Fair Trial Rights under Military Jurisdiction: Constitutional and International Perspectives from Pakistan and the UK

The rule of law and right of a fair trial and judgment forms the cornerstone of constitutional democracy. The eighteen amendments of constitution of Pakistan, Article 10A (2010) shipped the process from a judicial principle into a constitutional guarantee. This study aims to examine how these constitutional guarantees operate in practice when civilians are tried in military courts, using a comparative approach. however, the chronic trial of civilians before military courts continues to this guarantee. Basically, this is designed for maintaining discipline for the military, but these courts have enlarged their jurisdiction and include civilians blamed of terrorism also do wrong offences against state security. This study shows how Pakistan resolves its military jurisdiction through international obligations and national constitution to ensure a fair trial. this study examines Pakistan's legal and constitutional framework, as well as Britain’s neighboring Findley. International human rights level Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the general recommendation of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights 32. The study shows Pakistan’s main structural defects: the discreet methods, command influence, weak appeal rights, the absence of civilian oversight and explanation for legislation, and gaps in judicial and institutional processes. Comparative study with the British demonstrates that operational discipline and judicial freedom can coexist within constitutional checks. This article shows the reform structure proposing self-reliance appellate procedure, and also show governance reforms, and the supervision of parliament to match Pakistan’s military lawfulness with domestic fair trial and international fair-trial standards. It thus recommends an independent appellate process, enhanced civilian oversight, and stronger parliamentary supervision to align Pakistan’s military justice with domestic and international fair trial standards.

Article 10A Fair Trial · Military Justice · Civilian Oversight

1. Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. (2010). Eighteenth Amendment Act (insertion of Article 10A: Right to Fair Trial). Retrieved from https://pakistancode.gov.pk/pdffiles/administrator7f0dbe8685623b719ab97d92804b108b.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Government of Pakistan. (2015). The Twenty-First Amendment Act, 2015. Islamabad: Government Printing Office. Retrieved frohttps://pakistancode.gov.pk [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Amnesty International. (2015). Pakistan: Military courts – justice or revenge? Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa33/001/2015/en/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Supreme Court of Pakistan. (2015). District Bar Association, Rawalpindi v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2015 SC 401). Retrieved from https://caselaw.shc.gov.pk/caselaw/view-file/MTQ1MDMwY2Ztcy1kYzgz [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. European Court of Human Rights. (1997). Findlay v. The United Kingdom (Application No. 22107/93). Retrieved from https://www.refworld.org/jurisprudence/caselaw/echr/1997/en/14353 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. United Nations Human Rights Committee. (2007). General Comment No. 32: Article 14 – Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial. Retrieved from https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g10/102/94/pdf/g1010294.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Government of India. (1911). British Indian Army Act 1911. London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.278547 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. The News. (2023, June 12). Military trial of civilians. Retrieved from https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1079501-military-trial-of-civilians [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Dawn News. (2012, date unknown). State v Dost Muhammad Khan (PLD 1977 SC 1) & fair‐trial jurisprudence in Pakistan. (Note: full case text). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Supreme Court of Pakistan. (1998–1999). Mehram Ali v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1998 SC 1445); Liaquat Hussain v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1999 SC 504). Islamabad: Supreme Court Reports. Retrieved from https://pakistancode.gov.pk [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Supreme Court of Pakistan. (2012). Suo Motu Case No. 4 of 2010 (PLD 2012 SC 553) – definition of fair trial. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Supreme Court of Pakistan. (2015). District Bar Association, Rawalpindi v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2015 SC 401). Retrieved from https://caselaw.shc.gov.pk/caselaw/view-file/MTQ1MDMwY2Ztcy1kYzgz [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Government of Pakistan. (1952). Pakistan Army Act, 1952 (Sections 2 and 59). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. The News. (2023, October 23). A year after SC annulled military courts, civilians await justice. Retrieved from https://www.dawn.com/news/1866943/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. The Express Tribune. (2025, January 07). Can civilians be tried under Army Act? Supreme Court seeks clarity. Retrieved from https://tribune.com.pk/story/2520562/apex-court’s-cb-seeks-clarity-on-civilians-beingtried-under-army-act [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Amnesty International. (2023, May 22). Pakistan: Civilians must not be tried under military laws. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/05/pakistan-civilians-must-not-be-tried-under-militarylaws/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. International Commission of Jurists (ICJ). (2023). Military justice system: A glaring surrender of human rights in Pakistan. Retrieved from https://www.icj.org/pakistan-military-justice-system-reflects-a-glaringsurrender-of-human-rights/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. International Commission of Jurists (ICJ). (2015). Pakistan – The trial of civilians by military courts (Advocacy Analysis Brief). Retrieved from https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Pakistan-Q-and-AMilitary-Courts-Advocacy-Analysis-Brief-2015-ENG.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Human Rights Watch. (2024, December 18). Pakistan: Military courts lack transparency and due process. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/12/18/pakistan-military-courts-lack-transparency-and-dueprocess [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Dawn News. (2025, September 21). SC upholds military trials of civilians, seeks independent right of appeal. Retrieved from https://www.dawn.com/news/1891532 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Pakistan Today. (2025, September 22). Supreme Court upholds military trials, demands legislative right to appeal. Retrieved from https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2025/09/22/sc-upholds-military-trials-of-civiliansseeks-independent-rig [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. The Express Tribune. (2025, January 7). Can civilians be tried under Army Act? Supreme Court seeks clarity. Retrieved from https://tribune.com.pk/story/2520562/apex-court’s-cb-seeks-clarity-on-civilians-beingtried-under-army-act [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Business Recorder. (2025, May 8). SC allows civilians’ trial in military courts. Retrieved from https://www.brecorder.com/news/40361637-sc-allows-civilians-trial-in-military-courts [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. The Express Tribune. (2025, January 7). Can civilians be tried under Army Act? Supreme Court seeks clarity. Retrieved from https://tribune.com.pk/story/2520562/apex-court’s-cb-seeks-clarity-on-civilians-beingtried-under-army-act [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. European Court of Human Rights. (1997). Findlay v. The United Kingdom (Application no. 22107/93), [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Judgment of 25 February 1997. Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58031 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. United Kingdom Government. (2006). Armed Forces Act 2006 (Chapter 52). Retrieved from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/52/contents [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Ministry of Defence (UK). (2017). The Armed Forces (Court Martial) Rules 2009 – Updated Guidance. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-armed-forces-court-martial-rules [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. House of Commons Defence Committee. (2021). Fairness, Justice and the Armed Forces: An Update (HC 90, Session 2021–22). Retrieved fromhttps://committees.parliament.uk/publications/7879/documents/81813/default/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. United Nations Human Rights Committee. (2007). General Comment No. 32: Article 14 – Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial. Retrieved from https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g10/102/94/pdf/g1010294.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. United Nations Human Rights Committee. (2007). General Comment No. 32: Article 14 – Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial. Retrieved from https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g10/102/94/pdf/g1010294.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Parliament of the United Kingdom. (2023). Annual Armed Forces Covenant Report 2023. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/armed-forces-covenant-annual-report-2023 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Unitd Nations. (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) – Article 14. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civiland-political-rights [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Inter-American Court of Human Rights. (2004). Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru, Judgment of December 3, 2004. Retrieved from https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_100_ing.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. (2000). Media Rights Agenda v. Nigeria, Communication No. 224/98. Retrieved from https://achpr.au.int/en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). (2020). Individual Complaint Procedures under the Human Rights Treaties. Geneva: OHCHR. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/individual-communications [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. (1973). Articles 4, 9, 25, and 175(3) – Fundamental Rights and Separation of Powers. Retrieved from https://pakistancode.gov.pk [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. (1999). Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Series C No. 52. Retrieved from https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_52_ing.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Law Society of Zambia v. Zambia. (2018). Judgment of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Application No. 006/2015). Retrieved from https://www.african-court.org/cpmt/details-case [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Pakistan Army (Amendment) Act. (2015). An Act to amend the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, to provide for the trial of certain offences relating to terrorism by military courts. Retrieved from https://pakistancode.gov.pk [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. United Nations Human Rights Committee. (2007). General Comment No. 32: Article 14 – Right to equality before courts and to a fair trial. Retrieved from https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g10/102/94/pdf/g1010294.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Qanun-e-Shahadat Order. (1984). Law of Evidence Order (President’s Order No. 10 of 1984). Retrieved from https://pakistancode.gov.pk/pdffiles/5b5d56dbeaa3d8c3d4b71b43b507e15e.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Crown Prosecution Service. (2018). Service Prosecuting Authority: Structure and Function. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/service-prosecuting-authority [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Ministry of Defence (UK). (2018). Manual of Service Law (JSP 830), Volume 1: Legal Framework. London: MOD. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/jsp-830-manual-of-service-law [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. United Nations Human Rights Committee. (2007). General Comment No. 32: Article 14 – Right to equalitybeforecourtsand to a fair trial. Retrieved from https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g10/102/94/pdf/g1010294.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. United Kingdom Ministry of Defense. (2022). Legal Aid in the Service Justice System: Policy Guidance (JSP 838). Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/jsp-838-legal-aid-in-the-service-justice-system [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. House of Commons Defense Committee. (2021). Fairness and Effectiveness in the Armed Forces’ Service Justice System. London: UK Parliament. Retrieved from https://committees.parliament.uk/work/511/fairnessand-effectiveness-in-the-service-justice-system/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Council of Europe. (2019). European Guidelines on Ethics and Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). (2012). Trial Monitoring: A Reference Manual for Practitioners. Warsaw: OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). Retrieved from https://www.osce.org/odihr/trial-monitoring-reference-manual [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Impact of Ownership Structure on Dividend Payout Policy of Listed Plantation Companies in Sri Lanka
• Urban Sustainability in North-East India: A Study through the lens of NER-SDG index
• Performance Assessment of Predictive Forecasting Techniques for Enhancing Hospital Supply Chain Efficiency in Healthcare Logistics
• The Fractured Self in Julian Barnes' Postmodern Fiction: Identity Crisis and Deflation in Metroland and the Sense of an Ending
• Impact of Flood on the Employment, Labour Productivity and Migration of Agricultural Labour in North Bihar