not only does the assessment\r\ncriteria require a consideration of the offence and punishment suffered but\r\nalso recognizes and compensates the victim for harm suffered as a consequence\r\nof prosecutorial and police misconduct.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003ePerhaps, a more generous scheme\r\ncompensating victims of miscarriages of justice is that of New Zealand\u0027s\r\nMinistry of Justice\u0027s Guidelines on Compensation for Wrongful Conviction and\r\nImprisonment (May 2015). The Guidelines outline the eligibility criteria of\r\nclaimants for compensation and stipulate a mechanism for the award of\r\ncompensation - an individual is eligible for compensation if he is imprisoned\r\nfollowing a wrongful conviction that is subsequently set aside and is, at a\r\nminimum, innocent on the balance of probabilities, meaning that a claimant only\r\nhas to show that, based on the evidence produced, it is more probable than not\r\nthat he is innocent of the charges for which he had been convicted.\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eIn making awards\r\nfor compensation, it is not only that the standard of proof is more lenient\r\nthan in the UK but also that the process of claiming is subject to different\r\nrequirements. Whereas, in a criminal trial only legally admissible evidence is\r\nallowed, in contrast, for claims of compensation conducted under the\r\nGuidelines, the Queen\u0027s Counsel is able to receive any evidence which has a\r\nbearing on the issue - this may include evidence that for one reason or another\r\nwas not heard at trial and evidence which was adduced but not received for the\r\npurpose of the appeal. New Zealand also allows for victims of miscarriage of\r\njustice who do not fall under the eligibility criteria for compensation and ex\r\ngratia payments, to seek compensation where exceptional circumstances are found\r\nto exist and where it is in the interests of justice.\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIt is notable that New Zealand\u0027s\r\ncompensation regime stretches beyond pecuniary losses and makes provision for\r\nnon-pecuniary losses as a portion of compensation and also provides for a\r\npublic apology or statement of innocence - an applaudable step towards\r\nrestoring the claimant\u0027s dignity and liberty, lost as a consequence of the\r\nState\u0027s failure to achieve the ends of justice.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eConversely, in the United States, the\r\nfundamental criteria for establishing a miscarriage of justice, laid down in\r\nTitle 28 of the Code of Law of the United States, is an \u0026quot;\u003ci\u003eunjust\r\nconviction\u003c/i\u003e\u0026quot;, coupled with imprisonment. An unjust conviction is one in\r\nwhich a conviction is overturned on appeal or revision, or the convict is\r\naccorded presidential pardon on the grounds that he was innocent of the crime\r\nhe was charged, convicted and punished for. A claimant, therefore, is required\r\nto establish a miscarriage of justice in the district court of conviction and\r\nobtain a Certificate of Innocence, which then allows him to claim damages in\r\nthe US Court of Federal Claims. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe standard of proof for obtaining a\r\nCertificate of Innocence is of preponderance of evidence (\u003ci\u003e\u003cu\u003eAbu Shawish v.\r\nUS 898 F. 3d 726\u003c/u\u003e (7th Circuit, 2018)\u003c/i\u003e). Accordingly, a claimant must\r\n\u0026quot;\u003ci\u003eallege and prove\u003c/i\u003e\u0026quot; that the acquittal or reversal was based on\r\na finding that he \u0026quot;\u003ci\u003ewas not guilty of such offence\u003c/i\u003e\u0026quot; and also,\r\nthat he did not commit any of the acts he was charged with.\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eA claimant is eligible to make a claim also\r\nwhere his conviction has been reversed or set aside and upon retrial, he has\r\nbeen found innocent of the charges against him. Alternatively, he may file for\r\ndamages if, in addition to a subsequent acquittal or reversal of conviction\r\nbased on a finding of \u0027not-guilty\u0027, he demonstrates that his acts or omissions\r\nin connection with the charge did not constitute an offence. In conducting\r\nthese proceedings, the Court enjoys wide discretion to call for and accept\r\nadditional evidence, as well as to regulate its own proceedings.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eWhile guidance can be sought from the\r\njurisdictions outlined above, greater insight into the nature of miscarriage of\r\njustice in Pakistan can be had by comparison with India. Like Pakistan, India\r\nhas not yet instituted a formal law to provide redressal to instances of\r\nmiscarriage of justice. However, recently, the High Court of Delhi in the case\r\nof \u003ci\u003e\u003cu\u003eBabloo Chauhan @ Dabloo v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/i\u003e [247\r\n(2018) DLT 31], highlighted the urgent need for a legislative framework for\r\nproviding relief and rehabilitation to victims of wrongful prosecution and\r\nasked the Law Commission of India to undertake a comprehensive examination of\r\nthe aforesaid issues and make a recommendation thereon to the Government of\r\nIndia. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe Law Commission, in its Report, \u003ci\u003eWrongful\r\nProsecution (Miscarriage of Justice): Legal Remedies\u003c/i\u003e, recommended an\r\namendment to Indian Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which would incorporate a\r\nredressal mechanism for victims of miscarriage of justice. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe Law Commission of India\u0027s Report\r\nperuses the standard of miscarriage of justice envisaged under Article 14(6) of\r\nthe ICCPR as well as by western jurisdictions and concludes that while quashing\r\na conviction based on \u0026quot;\u003ci\u003enew or newly discovered fact\u003c/i\u003e\u0026quot; has its\r\nown merits for the purposes of a claim for compensation, this standard fails to\r\nencapsulate all instances of miscarriage of justice prevalent in India\u0027s\r\ncriminal justice system. The Law Commission noted that limited technical\r\nadvancement and lack of zeal of investigative agencies in India hardly left any\r\nscope for discovery of \u0026quot;\u003ci\u003enew facts proving factual innocence of the\r\nconvict\u003c/i\u003e\u0026quot;. Moreover, in the absence of advanced DNA databases and other\r\ntools of forensic investigation that exist in developed countries, proving\r\nfactual innocence in India is improbable and therefore, problematic. Systemic\r\nfailings in India mean that an individual, in his interaction with the justice\r\nsystem, undergoes prolonged incarceration, torture in police custody, tampering\r\nof evidence, prosecutorial misconduct and delays in legal proceedings, before\r\nhe is finally acquitted. In view thereof, a definition of wrongful conviction\r\nmust account for the various injustices suffered by an innocent person, noting\r\nthat the same is not covered under the limited parameters provided under\r\nArticle 14(6) of the ICCPR. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eTherefore, the Law Commission proposed\r\nthat the standard to determine whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred\r\nshould be of wrongful prosecution, including both, malicious prosecution and\r\nprosecution instituted without good faith. Malicious prosecution is defined as\r\nprosecution without \u0026quot;\u003ci\u003ereasonable or probable cause\u003c/i\u003e\u0026quot; i.e. honest\r\nbelief in the guilt of the accused, founded upon the existence of circumstances\r\nwhich would lead an ordinary, prudent or cautious man to the conclusion that the\r\nperson charged was probably guilty of the crime. Whereas, prosecution without\r\ngood faith has been expounded in light of the definition of \u0026quot;\u003ci\u003egood faith\u003c/i\u003e\u0026quot;\r\nstipulated in Section 52 of the Indian Penal Code, which states that no act is\r\ndone in good faith if it is done without \u0026quot;\u003ci\u003edue care and attention\u003c/i\u003e\u0026quot;\r\n- where due care denotes the degree of reasonableness in the care sought to be\r\nexercised when holding an office or duty requiring skill or care. The standard\r\nof proof is recommended to be of \u0027\u003ci\u003ebalance of probabilities\u003c/i\u003e.\u0027\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:6.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eAccordingly, the Commission recommended\r\nthe establishment of special courts, designated to hear claims filed by\r\naggrieved persons. A claim can be taken for harm or damage to body, mind,\r\nreputation or property as a result of the wrongful prosecution, and can be\r\ninitiated by the accused person himself, his agent or in case of death, the\r\naccused\u0027s legal heirs. In awarding compensation, the court must include\r\npecuniary as well as non-pecuniary assistance to effectuate rehabilitation of\r\nthe \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003evictims. Non-pecuniary assistance\r\nshall also include a specific provision for removing any disqualification\r\nattached to the conviction (for example, custody of children or exclusion from\r\nemployment opportunities). The Commission also recommended that guiding\r\nprinciples for determination of pecuniary compensation may be provided,\r\nincluding gravity of the charged offence, severity of punishment, length of\r\nincarceration, damage to health, loss of opportunities and damage to \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003ereputation.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:6.5pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eA way forward\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:6.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eWhile a comparative analysis of redressal\r\nmechanisms in other jurisdictions is instructive, a compensatory regime in\r\nPakistan must be contextually appropriate. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:6.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe definitions of miscarriage of justice\r\nadopted by comparative jurisdictions recognize that, in spite of reasonable diligence\r\nof state actors and a trial conducted in good faith, there are circumstances\r\nwhere there is a failure to dispense justice. Moreover, in these jurisdictions,\r\nobstruction of justice, including by way of false evidence, false witness\r\ntestimony and evidence tampering, are punishable offences. While analogous\r\nprovisions can be found in the Pakistan Penal Code (such as malicious\r\nprosecution), complaints are rarely filed under these provisions and those who\r\nobstruct justice are rarely prosecuted. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:6.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eA definition of miscarriage of justice,\r\ntherefore, must reflect the reality of Pakistan\u0027s criminal justice system,\r\nwhere negligence and misconduct at investigation and trial are the most\r\nrecurrent causes of wrongful convictions, as revealed by the findings of \u003ci\u003eThe\r\nPakistan Capital Punishment Study\u003c/i\u003e. In drafting a law that establishes a\r\nredressal mechanism for such instances in Pakistan, it is also imperative to\r\nremain cognizant of Fundamental Rights of the wrongfully convicted that are\r\nviolated as a direct consequence of their interaction with the criminal justice\r\nsystem and the ensuing miscarriage of justice. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:6.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIn awarding compensation, factors taken\r\ninto consideration must include loss of liberty, emotional harm, loss of\r\nreputation and loss or interruption of family or other personal relationships,\r\nloss of livelihood, including loss of earnings, loss of future earning\r\nabilities, loss of property or other consequential financial losses resulting\r\nfrom detention or imprisonment and costs incurred by or on behalf of the person\r\nin obtaining a pardon or acquittal. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:6.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eA legal system that prides itself in\r\ndispensing justice on the basis of innocent until proven guilty, must now atone\r\nfor and prevent these devastating tragedies. Disturbing trends of high rates of\r\nacquittals show how broken the criminal justice system is and the urgent need\r\nfor reform.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eIn the fight for justice,\r\nPakistan must not forget those that have suffered due to the system\u0027s own\r\nfailings. Even one innocent person in prison is one too many. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/body\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/html\u003e\r\n"