Pakistan

The police have primary internal security responsibilities, although paramilitary forces, such as the Rangers and the Frontier Constabulary, provide support in areas where law and order problems are acute, such as Karachi and the frontier areas. Provincial governments control the police and the paramilitary forces when they are assisting in law and order operations. In August despite criticism from human rights groups, the Government promulgated the Police Ordinance 2002 that included an increase in political control of the police. During some religious holidays, the regular army was deployed in sensitive areas to help maintain public order. Some members of the police committed numerous serious human rights abuses.

Pakistan is a poor country with great extremes in the distribution of wealth; its population was approximately 142 million. Cotton, textiles and apparel, rice, and leather products are the principal exports. The economy included both state-run and private industries and financial institutions. The Constitution provides for the right of private businesses to operate freely in most sectors of the economy, and there continued to be a strong private sector. The per capita annual income was approximately $475. During the year, the Government pursued several economic reforms designed to alleviate poverty.

The Government's human rights record remained poor; although there were some improvements in a few areas, serious problems remained. Citizens participated in national government elections during the year; however, many observers alleged serious flaws in the legal framework for the election. Unlike in previous years, police committed an increased number of extrajudicial killings. There were fewer killings between rival political factions and sectarian groups during the year; however, there was an increase in violence against Christians. Police abused and raped citizens. While the officers responsible for such abuses sometimes were transferred or suspended for their actions, no officer has been convicted and very few have been arrested. In Karachi there were signs of progress in redressing police excesses; however, in general police continued to commit serious abuses with impunity. Prison conditions remained extremely poor and life threatening, and police arbitrarily arrested and detained citizens. During the year, the Government undertook a major effort to curb religious extremism. Five organizations responsible for sectarian killings were banned by year's end, and the Government accelerated a crackdown on members of several extremist religious groups. Several major political leaders remained in exile abroad at year's end. Case backlogs led to long delays in trials, and lengthy pretrial detention was common. The judiciary was subject to executive and other outside influences, corruption, inefficiency, and lack of resources remained problems. The Government has taken steps to control the judiciary and to remove itself from judicial oversight. Some aspects of the Government's implementation of its anticorruption campaign violated due process. By year’s end, two senior Muslim League politicians, Javed Hashmi and Mehtab Abassi were released on bail. The Government infringed on citizens' privacy rights.

The press was able to publish relatively freely; however, several journalists practiced self-censorship, especially on sensitive issues related to the military. Provincial and local governments occasionally arrested journalists and closed newspapers critical of the Government or allegedly accused of printing offensive material. The broadcast media remained a closely controlled government monopoly. Journalists were targets of harassment and violence by individuals and groups. On January 23, Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl was abducted by terrorists and later killed. During the year, the Government sporadically permitted several large antigovernment demonstrations; however, it prevented other protests and arrested organizers, including for security reasons. The Government imposed some limits on freedom of association, religion, and movement. President Musharraf has spoken out against some of the human rights abuses of the previous government; however, the Government only made minimal progress toward achieving the goals set at conferences devoted to human rights themes that were held during the year.

Significant numbers of women were subjected to violence, rape, and other forms of abuse by spouses and members of society. The Government publicly criticized the practice of "honor killings" but such killings continued throughout the country; however, the Government intervened in two cases of tribal justice and prosecuted the alleged perpetrators. Discrimination against women was widespread, and traditional social and legal constraints generally kept women in a subordinate position in society. Violence against children, as well as child abuse and prostitution, remained serious problems. Female children still lag far behind males in education, health care, and other social indices. Governmental and societal discrimination against religious minorities, particularly Christians and Ahmadis, remained a problem, and the Government failed to take effective measures to counter prevalent public prejudices against religious minorities. Religious and ethnic-based rivalries resulted in numerous killings and civil disturbances, although the number of sectarian attacks against Shi’a professionals declined significantly. Terrorist attacks, particularly against Western and Christian targets, increased significantly. President Musharraf and several cabinet ministers publicly criticized efforts by some clerics to foment hatred and announced a plan to deny the use of madrassahs (Islamic religious schools) for extremist purposes. The Government and employers continued to restrict worker rights significantly. Debt slavery persisted, and bonded labor by both adults and children remained a problem. The use of child labor remained widespread. On August 28, the Government passed the Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance; however, trafficking in women and children for the purposes of prostitution and bonded labor was a serious problem.

Section 1 Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom From:

a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life

Police committed extrajudicial killings. There were reports that there was an increase in extrajudicial killings during the year; exact figures were unknown by year’s end. The police and security forces were responsible for the deaths of a number of individuals associated with political or terrorist groups during the year.

The extrajudicial killing of criminal suspects, often while in police custody or in staged encounters was common. Police officials generally insisted that these deaths occurred during attempts to escape or to resist arrest; however, family members and the press insisted that many of these deaths were staged. Police personnel have been known to kill suspected criminals to prevent them from implicating police in crimes during court proceedings. In May militant Riaz Basra was shot and killed while being transferred in police custody in Punjab. In August four suspects associated with banned militant group Lashkar-e-Jhangvi were killed in a police encounter while being transferred in Vehari in Southern Punjab. In October Falak Sher died in police custody in Lahore (see Section 1.c.). Police also reportedly killed suspected criminals to circumvent or overcome insufficient evidence, to intimidate witnesses, judicial corruption, and, at times, political pressure. Police personnel continued to torture persons in custody throughout the country.

Amnesty International (AI) estimates that at least 100 persons died from police torture each year (see Section 1.c.).

On August 20, one protester was killed and 15 were injured when Army Rangers fired into a crowd of farmers in Okara. The farmers were protesting the army's demand that they sign leases for their farmland. The army blockaded several villages for two weeks and cut off power and water to the village in Okara. Several villagers remained hospitalized at year's end. The army investigated the incident; however, no one was charged in connection with the killing. There were no developments in the October 2001 killing of three protesters in Kuchlak or in the November 2001 killing of four demonstrators in Dera Ghazi Khan, Punjab.

During the year, the HRCP reported disturbances at prisons by prisoners over their mistreatment by prison staff. In 2001, eleven prisoners at Adiala jail in Rawalpindi beat a police officer for not allowing their visitors to meet with them. Similar incidents were reported in Sahiwal and Faisalabad districts in 2001. There were reports that four prisoners died in a riot in a Peshawar jail in October 2000; however, prison authorities denied these reports. No disciplinary actions were taken or charges filed in connection with the incident, and the Government is unlikely to take further action.

The Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM), an urban Sindh-based political party that in the past used violence to further its aims claimed that the police specifically targeted its adherents for extrajudicial killings. On April 29, one member of MQM was killed in Karachi when an unknown person fired on President Musharraf’s motorcade and police returned fire.

Police officers occasionally were transferred or briefly suspended for involvement in extrajudicial killings. However, rare court-ordered inquiries into these killings resulted in few trials and no convictions. In general police continued to commit such killings with impunity. In September, two policemen were charged with killing a fruit vendor in Lahore. The two policemen allegedly pushed him into oil when he would not meet their payment demands.

Police professionalism was low. New officers received 6 months of training, and many hires were the result of political patronage rather than merit. Salaries and benefits were inadequate. In August 2001, the Government introduced a comprehensive package of police reforms. Key changes included transferring oversight of district superintendents of police (DSP) (a rank roughly equivalent to a lieutenant colonel) from federally appointed district commissioners to elected district mayors; granting DSPs permission to order the use of live fire on their own authority; and the establishment of public safety commissions at the district level. Under this system, a police officer who believes that the district mayor is abusing his authority over local law enforcement will have a place to seek redress. By year's end, the new system had not fully been implemented, and many local officials complained that the new system had no real control over the police.

There were high-profile killings during the year. On April 27, unknown gunmen killed two MQM leaders, Mustapha Kamal Rizvi and Nishat Malik in Karachi. Widespread unsubstantiated speculation surrounded the June 24 death of former Federal Minister of Labor and party leader Omar Asghar Khan, despite official reports that the death was a suicide. Khan resigned from his position in December 2001 to create his own political party, the Qaumi Jamhoori Party. Khan planned to contest elections in October. At year's end, the investigation into his death continued.

There reportedly was no action taken against the responsible militants in the following 2001 cases: The October killing of a police officer and 16 worshippers at St. Dominic's Church in Bahawalpur or the December killing of Ehtehshamuddin Haider, brother of Interior Minister Moinuddin Haider.

There were numerous bombings during the year. For example, on March 17, 5 persons were killed, including 2 dependents of a U.S. diplomat, and 41 persons were injured, in Islamabad when an unknown individual threw 6 grenades into a Protestant church during services (see Section 2.c.). On May 8, 11 persons were killed when a suspected suicide bomber rammed a shuttle bus at the Sheraton hotel in Karachi. On June 14, 12 persons were killed when a bomb exploded outside the U.S. Consulate in Karachi. On November 15, two persons were killed and nine persons were injured when a bomb exploded at a bus station in Hyderabad, approximately 100 miles from Karachi. No one claimed responsibility for any of these acts.

Sectarian violence and tensions continued to be a serious problem throughout the country. Despite the Government's ban on groups involved in sectarian killings, violence between rival Sunni and Shi'a Muslim groups continued, although the number of Shi’a professionals killed in Karachi and elsewhere decreased significantly. In addition, Ahmadis, Christians, and other religious minorities often were the targets of such violence. During the year, at least 53 cases of sectarian violence occurred in the country, most carried out by unidentified gunmen.

For example, on January 1, the Sunni prayer leader of a suburban Usman Ghani Mosque was shot and killed by unknown assailants when he returned home in Karachi. On February 4, Jhang Police Inspector Mohammad Jamil was killed after conducting several successful operations against the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi. The same day, Dr. Fayyaz Karim was shot and killed outside a mosque in Karachi. On April 26, 12 persons were killed and 25 injured when a bomb exploded at a Shi’a place of worship in Bhakkar.

Numerous such killings remain unresolved. On August 14, 2001, unidentified motorcycle riders shot and killed Rizwan Shah, an activist, in the Harkatuk Ansar. During the year, police made no arrests in connection with past sectarian killings.

Honor killings were a problem. HCRP estimated that more than 200 women were killed by family members in so-called honor killings; however many more women are believed to be affected by this crime. For example, HCRP reported that in Pubjab, approximately 280 incidents of honor killings were recorded during the year. Of these 280 incidents, 150 of the women were married and 103 women were single; 17 women were harmed by their fathers, 100 women were harmed by their brothers, 86 women were harmed by their husbands, 11 by their in-laws, 29 by other relatives, 12 by sons, and 23 were harmed by unknowns. Mehvish Miankhel, a member of an influential political family in Dera Ghazi Khan, allegedly was killed by her uncle in April 2001 after her uncle accused her of having an affair. A criminal complaint was filed against Miankhel's uncle, father, grandfather, two cousins, and two maternal uncles on July 7. All were granted pre-arrest bail and were not detained. During the year, police made no arrests in connection with the 2000 killing of Mumlikat Bibi (see Section 1.f.).

Tension along the line of control between Pakistan and Indian-held Kashmir was high during the year, and there was shelling in several sectors. In May at the height of the Indo-Pakistani tensions, villages along the border were evacuated. Approximately 194 civilians were killed on the Pakistani side of the line of control at year's end, according to a government official.

b. Disappearance

Unlike in previous years, there were no credible reports of disappearances at the hands of the security forces.

In the intra-Mohajir violence in Karachi, victims sometimes first were held and tortured by opposing groups (or, as the Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM) - Altaf alleges, by security forces). Bodies of these victims, often mutilated, generally were dumped in the street soon after the victims were abducted; however, the incidence of such crimes decreased greatly during the year.

In July 2000, retired Major General Anwar Sher and an Afghan aide, Abdul Qaher Shariati, disappeared; they were active in organizing Afghans to pursue a peace process. There were no new developments in the case during the year.

On January 28, militants kidnaped and killed foreign correspondent for the Wall Street Journal Daniel Pearl in Karachi. The militants reportedly were part of a group called the National Movement for the Restoration of Pakistani Sovereignty; however, police later arrested Salman Saquib, Fahad Naseem, Sheik Adil, and prominent Islamic militant Sheik Omar Saeed. All four defendants were affiliated with the terrorist organization Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM). In Hyderabad on July 15 all four defendants were found guilty; Sheik Omar Saeed was sentenced to death; the other three defendants were sentenced to life in prison.

c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

The Constitution and the Penal Code prohibit torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment; however, police regularly tortured, and otherwise abused persons. Police routinely used force to elicit confessions; however, there were fewer reports of torture by police during the year. Some human rights groups stated that this decrease reflects the influence of army monitoring teams, who discourage the use of torture; other observers suggested that the frequency of torture remained unchanged, but the media devoted less attention to the issue during the year. Human rights observers suggested that, because of widespread torture by the police, suspects usually confessed to crimes regardless of their actual culpability; the courts subsequently threw out many such confessions. According to the Society for Human Rights and Prisoners Aid (SHARP), 38 deaths due to police torture were reported during the year.

Police personnel continued to torture persons in custody throughout the country. A newspaper reported that there were 80 cases of torture in police custody in Lahore.

Common torture methods included: Beating; burning with cigarettes; whipping the soles of the feet; sexual assault; prolonged isolation; electric shock; denial of food or sleep; hanging upside down; forced spreading of the legs with bar fetters; and public humiliation.

Human rights organizations and the press have criticized the provision of the Anti-Terrorist Act that allows confessions obtained in police custody to be used in "special courts," because police torture of suspects is common. Police generally did not attempt to use confessions to secure convictions under this law.

There was greater scrutiny by NGOs and the media of police behavior, including prison inspections in the Punjab and Sindh. However, the Citizens Police Liaison Committee (CPLC) reported that no new cases had been filed against police officers during the year. CPLC officials believed that police reforms introduced during 2001 (including increased oversight by elected officials) were responsible for fewer abuses. During the year, 60 Punjab police officers reportedly were punished for various offenses. Cooperation between the CPLC and the police human rights complaint unit resulted in the dismissal of 216 policemen and the demotion of or fines for 1,226 others between November 1998 and July 1999.

The Hudood Ordinances, which aimed to make the Penal Code more Islamic, provide for harsh punishments for violations of Shari'a (Islamic law), including death by stoning for unlawful sexual relations and amputation for other crimes. These so-called Hadd punishments require a high standard of evidence. For example, four adult Muslim men of good character must witness an act for a Hadd punishment to apply. In over 20 years since the Hudood Ordinances were adopted, not a single Hadd punishment has been carried out. However, on the basis of lesser evidence, ordinary punishments such as jail terms or fines were imposed. In April a court convicted Zaafran Bibi of adultery and sentenced her to death by stoning. Bibi initially accused her brother-in-law of rape in March 2001, claiming the incident took place 2 weeks prior to her filing the charge. A medical exam at the time determined that she was pregnant, and her husband claimed paternity for the child. On June 6, the Federal Shariat Court acquitted Zafran Bibi of adultery and ordered her release. The Hudood Ordinances were applied to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Special women's police stations have been established in response to growing numbers of complaints of custodial abuse of women, including rape. These stations were staffed by female personnel, but receive even fewer material and human resources than regular police stations. Efforts to raise funds for the stations during the year achieved minimal results. According to the Government's Commission of Inquiry for Women, the stations did not function independently or fulfill their purpose. Despite court orders and regulations that only female officers may interrogate female suspects, women continued to be detained overnight at regular police stations and abused by male officers. A Lahore newspaper alleged that of 80 confirmed cases in Lahore of police abuse, 3 were against women. Instances of abuse of women in prisons are less frequent than in police stations. Sexual abuse of child detainees by police or guards reportedly also is a problem.

Police used excessive force against demonstrators during the year (see Section 2.b.).

Police at times also beat journalists. In April journalists were beaten as they staged a walk-out on a pro-referendum rally in the Punjab. Six journalists were injured (see Section 2.a.).

Impunity remained a problem. Despite some cases during the year in which police officers were investigated or charged in connection with abuse of detainees, the failure of the Government to prosecute and to punish abusers effectively was widely considered a great obstacle to ending or reducing police abuse. The authorities sometimes transferred, suspended, or arrested offending officers, but seldom prosecuted or punished them; investigating officers generally shield their colleagues. However, in May 2001, the Supreme Court upheld the Lahore High Court's January 2001 conviction of two government doctors for submitting false statements regarding police torture of prisoner Nadeem Iqbal.

Police corruption was widespread. Police and prison officials frequently used the threat of abuse to extort money from prisoners and their families. Police accepted money for registering cases on false charges and tortured innocent citizens. Persons paid the police to humiliate their opponents and to avenge their personal grievances. District police authorities in Gujranwala in Northern Punjab dismissed 60 policemen for corruption. At least eight police officials in Punjab were convicted for corruption and fined or imprisoned. Police corruption was most serious at the level of the Station House Officer (SHO), the official who runs each precinct. Some SHOs widely were believed to operate arrest-for-ransom operations and to have established unsanctioned police stations to collect illicit revenue. An August 2000 news report listed seven such stations in Karachi. SHOs were powerful; although no such incidents were reported during the year, some were believed to have killed superior officers who tried to stop corrupt practices in the past. Senior government officials have confirmed that police stations, and assignments therein, were sold to interested parties who then proceed to recoup their investment though illicit activities.

During the year, the Government took some steps to reduce police corruption and transferred several senior police officers to other provinces to circumvent their local ties. In Gujranwala, in northern Punjab, district police authorities dismissed 60 policemen and 15 others were retired compulsorily on the charges of corruption and inefficiency in the first six months of the year. In Lahore, six police officials were convicted of taking bribes and sentenced to two years of imprisonment and fined. In August 2001, the Government implemented reforms at the local level that included taking responsibility for the police away from the nonelected District Commissioners while granting oversight authority over the police to the newly elected district nazims (mayors) and newly organized Public Safety Commissions (that are composed of elected and nonelected members). The impact of this reform remained unclear at year's end, although some critics claimed that the reforms will make it easier for politicians to order the police to intimidate and harass their political opponents. Senior government officials predicted that it will take several years of sustained political and financial commitment before positive gains are achieved. At year’s end, the Public Safety Commission had not been established due to financial constraints. Actions taken to redress police abuses often have mixed results. In urban Sindh, the CPLC committees helped to curb some excesses, but complaints of large-scale police abuses persisted.

Police failed in some instances to protect members of religious minorities--particularly Christians and Ahmadis--from societal attacks (see Section 5).

Prison conditions were extremely poor and life threatening. Overcrowding was widespread. According to the HRCP, SHARP, and International Human Rights Monitor (IHRM), there were 80,000 prisoners in jails that were built to hold a maximum of 35,833 persons. In Adiala Jail in Rawalpindi had prison population of 5,521 in a space designed for 1,800. The HCRP claimed that in a Punjab jail, built to house 17,637 prisoners, contained 56,599. An IHRM report claimed 24 prisoners died in Adiala Jail during the year due to improper health care, poor hygienic conditions and rotten food. IHRM estimated 1,700-2,500 deaths per year due to poor conditions nationwide. Some 80 percent of prisoners were awaiting trial, mostly for petty offenses.

There are three classes (A, B, and C) of prison facilities. Class "C" cells generally hold common criminals and those in pretrial detention. Such cells often have dirt floors and no furnishings. Prisoners in these cells reportedly suffered the most abuse, including beatings and forced kneeling for long periods of time. Unsanitary conditions were common in small, poorly ventilated, and decrepit colonial-era prisons, which mainly were considered class "C." Inadequate food led to chronic malnutrition for those unable to supplement their diet with help from family or friends. Access to medical care was a problem. Mentally ill prisoners normally lacked adequate care and were not segregated from the general prison population (see Section 5). Foreign prisoners, mostly citizens of African countries often remained in prison long after their sentences were completed because there was no one to pay for their deportation to their home country. Government officials claimed that years of inadequate budgets were the reason for poor prison conditions. "B" cells often were used for prisoners with a university education or who benefit from political connections. Conditions in "A" and "B" cells were markedly better; prisoners in these cells are permitted to have servants, special food, and satellite television. Authorities reserved "A" cells for prominent persons, including political leaders. Especially prominent individuals--including some political figures--sometimes were held under house arrest and permitted to receive visitors.

Shackling of prisoners was routine. The shackles used were tight, heavy, and painful, and reportedly have led to gangrene and amputation in several cases. No cases concerning the fettering of minors were reported in the press during the year.

There were reports of prison riots. On November 14, a riot broke out in Sahiwal district jail and one policeman and 20 prisoners were injured. One prisoner later died. The prisoners were allegedly sent to District Jail Kasur where two of them were killed because of severe police torture. No action was taken and no details were provided after the incident.

Female detainees and prisoners were held separately from male detainees and prisoners. According to the Progressive Women’s Association, there were approximately 2,765 women in jail nationwide at year’s end. Pretrial detainees often are not segregated from convicted criminals.

There are few facilities for convicted prisoners under 21 years of age, and children frequently were incarcerated along with the general prison population. Punjab has two jails for juvenile offenders, and Karachi has an industrial school for juvenile offenders. Children offenders often were kept in separate barracks in adult prisons; however, to keep the children separated, most of the time they were confined to their barracks. There were few educational and recreational facilities available for youth offenders. Many children in prison were born to female inmates who were sexually abused by prison guards. Punjab and Sindh provinces have laws mandating special judicial procedures for child offenders; however, in practice children and adults essentially are treated equally. According to a local NGO, an estimated 4,992 children were held in the nation's prisons at the end of 2001, compared with 4,200 in 2000. Imprisoned children often spent long periods of time in prison awaiting trial or a hearing before a magistrate, often in violation of the law. Children were subject to the same delays and inefficiencies in the justice system as were adults (see Sections 1.d. and 1.e.). Human Rights Watch (HRW) reported that children frequently were beaten and even tortured while in detention; usually this was done to extract confessions, but it was done also to punish or intimidate child detainees or to extort payment from their families for their release. Sexual abuse of child detainees by police or guards reportedly was a problem.

Courts also may order that children be sent to reform schools or various types of residential facilities, many designed to provide vocational or other training. There were two facilities--one in Karachi and one in Bahawalpur--that serve as reform schools for juvenile offenders. Juvenile offenders and, in some cases, homeless and destitute children, may be sent to these residential facilities, for terms not to exceed the amount of time until they reach majority. Conditions in these institutions reportedly were poor, similar to those found in jails. Abuse and torture of the children in such institutions was a problem; one study found that 17.4 percent of the inmates of the Youthful Offenders Industrial School in Karachi had been tortured or otherwise mistreated. Educational facilities in these institutions often were inadequate. Extortion on the part of the staff at such institutions reportedly was widespread; parents of inmates often were required to pay lower level staff members to visit their children or bring them food. Drug trafficking by guards and other staff also was a problem; some children reportedly developed drug habits while in these institutions and were supplied drugs by their guards.

Landlords in Sindh and political factions in Karachi operated private jails (see Section 1.d.).

The Government permits visits to prisoners and detainees by human rights monitors, family members, and lawyers with some restrictions (see Section 1.d.).

d. Arbitrary Arrest, Detention, or Exile

The law prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention; however, the authorities did not always comply with the law, and police arbitrarily arrested and detained citizens. The law permits the District Coordinating Officer (DCO) of a local district to order detention without charge for 30 days of persons suspected of threatening public order and safety. The DCO may renew detention in 30-day increments, up to a total of 90 days. Human rights monitors report instances in which prisoners jailed under the Maintenance of Public Order Act have been imprisoned for up to 6 months without charge. For other criminal offenses, police may hold a suspect for 24 hours without charge. After a prisoner appears before a magistrate, the court may grant permission for continued detention for a maximum period of 14 days if the police provide material proof that this is necessary for an investigation. The Musharraf Government created the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and special accountability courts to try corruption cases; the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) initially permitted those suspected of corrupt practices to be detained for 90 days without charge (see Section 1.e.). In April 2001, the Supreme Court modified several provisions of the NAB ordinance. It reduced the NAB's freedom to hold suspects without charge from 90 days to 15 days, renewable with judicial concurrence. The maximum period of disqualification from political office pursuant to a corruption conviction was reduced from 21 years to 10 years, and the court required that future appointments of key NAB officials receive the Chief Justice's concurrence. In January the Government detained more than 2,000 members of banned extremist and jihad groups. At year’s end, all were released on bail after the charges were filed. In addition to the arrests, police closed and sealed offices of the five newly banned groups.

Police may arrest individuals on the basis of a First Incident Report (FIR) filed by a complainant and have been known to file FIR's without supporting evidence. FIR's frequently were used to harass or intimidate individuals. Charges against an individual also may be based on a "blind" FIR, which lists the perpetrators as "person or persons unknown." If the case is not solved, the FIR is placed in the inactive file. When needed, a FIR is reactivated and taken to a magistrate by the police; the police then name a suspect and ask that the suspect be remanded for 14 days while they investigate further. After 14 days, if the case is dropped for lack of evidence, another FIR is activated and brought against the accused. In this manner, rolling charges can be used to hold a suspect in custody continuously.

If the police can provide material proof that detention (physical remand or police custody for the purpose of interrogation) is necessary for an investigation, a court may extend detention for a total of 14 days. However, such proof may be little more than unsubstantiated assertions by the police. In practice the authorities do not observe fully the limits on detention. Police are not required to notify anyone when an arrest is made and often hold detainees without charge until a court challenges them. The police sometimes detained individuals arbitrarily without charge or on false charges to extort payment for their release. Human rights monitors reported that a number of police stations have secret detention cells in which individuals are kept while police bargain for their release. There also were reports that the police move prisoners from one police station to another if they suspect a surprise visit by higher authorities. Some women continued to be detained arbitrarily and sexually abused (see Sections 1.c. and 5). Police also detained relatives of wanted criminals in order to compel suspects to surrender (see Section 1.f.).

The Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) have a separate legal system, the Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR), which recognizes the doctrine of collective responsibility. Authorities are empowered to detain fellow members of a fugitive's tribe, or to blockade a fugitive's village, pending his surrender or punishment by his own tribe in accordance with local tradition. On June 22, a woman in Meerwala, Punjab, was gang-raped on the orders of a council of tribal elders as punishment for her brother's alleged affair with a woman of a higher tribe. Authorities alleged that the tribal jury threatened to have all women in the family raped unless the girl submitted to the punishment. Government authorities were notified a few days after the incident and the Punjab police arrested eight suspects, including the alleged rapists and some individuals who pressed the tribal council to issue the verdict. On August 31, an Anti-terrorist Court ruled that four rapists and two jurors should receive the death penalty. The court awarded life imprisonment and a fine to each of the other four defendants. At year’s end, the cases were appealed with the Appellate Tribunal. At year's end, President Musharraf sent the girl $8,300 (PKR 500,000) as compensation (see Section 5).

The police also have been known to detain persons as a result of personal vendettas.

The law stipulates that detainees must be brought to trial within 30 days of their arrest. However, in many cases, trials do not start until 6 months after the filing of charges. During the year the HRCP estimated that there were almost as many individuals awaiting trial in jail as there were prisoners serving sentences. The HRCP reported that in Punjab 35,260 males were awaiting trial, while only 11,068 males had been convicted. In 1999 in 62 city courts, 7,000 prisoners were awaiting trial in 6,000 cases; in 3,500 of these cases, the police had not even brought a “challan,” or indictment, to the court.

Persons in jail awaiting trial sometimes were held for periods longer than the sentence that they would have received if convicted. Court officials reported that each judge reviews between 70 and 80 cases per day, but that action was taken on only 3 or 4 each week. According to the Pakistan Law Commission, there were 10,515 cases pending in the Supreme Court as of September 30, 2001. Clogged lower courts exacerbate the situation; the majority of cases in the High Courts consist of appeals of lower court rulings. Once an appeal reaches the High Court, there are further opportunities for delay because decisions of individual judges frequently are referred to panels composed of two or three judges. There continued to be charges that magistrates and police, under pressure from provincial and federal officials to achieve high conviction rates, persuaded detainees to plead guilty without informing them of the consequences. Senior government officials acknowledged during the year that this was a problem. Politically powerful persons also attempted to influence magistrates in their decisionmaking, sometimes threatening to transfer magistrates to other assignments.

Asif Zardari, husband of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, has waited for more than 5 years for the start of his trial on charges of killing his brother-in-law, Murtaza Bhutto in 1997. In April 1999, Zardari was tried and convicted separately on corruption charges. In December 2001 Zardari received bail but was not released; the NAB ordered his continued detention on suspicion of corruption.

The Government permitted visits to prisoners and detainees by human rights monitors, family members, and lawyers (see Section 1.c.), with some restrictions. In some cases, authorities refuse family visits and, in some police stations, persons must to pay bribes to see a prisoner. Foreign diplomats may meet with prisoners when they appear in court but generally are refused permission for prison visits. Local human rights activists reported few restrictions to their access to prisons, even though the Government continued to deny prison visits by the ICRC.

The Government justified the creation of antiterrorist courts by citing the large number of murder and other cases that are clogging the regular court system (see Section 1.e.). The antiterrorist courts reportedly sentenced 39 persons to death during the year.

The Government sometimes used preventive detention, mass arrests, and excessive force to quell protests or civil unrest and to prevent political meetings. On a number of occasions, police arrested persons prior to demonstrations under the Criminal Procedures Code ban (see Section 2.b.). These arrests were carried out under Section 16 of the Maintenance of Public Order Act, which prohibits speech that "causes or is likely to cause alarm to the public."

Despite governmental claims that NAB cases would be pursued independent of an individual’s political affiliation, NAB had selectively targeted certain persons in the anti-corruption campaign (see Section 1.e.). As of the end of October, the NAB filed 507 cases, with 287 convictions, 39 acquittals, 6 case withdrawal and 220 cases in progress. Senior opposition figures charged that NAB threats were used to pressure politicians to join the PML-Q, run as independents, or vote for Prime Minister Jamali in the vote of confidence during the year. For example, according to HRW, Aftab Sherpao, an influential PPP leader and former chief minister from the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) returned this year from London to face corruption charges. He subsequently was acquitted after his faction of the PPP pledged its support for Musharraf in the referendum on his presidency. At year’s end, Sherpao was elected to the National Assembly and became Minister for Water and Power.

During the year, few journalists reportedly were arrested, according to the NGO Journalists for Democracy and Human Rights. The police charged journalists at a referendum rally in April. In September several journalists attempting to travel into Afghanistan reportedly were detained.

Following the 1999 coup, the Musharraf Government detained without warrants and without charges several dozen political figures, military officers, and government administrators. At year's end, most of them had been released. By year’s end, two senior Muslim League politicians, Javed Hashmi and Mehtab Abassi were released on bail.

In December 2000, the Government commuted former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's prison sentence, confiscated assets belonging to the Sharif family, and exiled him and 18 of his family members to Saudi Arabia for 10 years. During the year, Saifur Rehman and Saeed Mehdi Sharif were acquitted of maintenance of public order charges. Sharif also had to agree to withdraw from politics while in exile. Some observers claimed that the Government exiled Sharif both to remove him from politics and to reduce the power and influence of the opposition.

Many persons apprehended by the NAB (see Section 1.e.) remained in detention past the ordinance's stipulated 90 days detention without charge. During the year, Mian Manzoor Watoo, Sattar, and Dr. Farooq Sattar were released from custody; however, Sattar’s 2000 conviction on widely disputed corruption charges continued at year’s end.

Hundreds of MQM activists have been arrested since November and remained in custody at year’s end; some of these activists were being held without charge. According to MQM officials, police have arrested more than 700 MQM officials during the past 3 years. In April a Hyderabad MQM organizer was charged with inciting people to violence during a strike and on April 19, the Government arrested MQM Senator Aftab Shaikh.

Women were charged under the Hudood Ordinances for sexual misconduct, such as adultery. A Hudood law meant to deter false accusations is enforced weakly, and one human rights monitor claimed that 80 percent of adultery-related Hudood cases were filed without supporting evidence. In 1998 approximately one-third of the women in jails in Lahore, Peshawar, and Mardan were awaiting trial for adultery; that percentage likely remains accurate. Most women tried under the ordinance were acquitted, but the stigma of an adultery charge alone is severe. Men accused of rape sometimes were acquitted and released, while their victims were held for adultery or fornication. The Commission of Inquiry for Women recommended that the Hudood laws be repealed, saying they are based on an erroneous interpretation of Shari'a (see Section 5).

Private jails exist in tribal and feudal areas. Human rights groups alleged that as many as 50 private jails, housing some 4,500 bonded laborers, were being maintained by landlords in lower Sindh (see Section 6.c.). Some prisoners reportedly have been held for many years. In the five districts of upper Sindh, landlords defied the courts and police by holding tribal jirgas, which settle feuds, award fines, and even sentenced persons to the death penalty in defiance of provincial laws.

AI reported that both citizens and non citizens were arbitrarily arrested on suspicion of being al-Qa'ida or Taliban fighters, and some of these persons were deported to their home countries. However, the exact number of those detained, arrested or deported was unknown by year's end.

e. Denial of Fair Public Trial

The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary; however, in practice, the judiciary remained subject to executive branch and other outside influences, and despite the Musharraf Government's pledge to respect the independence of the judicial system, the Government took steps to control the judiciary and to remove the Government from judicial oversight. On August 22, the Legal Framework Order (LFO) amended the Constitution and the PCO to allow: The empowerment of the President to dismiss the Prime Minister and dissolve the Parliament; formalized the role of the army in governance by the creation of a National Security Council (NSC) as a constitutional body; and the insertion of a number of qualification requirements for candidates for Parliament. The PCO issued in October 1999, provided that all courts functioning at the time of the coup would continue to operate, but that no court would have the power to issue orders against President Musharraf or any person exercising powers or jurisdiction under his authority. President Musharraf further undermined the independence of the judiciary when he ordered all Supreme Court, Shari'at court, and provincial High Court justices to take an oath to uphold the PCO that brought the military into power. Low salaries, inadequate resources, heavy workloads, corruption, and intimidation by political and religious pressure groups contributed to judicial inefficiency, particularly in the lower courts. Six Supreme Court justices, including the Chief Justice, and nine provincial High Court justices resigned in protest; however, 85 percent of the affected justices agreed to swear allegiance to the PCO. As a result of this decree, government directives and ordinances under the PCO no longer were subject to judicial review, including the LFO which brought about fundamental changes to the Constitution. Some government officials claimed that President Musharraf issued this decree due to concerns that judges were being bribed to rule against the Government in the court challenges to the military takeover. Many persons criticized this requirement, stating that it effectively ended the role of the judiciary as an independent body. In June the Supreme Court ruled that the October referendum was constitutional and further cast doubt on the independence of the judiciary from the military government (see Section 3).

The judicial process continued to be impeded by bureaucratic infighting, inactivity, and the overlapping jurisdictions of the different court systems. Heavy backlogs that severely delayed the application of justice remained, due to scores of unfilled judgeships and to archaic and inefficient court procedures. The politicized appointment process held up the promotion of many lower court judges to the High Courts. Although the higher level judiciary was considered competent and generally honest, there were widespread reports of corruption among lower level magistrates and minor court functionaries. In 2000 the Supreme Court ruled that it was legal for the Musharraf Government to amend the Constitution as long as the amendments did not change the basic character of the Constitution, and reserved the right to review the military's performance, the continued necessity of the Emergency Proclamation, and the PCO. Many observers criticized the Supreme Court decision as vague and contradictory. The Government respected this ruling during the year. In April 2001, the Supreme Court also modified several provisions of the NAB ordinance, and the Government respected the amended provisions during the year. Despite these decisions, the overall credibility of the judiciary remained low.

The judicial system involves several court systems with overlapping and sometimes competing jurisdictions. There were civil and criminal systems with special courts for banking, antinarcotics, and antiterrorist cases, as well as the federal Shariat court for certain Hudood offenses. The appeals process in the civil system was: Civil court, district court, High Court, and the Supreme Court. In the criminal system, the progression was magistrate, sessions court, High Court, and the Supreme Court.

The civil judicial system provided for an open trial, the presumption of innocence, cross-examination by an attorney, and appeal of sentences. Attorneys were appointed for indigents only in capital cases. There were no jury trials. Due to the limited number of judges, the heavy backlog of cases, lengthy court procedures, and political pressures, cases routinely take years, and defendants must make frequent court appearances. Cases start over when an attorney changes. Under both the Hudood and standard criminal codes, there were bailable and nonbailable offenses. According to the Criminal Procedures Code, the accused in bailable offenses must be granted bail, and those charged with nonbailable offenses should be granted bail if the alleged crime carries a sentence of less than 10 years. Many accused, especially well-connected persons who are made aware of impending warrants against them, were able to obtain prearrest bail, and thus were spared arrest and incarceration.

Double jeopardy applies to those convicted of possessing narcotics because of a federal Shariat court ruling that customs and narcotics cases be initiated separately. During 2001 the Lahore High Court ordered the release of eight prisoners, including five foreign nationals, who had served their sentences under the Customs Act and were awaiting trial for a narcotics charge arising out of the same incident. The court noted that the law did not allow punishment twice for the same offense.

The judiciary argued that it failed to try and convict terrorist suspects in a timely manner because of poor police casework, prosecutorial negligence, and the resulting lack of evidence. In response to this problem, the Anti-Terrorist Act was passed; special antiterrorist courts began operations in 1997. The antiterrorist courts, designed for the speedy punishment of terrorist suspects, have special streamlined procedures; however, due to the continued intimidation of witnesses, police, and judges, the courts initially produced only a handful of convictions. Under the act, terrorist killings were punishable by death and any act, including speech, intended to stir up religious hatred, is punishable by up to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment. Additional offenses that can be tried under the Anti-Terrorist Act include acts to stir-up religious feelings; efforts to "wage war against the State;" conspiracy; acts committed in abetting an offense; and kidnaping of or abduction to confine a person. The Government has used the anti-terrorist courts for high-profile cases, including the Daniel Pearl kidnaping and killing, the Meerwala gang rape incident, and the Okara farmer protest. Cases were to be decided within 7 working days, but judges were free to extend the period of time as required. Trials in absentia initially were permitted but later were prohibited. Appeals to an appellate tribunal also were required to take no more than 7 days, but appellate authority since has been restored to the High and Supreme Courts, under which these time limits do not apply. Under the Anti-Terrorist Act, bail was not to be granted if the court has reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is guilty.

In June 2001, the Musharraf Government approved an amendment to the Anti-Terrorist Act. The new ordinance defines terrorism as "the use or threat of action where the use, or threatened use, is designed to coerce and intimidate or overawe the Government or the public or a section of the public or community or sect or create a sense of fear or insecurity in society; and the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, ideological, or ethnic cause." In November the Government approved an amendment to the anti-terrorism law; however, it has yet to be ratified by the Parliament. The new amendment gives the Government the authority to restrict the activities of suspected terrorists, probe their assets, and hold them for up to a year, without charges filed against them.

Leading members of the judiciary, human rights groups, the press, and politicians from a number of parties expressed strong reservations about the antiterrorist courts, charging that they constitute a parallel judicial system and could be used as tools of political repression. Government officials and police believed that the deterrent effect of the act's death penalty provisions contributed to the reduction in sectarian violence after its passage. The antiterrorist courts also are empowered to try persons accused of particularly "heinous" crimes, such as gang rape and child killings, and several persons have been tried, convicted, and executed under these provisions.

The Musharraf Government created by ordinance a special antiterrorist court in Sindh presided over by a High Court justice rather than a lower level judge, as was usually the case. The amended provision permitted the High Court justice to "transfer...any case pending before any other special court...and try the case" in his court. Supporters of Nawaz Sharif maintained that these changes were designed to help the Musharraf Government prosecute Sharif. The 2000 trial of Nawaz Sharif and six codefendants on charges of hijacking was the most widely publicized case tried by an antiterrorist court. Diplomatic observers who attended the Sharif trial concluded that the trial generally was fair, open, and transparent. In October 2000, the appeals court upheld Nawaz Sharif's convictions for hijacking and terrorism but combined them into one offense. The court also denied the prosecution appeal to upgrade Sharif's sentence to the death penalty, reduced the amount of property forfeiture, and affirmed the antiterrorism court's acquittals of the six codefendants.

The Musharraf Government in 1999 created by ordinance the NAB and special accountability courts to try corruption cases (see Section 1.d.). The NAB was created in part to deal with as much as $4 billion (PKR 208 billion) that was estimated to be owed to the country's banks (all of which were state-owned at the time; several have since been privatized) by debtors, primarily from among the wealthy elite. The Musharraf Government stated that it would not target genuine business failures or small defaulters and does not appear to have done so. The NAB was given broad powers to prosecute corruption cases, and the accountability courts were expected to try such cases within 30 days. As originally promulgated, the ordinance prohibited courts from granting bail and gave the NAB chairman sole power to decide if and when to release detainees.

The ordinance also allowed those suspected by the State Bank of Pakistan of defaulting on government loans or of corrupt practices to be detained for 15 days without charge (renewable with judicial concurrence) and, prior to being charged, did not allow access to counsel. In accountability cases, there was a presumption of guilt, and conviction under the ordinance can result in 14 years' imprisonment, fines, and confiscation of property. Those convicted also originally were disqualified from running for office or holding office for 10 years. In August 2000, the Government announced that persons with a court conviction would be barred from holding party office. This provision was used during the general election to prevent certain candidates from entering the contest.

Despite government claims that NAB cases would be pursued independent of an individual’s political affiliation, NAB has taken a selective approach to anti-corruption efforts (see Section 1.d.).

The Government denied press reports that it had decided not to pursue accountability cases against active members of the military or the judiciary; however, no serving members of the military or the judiciary have been charged by the NAB. However, in May former Chief of the Naval Staff Mansoor ul-Haq was charged with corruption under the NAB ordinance. Ul-Hag pled guilty, agreed to repay the money, and was released in January. The Government also withdrew the privilege of retention of the rank of admiral. During 2001, Jehangir Badr, Mehtab Abbasi, and Javed Hashmi were arrested by the NAB; all but Badr were released by year’s end.

The Hudood ordinances criminalize nonmarital rape (see Section 5), extramarital sex (including adultery and fornication), and various gambling, alcohol, and property offenses. Offenses were distinguished according to punishment, with some offenses liable to Hadd, or Koranic, punishment (see Section 1.c.), and others to Tazir, or secular punishment. Although both types of cases were tried in ordinary criminal courts, special, more stringent rules of evidence apply in Hadd cases; Hadd punishments were mandatory if there was enough evidence to support them. Hadd punishments regarding sexual offences were most severe for married Muslims; for example, if a married Muslim man confesses to rape or there are four adult male Muslim witnesses to the act, the accused must be stoned to death; if the accused rapist is not Muslim or married, if he confesses, or if the act is witnessed by four adult males (not all Muslim), the accused must be sentenced to 100 lashes with a whip, and such other punishment, including death, as the court may deem fit. The testimony of four female witnesses, or that of a rape victim alone, is insufficient to impose Hadd punishments. If the evidence falls short of Hadd criteria, then the accused may be sentenced to a lesser class of penalties (Tazir). Since it is difficult to obtain sufficient evidence to support the Hadd punishments, most rape cases are tried at the Tazir level, under which sentences may be imposed of up to 25 years in prison and 30 lashes. No Hadd punishment has been applied in the more than 20 years that the Hudood ordinances have been in force. For Tazir punishments, there was no distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim offenders. Under Tazir the evidentiary requirement for financial or future obligations is for two male witnesses or one male and two female witnesses; in all other matters, the court may accept the testimony of one man or one woman (see Section 5).

The federal Shariat court and the Shari'a bench of the Supreme Court serve as appellate courts for certain convictions in criminal court under the Hudood ordinances. The federal Shariat court also may overturn any legislation judged to be inconsistent with the tenets of Islam. However, these cases may be appealed to the Shari'a bench of the Supreme Court. In two areas of the NWFP--Malakand and Kohistan--the Government in 1999 announced plans to implement Shari'a law by regulation and by ordinance, respectively. In September 1999, the NWFP assembly passed a bill that incorporated the Kohistan ordinance into law (see Section 2.c.). In November, the new MMA-led government of NWFP reportedly affirmed to the media its plan to implement Shair’a law in the province. However, no information was given as to when the plan would enter into force.

Appeals of certain Hudood convictions involving penalties in excess of 2 years imprisonment were referred exclusively to the Shariat courts and were heard jointly by Islamic scholars and High Court judges using ordinary criminal procedures. Judges and attorneys must be Muslim and must be familiar with Islamic law. Within these limits, defendants in a Shariat court were entitled to the lawyer of their choice. There was a system of bail.

The Penal Code incorporates the doctrines of Qisas (roughly, an eye for an eye) and Diyat (blood money). Qisas was not known to have been invoked; however, Diyat occasionally was applied, particularly in the NWFP, in place of judicial punishment of the wrongdoer. Only the family of the victim, not the State, may pardon the defendant. The Hudood, Qisas, and Diyat ordinances applied to ordinary criminal courts and Shariat courts. According to Christian activists, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim, he can redress the crime by paying Diyat to the victim's family; however, a non-Muslim who kills a Muslim does not have the option of paying and must serve a jail sentence or face the death penalty for his crime. Failure to pay Diyat in noncapital cases can result in indefinitely extended incarceration, under Section 331 of the Diyat ordinance. Some persons remained in prison after completion of their terms for failure to pay Diyat.

Administration of justice in the FATA normally is the responsibility of tribal elders and maliks, or leaders. They may conduct hearings according to Islamic law and tribal custom. In such proceedings, the accused have no right to legal representation, bail, or appeal. The usual penalties consist of fines, even for murder. However, the Government's political agents, who were federal civil servants assigned to tribal agencies, oversaw such proceedings and could have imposed prison terms of up to 14 years. Paramilitary forces under the direction of the political agents frequently conducted punitive actions during enforcement operations. For example, in raids on criminal activities, the authorities have damaged surrounding homes as extrajudicial punishment of residents for having tolerated nearby criminal activity (see Section 1.f.).

In previous years, in remote areas outside the jurisdiction of federal political agents, tribal councils levy harsher, unsanctioned punishments, including flogging or death by shooting or stoning.

Another related form of justice operating in the NWFP, particularly in the tribal areas, is the concept of Pakhtunwali, or the Pakhtun Tribal Code, in which revenge is an important element. Under this code, a man, his family, and his tribe are obligated to take revenge for wrongs--either real or perceived--to redeem their honor. More often than not, these disputes arise over women and land, and frequently result in violence (see Section 5). In Meerwala, Punjab a woman was gang-raped on the orders of a council of tribal elders (see Sections 1.d. & 5). In a village outside Mianwali, a tribal council permitted a family to give eight girls, ages 5 to 16, in marriage to another family, in exchange for the commutation of the death sentence for four family members.

There were reports of approximately 10 political prisoners in custody at year's end. Some political groups also argue that they were marked for arrest based on their political affiliation (see Section 1.d.). The MQM in particular has argued that the Government used antiterrorist court convictions in Sindh to silence its activists; however, there were no political arrests during the general election campaign.

f. Arbitrary Interference With Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence

The Government infringed on citizens' privacy rights. The Anti-Terrorist Act allowed police or military personnel acting as police to enter and to search homes and offices without search warrants, and to confiscate property or arms likely to be used in an alleged terrorist act (which is defined very broadly). This provision never was tested in the courts. The Government promulgated new antiterrorist ordinances in October 1998, April 1999, and in August 2001. The purpose of the 2001 ordinance was to strengthen the power of the judiciary to prosecute terrorism cases. Under the ordinances, many blasphemy cases were tried by antiterrorist courts. By law the police need a warrant to search a home, but not to search a person. Despite this law, police entered homes without a warrant and sometimes stole valuables during searches. Specifically, human rights activists criticized the new Police Ordinance 2002 for broadening police power to search and enter homes. In the absence of a warrant, a policeman is subject to charges of criminal trespass. However, police seldom were punished for illegal entry.

The Government maintained several domestic intelligence services that monitor politicians, political activists, suspected terrorists, and suspected foreign intelligence agents. Credible reports indicated that the authorities routinely use wiretaps and intercepted and opened mail. The Supreme Court directed the Government to seek its permission before carrying out wiretapping or eavesdropping operations; however, the judiciary's directive has been ignored widely. No action was taken during the year in the 1996 case of 12 government agencies accused of tapping and monitoring citizens' phone calls and no additional action was expected.

Unlike in previous years, provincial governments did not forcibly move landless laborers from their temporary camps.

Civil marriages do not exist; marriages are performed and registered according to one's religion. Upon conversion to Islam, the marriages of Jewish or Christian men remain legal; however, upon conversion to Islam, the marriages of Jewish or Christian women, or of other non-Muslims, that were performed under the rites of the previous religion are considered dissolved (see Section 2.c.).

While the Government generally does not interfere with the right to marry, the Government on occasion assisted influential families to prevent marriages they oppose. The Government also failed to prosecute vigorously cases in which families punished members (generally women) for marrying or seeking a divorce against the wishes of other family members. In June 2000, Mumlikat Bibi was killed in her parents' home in the village of Yar Hussain in the NWFP. Her father, who reportedly opposed Bibi's efforts to choose a spouse without parental consent, was accused of being the culprit (see Section 1.a); his trial was ongoing at year's end.

In some cases, the authorities have detained relatives in order to force a family member who was the recipient of an arrest warrant to surrender (see Section 1.d.).

The Frontier Crimes Regulation, the separate legal system in the FATA, permits collective responsibility, and empowers the authorities to detain innocent members of the suspect's tribe, or to blockade an entire village (see Section 1.d.).

Section 2: Respect for Civil Liberties, Including:

a. Freedom of Speech and Press

The Constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press, and citizens generally were free to discuss public issues; however, some journalists practiced a degree of self-censorship. The Government did not attempt to exercise direct control over views expressed in the print media. Newspaper editorials and commentators increasingly were critical of the Government; however, direct criticism of the military and judiciary was rare. In September 2001 the Ministry of Information directed the media to avoid direct criticism of the United States or of the Government's cooperation in combating terrorism. However, unlike in the past and despite restrictions imposed on the electronic media, foreign journalists operating in the country were permitted to broadcast stories without obtaining prior clearance from the Ministry of Information. Investigative journalism was rare; instead, the press acts freely to publish charges and countercharges by named and unnamed parties and individuals representing competing political and social interests. Both governmental and nongovernmental entities sometimes pay for favorable media coverage.

During the year, the Government established a 21-member Press Council, to oversee the quality of journalism in the country. The Council is made up of senior press editors, journalists, and the Secretary of Information. In September the Government promulgated the Defamation Ordinance, which required accused journalists to produce proof of their stories in court. If the proof was not produced, the journalists could be fined approximately $900 (PKR 50,000) or sent to prison for 3 months. The editors of the national press widely criticized this promulgation.

The Constitution also prohibited the ridicule of Islam, the armed forces, or the judiciary. The Penal Code mandates the death sentence for anyone defiling the name of the Prophet Mohammad, life imprisonment for desecrating the Koran, and up to 10 years in prison for insulting another's religious beliefs with the intent to outrage religious feelings (see Section 2.c.). The Anti-Terrorist Act stipulates imprisonment with rigorous labor for up to 7 years for using abusive or insulting words, or possessing or distributing written or recorded material, with the intent to stir up sectarian hatred. No warrant was required to seize such material.

In January the Government further amended the Anti-Terrorist Act to ban five of the extremist Tehrik-e-Ja'fria Pakistan, Sipah-e-Sihaba-Pakistan, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Sharait-e-Muhammadi groups (see Sections 2.b. and 2.c.); the amendments also made any person who printed, published, or disseminated any material from these organizations subject to 6 months' imprisonment.

Provincial and local governments occasionally arrested journalists and closed newspapers accused of printing offensive material, but this was not a widespread practice. In March Shaheen Sehbai, the influential editor of the English-language newspaper The News, resigned. He alleged that he was leaving under pressure from the Government. In January 2001, the Government closed the Frontier Post, an English-language daily based in Peshawar, and arrested five members of its staff after the Frontier Post published a letter to the editor that allegedly contained derogatory characterizations of the Prophet Mohammad. Most of the staff later was released on bail, and the paper was permitted to reopen after a period of several months. However, the paper's presses were burned by a mob in January 2001, reportedly while the police stood by and did little to stop it.

The State no longer publishes daily newspapers; however, the Ministry of Information controls and manages the country's primary wire service, the Associated Press of Pakistan (APP). The APP is both the Government's own news agency and the official carrier of international news to the local media. The few small privately owned wire services usually were circumspect in their coverage of sensitive domestic news and tended to follow a government line; however, there were some controversial news stories published during the year. For example Online news agency discussed the Intelligence Agency's (ISI) alleged manipulation of the October elections.

Privately owned newspapers freely discussed public policy and criticized the Government. They reported remarks made by opposition politicians, and their editorials reflected a wide spectrum of views. Local police, political parties, ethnic, sectarian, and religious groups, militant student organizations, and occasionally commercial interests exerted heavy pressure on newspapers to carry their statements or press releases. Such pressure was a common feature of journalism; among extreme groups it can include physical violence, the sacking of offices, the intimidation or beating of journalists, and interference with the distribution of newspapers. The police investigation of the 2001 attack of the bureau chief of the Hyderabad newspaper Ummat, was ongoing at year's end. At times landlords and their agents, who have become accustomed to terrorizing with impunity the citizens living on their lands, retaliate against journalists who report on their actions. Journalists working in remote areas could expect more difficulties from local authorities and influential individuals than their urban counterparts. However, violence against and intimidation of journalists was a nationwide problem.

The Government occasionally denied visas to journalists who were from India or were of Indian descent.

The broadcast media were mainly government monopolies directed by the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation and Pakistan Television (PTV), although private cable channels broadcasting from abroad had a growing audience. Domestic news coverage and public affairs programming on these media were controlled closely by the Government and traditionally reflected its views. One private radio station, one television broadcaster, and a semi private cable television station were licensed under special contractual arrangements with the Government. The semi private television station, Shalimar Television Network (STN), occasionally rebroadcast PTV news. While the STN routinely censors those segments considered to be socially or sexually offensive, rarely, if ever, were foreign news stories censored for content. The Ministry of Information exercised some influence over broadcasting by restricting government advertising. It also monitored advertising on all broadcast media, editing or removing advertisements deemed morally objectionable.

During the year, 22 licenses were issued to private sector entrepreneurs and 3 were operative by year's end. Three television broadcasters, and a semi--private cable television station were licensed under special contractual arrangements with the government. Two satellite channels, Geo and Indus News, were also issued licenses. These two private sector news broadcasters were given liberty to report freely.

Satellite dishes readily were available on the local market and were priced within reach of almost everyone with a television set--well into the lower-middle classes. South Asian satellite channels (usually India-based) have become important sources of news and popular entertainment. The MMA government in NWFP pledged to ban satellite and cable television in the province because of its “immoral and un-Islamic content.”

The competitive nature of politics helps to ensure press freedom since the media often serve as a forum for political parties, commercial, religious, and various other interests to vie with and criticize each other publicly. Although the press rarely criticizes Islam as such, leaders of religious parties and movements were not exempt from public scrutiny and criticism. In September 2001 several newspapers published letters to the editor that were critical of religious parties that continued to express support for the Taliban. Sufi Mohammad, the leader of a prominent political Islamic group, was criticized for his role in encouraging teenage boys to fight for the Taliban.

The press traditionally avoided negative coverage of the armed forces, and the Office of Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) held press coverage of military matters under close restraint. However, after the 1999 coup, journalists reported no attempts by the ISPR to influence editorial content. Discussion of the defense budget continued during the year, especially in the English-language press. Personnel changes among senior army officers also were discussed widely in the press, and newspapers published calls for extending the accountability process to include former military officers. Although many journalists chose to exercise self-censorship regarding the military during the year, the Government permitted significant criticism of retired military officials. President Musharraf was the subject of intense and public criticism during the year.

Reports of intimidation, heavy-handed surveillance, and legal action to quiet unduly curious or nondeferential journalists were common in the past, but these reports have declined significantly since the coup. During the year only a few journalists were arrested, according to the HCRP. The Government has considerable leverage over the press through its substantial budget for advertising and public interest campaigns and its ability to enforce regulations. Human rights groups, journalists, and opposition figures accused the Government of attempting to silence journalists and public figures; however, there had been fewer such complaints since the coup. According to HRW, on July 25 editor of the daily Jasarat, Muzaffar Ejaz reportedly was abducted by members of the ISI and interrogated about the publication of a controversial article on faction politics in the Muslim League. He was released the next morning.

In September 2001, the Government enacted the Freedom of Information Ordinance, which required every government office to designate a freedom of information officer who would be responsible for providing replies to written applications within 21 days. However, the law excluded all classified documents and did not define what constitutes classified information.

On April 14, police assaulted journalists in Faisalbad, Punjab province, during a rally staged to promote the October referendum (see Section 1.c.). According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), 15 journalists were injured and a large number of civilians were hurt. On April 15, Information Minister Nisar Memon expressed regret over the attack and ordered an inquiry into the incident. There were no reports of any action taken against the responsible members of the police who used excessive force to disperse demonstrations during the year.

On May 4, unknown persons shot and killed the editor of Urdu daily “Kohistan” while he was in his office in Lahore. On October 22, unknown assailants attacked and killed a prominent journalist, Shahid Soomro, while he was in his home in Kandhkot. No one claimed responsibility and police officials have yet to identify any suspects.

There were no further developments in the following 2001 cases: Shakil Shaikh, Abu Bakar Siddique, Hayat Ullah, and the two British journalists expelled, allegedly for being involved in activities that defamed the country.

Foreign books must pass government censors before being reprinted. Books and magazines may be imported freely, but likewise are subject to censorship for objectionable sexual or religious content. In September 2001, the Government censored an article in Newsweek magazine concerning the case of Dr. Younis Shaikh, who was arrested on blasphemy charges in October 2000 and sentenced to death in August (see Section 2.c.). However, the Government permitted the publication of the same article in a Pakistani magazine.

Obscene literature, a category broadly defined by the Government, was subject to seizure. Dramas and documentaries on previously taboo subjects, including corruption, social privilege, narcotics, violence against women, and female inequality, were broadcast on television; however, some sensitive series have been canceled before being broadcast. In December police detained two dozen movie theater and video shop owners in a crackdown on pornographic and unlicensed cinemas by the new Islamist government of the North-West Frontier. The provincial police chief, Muhammad Saeed Khan, also issued a statement that set a 48-hour deadline for the police to remove "vulgar and obscene" billboards.

The Government generally respected academic freedom. However, the atmosphere of violence and intolerance fostered by student organizations, typically tied to religious political parties, continued to threaten academic freedom, despite a Supreme Court ruling that prohibited student political organizations on campuses. On some university campuses, well-armed groups of students, primarily from radical religious organizations, had armed clashes with and intimidated other students, instructors, and administrators over issues such as language, syllabus contents, examination policies, grades, doctrines, and dress. These groups frequently facilitated cheating on examinations, interfered with the hiring of staff, controlled who was admitted to the universities, and sometimes also controlled the funds of the institutions. Such control generally has been achieved through a combination of protest rallies, control of the campus media, and threats of mass violence. At Punjab University, the student wing of the political party Jaamat-i-Islami (the largest Islamic political party) attempted to continue to impose its self-defined code of conduct on teachers and students by threatening to foment unrest on campus if its demands were not met.

b. Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association

The Constitution provides for freedom "to assemble peacefully and without arms subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of public order;" however, the Government imposed significant restrictions on this right during the year. Rallies and processions on streets, roads, and railway stations remained prohibited, and provincial and district administrations were given authority to determine the time and place of meeting. Ahmadis have been prohibited from holding any conferences or gatherings since 1984(see Section 2.c.). Throughout the year, the Government occasionally interfered with large opposition rallies, which were held by an alliance of political parties. In March 2000, the Musharraf Government enacted an ordinance banning all public political gatherings, processions, and strikes held outdoors. During the election campaign, the Government approved some public political gatherings, including pro-government and opposition candidates rallies and outdoor meetings. During the year, the ban was enforced unevenly.

District magistrates occasionally exercised their power under the Criminal Procedures Code to ban meetings of more than four persons where demonstrations seemed likely to result in violence. During the year, police made preventive arrests of political party organizers prior to announced demonstrations. For example, on April 21, the Government prevented a protest and arrested several party leaders by the Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) party in Lahore, even through the JI officials claimed they received prior permission for the protest. On July 12, police blocked roads leading to the city square and arrested nine local Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy (ARD) leaders after the party attempted to hold a rally against the draft constitutional amendments. The Government generally allowed all Islamist parties to hold rallies and campaign; however, the government denied rally permits to secular parties.

In previous years, the MQM had been harassed in its regular political activities, especially by the Sindh police. Police frequently arrested PML leaders and supporters in order to prevent planned demonstrations during the year; the HRCP noted that all public PML demonstrations in Karachi were prevented, except for meetings at the party's headquarters (see Section 1.d.).

Police sometimes used excessive force against demonstrators. On July 29, police shot and killed four protesters in Islamabad. The demonstrators were protesting their eviction from a sector in Islamabad.

The authorities sometimes prevented leaders of religious political parties from traveling to certain areas if they believed their presence would increase sectarian tensions or cause public violence (see Section 2.d.).

The Constitution provides for freedom of association subject to restriction by government ordinance and law; however, the Government limited this right in practice. NGOs were required to register with the Government under the "Cooperative Societies and Companies" Ordinance of 1960. NGOs usually register through the Ministry of Social Welfare and must submit to a 6-month probationary period during which the Government tracks their activities. NGOs also are required to submit a progress report after the completion of this period, and then they are registered formally. No prominent NGO reported problems with the Government over registrations during the year.

c. Freedom of Religion

The Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and stated that adequate provisions shall be made for minorities to profess and practice their religions freely; however, the Government limited freedom of religion. The country is an Islamic republic in which approximately 95 percent of the population is Muslim. The majority of the population is Sunni Muslim, but an estimated 15 percent of the population is Shi'a. The Constitution required that laws be consistent with Islam and imposed some elements of Koranic law on both Muslims and religious minorities. In July 2000, President Musharraf amended the PCO in order to incorporate the Islamic provisions of the Constitution, which include the definition of "Muslim" and "non-Muslim" and procedures regarding Shariat courts. While there was no law establishing the Koranic death penalty for apostates (those who convert from Islam), social pressure against apostasy is so powerful that most such conversions take place in secret. Reprisals and threats of reprisals against suspected converts were common. Members of religious minorities were subject to violence and harassment, and police at times refused to prevent such actions or to charge persons who commit them, which contributed the impunity for acts of violence and intimidation against religious minorities.

All citizens, regardless of their religious affiliation, were subject to certain provisions of Shari'a. In the Malakand division and the Kohistan district of the NWFP, ordinances required that "all cases, suits, inquiries, matters, and proceedings in the courts shall be decided in accordance with Shari'a." These ordinances define Shari'a as the injunctions found in both the Koran and the Sunna (tradition) of the Prophet Mohammed. Islamic law judges, with the assistance of the Ulema (Islamic scholars), under the general supervision of the Peshawar High Court, tried all court cases in the Malakand Division and the Kohistan District. Elsewhere in the country, partial provisions of Shari'a apply.

The Constitution protected religious minorities from being taxed to support the majority religion; no one may be forced to pay taxes for the support of any religion other than his own. For example, Sunni Muslims are subject to the "zakat," a religious tax of 2.5 percent of their income; however, Shi'a Muslims and other religious minorities do not pay the "zakat."

In January the Government eliminated the separate electorates system which had long been a point of contention between religious minorities and human rights groups on the one side and the Government on the other. With the elimination of the separate electorate system, political representation is to be based on geographic constituencies that represent all residents regardless of religious affiliation. Minority group leaders believed this change may help to make public officials take notice of the concerns and rights of minority groups. Because of their concentrated populations, religious minorities could have significant influence as swing voting blocks in some constituencies. Few non-Muslims were active in the country's mainstream political parties due to limitations on their ability to run for elective office under the previous separate electorates system.

During the year, the number of cases filed under the blasphemy laws continued to be significant. A Christian NGO reported that 58 cases were registered during 2000 and 2001, compared to 53 cases during 1999-2000. In October 2000, police arrested Nasir Ahmad of Rajanpur district under Section 295(b) for allegedly defiling a copy of the Koran. Ahmad remained in custody and his trial had not been concluded at year's end. The blasphemy laws also have been used to "settle scores" unrelated to religious activity, such as intrafamily or property disputes. On July 5, a mob of approximately 300 persons killed a 48-year-old Muslim on the fatwa of a cleric in the central Punjab province. The man previously had been charged with blasphemy; however, he was acquitted on the grounds he was mentally ill.

In July HRW reported that Wajihul Hassan was sentenced to death for allegedly having made phone calls to the complainant that contained derogatory remarks about the Prophet. In April 2001, police registered a blasphemy case against Pervez Masih, a Christian in Sialkot District, Punjab. Masih, who owns a private school, was arrested under section 295(c) of the Penal Code and placed in Sialkot District jail where he remained at year's end. Christian leaders alleged that the case was filed at the behest of Mohammad Ibrahim, a Sunni Muslim educator who owned a rival school in the same village. In May 2000, a lower court in Sialkot district, Punjab, sentenced two Christian brothers to 35 years' imprisonment each and fined them each $1,500 (PKR 75,000) for allegedly desecrating the Koran and blaspheming the Prophet Mohammed. Lawyers for the brothers filed an appeal in the Lahore High Court that was to be heard in January 2001; however, the hearing was rescheduled for February after the judge in the case retired. The two brothers remained in detention at year's end. By year's end, the Supreme Court dismissed the blasphemy case against Ayub Masih who was released after 6 years in solitary confinement.

Police also arrest Muslims under the blasphemy laws; government officials maintain that approximately two-thirds of the total blasphemy cases that have been brought to trial have affected Muslims. Dr. Younis Shaikh sentenced in 2000 on blasphemy charges was denied bail, sentenced to death, and fined $1,580 (PKR 100,000) by a sessions court on August 18. His case was under appeal at year's end. Yusuf Ali, who had been convicted of blasphemy and sentenced to death, was shot and killed in the Lahore Central Jail by another inmate on July 11. Some jail officials were arrested in connection with the incident, including an Assistant Superintendent (who reportedly took responsibility for the shooting and stepped down). At year's end, the shooting was still under investigation by the authorities. The 1998 death sentence of Shi'a Muslim Ghulam Akbar was under appeal at year's end.

When blasphemy and other religious cases are brought to court, extremists often pack the courtroom and make public threats about the consequences of an acquittal. As a result, the accused often are denied requests for bail on the grounds that their lives would be at risk from vigilantes if released. Many judges also try to pass such cases to other jurists; some judges reportedly have handed down guilty verdicts to protect themselves and their families from religious extremists.

The Constitution specifically prohibited discriminatory admission to any governmental educational institution solely on the basis of religion. Government officials state that the only factors affecting admission to governmental educational institutions are students' grades and home provinces. However, students must declare their religion on application forms. Ahmadis and Christians reported discrimination in applying to government educational institutions due to their religious affiliation.

"Islamiyyat" (Islamic studies) is compulsory for all Muslim students in state-run schools. Although students of other faiths legally are not required to study Islam, they are not provided with parallel studies in their own religions. In practice teachers compel many non-Muslim students to complete Islamic studies.

On June 19, the Government announced the Madrassah Registration Ordinance of 2002, which went into effect immediately. Under the ordinance, all madrassahs (religious schools) were required to register with the Pakistan Madrassah Education Board and provincial boards. Madrassahs failing to do so may be fined or closed. The madrassahs no longer are allowed to accept grants or aid from foreign sources, although madrassahs offering courses in science, math, Urdu, and English are eligible for government funds. Madrassahs were given 6 months to comply. The ordinance was designed to regulate the madrassahs, where many poor children are educated, and to combat religious extremism.

The Government designates religion on passports, and to get a passport citizens must declare whether they are Muslim or non-Muslim. Muslims also must affirm that they accept the unqualified finality of the prophethood of Mohammed and declare that Ahmadis are non-Muslims.

Permission to buy land comes from one municipal bureaucracy, and permission to build a house of worship from another. For all religious groups, the process appeared to be subject to bureaucratic delays and requests for bribes.

The Government distinguished between Muslims and non-Muslims with regard to politics and political rights. Furthermore, according to the Constitution, the President and the Prime Minister must be Muslim. The Prime Minister, federal ministers, and ministers of state, as well as elected members of the Senate and National Assembly (including non-Muslims) must take an oath to "strive to preserve the Islamic ideology, which is the basis for the creation of Pakistan" (see Section 3).

The Ahmadis are subject to specific restrictions under law. A constitutional amendment declared Ahmadis to be a non-Muslim minority because, according to the Government, they do not accept Mohammed as the last prophet of Islam. However, Ahmadis regard themselves as Muslims and observe Islamic practices. In May the Government announced the restoration of a voter registration form designed to single out Ahmadis. The section, which required Muslims to swear they believe in the "finality of Mohammed's prophethood," singled out members of the Ahmadis sect who are less categorical about this tenet of Islam. The Government and anti-Ahmadi religious groups have used this provision extensively to harass Ahmadis. Ahmadis suffer from various restrictions of religious freedom and widespread societal discrimination, including violation of their places of worship, being barred from burial in Muslim graveyards, denial of freedom of religion, speech, and assembly, and restrictions on their press. Several Ahmadi mosques remained closed. Ahmadis have been prohibited from holding conferences or gatherings. Ahmadis are prohibited from taking part in the Hajj (the annual Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca). Some popular newspapers publish anti-Ahmadi "conspiracy" stories, which contribute to anti-Ahmadi sentiments in society.

Acts of sectarian and religious violence continued during the year (see Section 5). A number of massacres in churches and mosques brought into question the Government’s ability to prevent sectarian and religious violence. The worst religious violence was directed against the country’s Shi’a minority, who continued disproportionately to be victims of individual and mass killings. Despite the Government’s ban on groups involved in sectarian killings, violence between rival Sunni and Shi'a Muslim groups continued during the year. Many of the victims were Shi’a professionals--doctors and lawyers--who were not politically active or involved with sectarian groups. During the year, at least 53 cases of sectarian violence occurred in the country, most carried out by unidentified gunmen. For example, on February 4, Dr. Fayyaz Karim was shot and killed outside a mosque in Karachi. On June 17, three Shi'a men were shot and killed by unknown gunmen outside of a Shi'a mosque, who was opposed by the Sunni extremist groups Lash-Kar-e Jhangyi and Singh Sahaba Pakistan.

Sectarian violence between members of different religious groups received national attention during the year and continued to be a serious problem. Christians, Ahmadis, and other religious minorities often were the targets of such violence.

Christians have been victims of violence. For example, in March an attack on a church in Islamabad left five persons dead, including two foreign nationals. In August gunmen attacked the Murree Christian School and killed four persons. Three days later, militants threw grenades at worshippers at a Christian hospital in Taxila and left three persons dead. On December 25, 3 children were killed and 14 were injured in a grenade attack on a Christian Church in Chianwala village in Sialkot. On December 27, police detained four men, including a radical Muslim cleric, on suspicion of carrying out the Christmas day attack. During the year, police made no arrests in connection with past sectarian killings. Numerous such killings remain unresolved.

Several incidents of sectarian violence between rival Sunni and Shi'a groups typically occur during Muharram, the time when Shi'a Muslims mourn the death of the Prophet Mohammed's nephew Ali and Ali's son Hussain. Government efforts to stem a wave of violence, including mass arrests of those suspected of participating in sectarian violence, resulted in no deaths during the year.

Beginning in 2001 and throughout the year, the Government undertook a major effort to curb religious extremism and address the intimidation of religious minorities. On January 12, the Government banned another five groups suspected of inciting religious violence and jihad: Tehrik-e-Ja'fria Pakistan, Sipah-e-Sihaba-Pakistan, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Muhammad, and Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Sharait-e-Muhammadi. Hundreds of local and national offices were closed, and almost 2,000 members of these groups were arrested in the weeks following the announcement. Most detainees were low-level organization members who were released after 90 days without being charged. Rumors persisted that higher level party leaders enjoyed the protection and patronage of government agencies, and avoided arrest by going underground. In late June, the authorities in Lahore arrested at least 30 members of 2 of the banned groups. By year's end, the Government accelerated its detention of members of several extremist groups. In addition, violence in country has prompted the Government on several occasions to round up hundreds of members of religious extremist groups and students at madrassahs believed to be terrorist recruiting centers and training grounds.

Government authorities afford religious minorities fewer legal protections than are afforded to Sunni Muslim citizens. Members of religious minorities are subject to violence and harassment, and police at times refuse to prevent such actions or to charge persons who commit them.

Ahmadi individuals and institutions often are targets of religious intolerance, much of which is instigated by organized religious extremists. Ahmadi leaders charge that militant Sunni mullahs and their followers sometimes stage marches through the streets of Rabwah, a predominantly Ahmadi town and spiritual center in central Punjab. Backed by crowds of 100 to 200 persons, the mullahs purportedly denounce Ahmadis and their founder, a situation that sometimes leads to violence. The Ahmadis claim that police generally are present during these marches but do not intervene to prevent trouble. For example, in January Ghulam Mustafa Mohsin was killed in his home in District Toba Tek Sing, after receiving a series of death threats.

Ahmadis suffer from harassment and discrimination and have limited chances for advancement into management levels in government service. In the past few years Ahmadis claim that even the rumor that someone may be an Ahmadi or have Ahmadi relatives can stifle opportunities for employment or promotion. Ahmadi students in public schools are subject to abuse by their non-Ahmadi classmates, and the quality of teachers assigned to predominantly Ahmadi schools by the Government generally is poor. However, most Ahmadis are home-schooled or go to private Ahmadi-run schools. Young Ahmadis complain of difficulty in gaining admittance to good colleges and consequently having to go abroad for higher education. Certain sections of the Penal Code discriminate against Ahmadis, particularly the provision that forbids Ahmadis from "directly or indirectly" posing as Muslims. Armed with this vague wording, mullahs have brought charges against Ahmadis for using standard Muslim salutations and for naming their children Mohammed.

The predominantly Ahmadi town and spiritual center of Chenab Nagar (formerly known as Rabwah) in Punjab often has been a site of violence against Ahmadis (see Section 5).

Other religious minority groups also experienced considerable discrimination in employment and education. In the country's early years, minorities were able to rise to the senior ranks of the military and civil service; now many were unable to rise above mid-level ranks. The Government claimed that officers in the military were promoted strictly on merit, and there were two active duty generals who were members of religious minorities. The lack of religious minorities at higher levels of the military partially may be due to the limited number of minorities who opt for a career in the armed forces.

Discrimination in employment reportedly was common. Christians in particular have difficulty finding jobs other than menial labor, although Christian activists say the employment situation has improved somewhat in the private sector. Christians were overrepresented in the country's most oppressed social group--that of bonded laborers. Many Christians complained about the difficulty that their children face in gaining admission to government schools and colleges, a problem they attribute to discrimination. Many Christians continued to express fear of forced marriages between Muslim men and Christian women, although the practice was relatively rare. Reprisals against suspected converts to Christianity occur, and a general atmosphere of religious intolerance has led to acts of violence against religious minorities.

Although there were few Jewish citizens in the country, anti-Semitic sentiments appeared to be widespread, and anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist press articles were common.

However, the return of joint electorates eliminated parliamentary and assembly seats reserved for minorities. Some minority leaders complained that these seats should have been retained after the joint electorate system was eliminated.

For a more detailed discussion see the 2002 International Religious Freedom Report.

d. Freedom of Movement Within the Country, Foreign Travel, Emigration, and Repatriation

The law provides for these rights; however, the Government limited them in practice. The Government at times prevented political party leaders and religious leaders from traveling to certain parts of the country (see Section 2.b.). Travel to Israel is prohibited by law, but some citizens may visit Israel without penalty by not getting their passports stamped by the Government of Israel. Government employees and students must obtain "no objection" certificates before travelling abroad, although this requirement rarely was enforced against students.

Citizens regularly exercised the right to emigrate. However, an Exit Control List (ECL), which was made public but was revised constantly, was used to prevent the departure of wanted criminals and individuals under investigation for defaulting on loans, corruption, or other offenses. Soon after coming to power, the Musharraf Government increased the use of the ECL, reportedly to prevent those suspected of loan defaults or corruption from leaving the country. The focus apparently was on potential loan defaulters as part of the Musharraf Government's emphasis on accountability. However, according to the Government, there were approximately 2,450 names on the ECL for the period of January to September. No judicial action was required to add a name to the ECL; those named have the right to appeal to the Secretary of Interior and, if refused, to the Advocate General of the senior judiciary. In practice courts have directed the Government to lift restrictions on some politicians on the ECL.

The law does not provide for the granting of refugee or asylum status in accordance with the 1951 U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or its 1967 Protocol, nor has the Government adopted domestic legislation concerning the treatment of refugees or the granting of asylum status. In December 1999, the office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) noted a change from the practice of granting "prima facie" status to all Afghans in the country; under the current policy, the Government treats all undocumented Afghans as aliens under the Foreigners Act, making them potentially subject to deportation. However, in practice the Government has allowed the vast majority of the Afghans who have entered the country to remain. On October 22, the Government, Afghanistan and UNHCR agreed on an Afghan/Pakistan refugee accord, which institutionalized the voluntary repatriation of 1.8 million Afghan refugees from Pakistan for three years. The Government will continue its negotiation with UNHCR and the Government of Afghanistan on procedures for the screening and repatriation of Afghans in the refugee camps. In the past, the fear of large numbers of new refugees trying to enter the country coupled with the absence of a legalized asylum framework and the sharp economic competition with host communities led to a more restrictive admissions policy and a deterioration in protection for many refugees.

The Government generally cooperates with the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and other humanitarian organizations in assisting registered refugees. The Government provided first asylum to approximately 200,000 persons during the year. First asylum has been provided to refugees from Afghanistan since 1979. In November 2001, President Musharraf announced that limited numbers of "vulnerable" Afghan refugees would be allowed to enter the country, including injured persons, unaccompanied minors, the elderly, and those from drought-affected areas of Afghanistan; adherence to this policy fluctuated through year's end. Refugees that did not fit into this category still were denied entry to the country. The Government refers to refugees who entered the country after September 2001 as "externally displaced persons" and works with UNHCR to provide services to them. There remain an estimated 1.5 million Afghan refugees in the country who have been granted first asylum, and live in refugee camps (mainly in the NWFP and Baluchistan). There also were an estimated 1.4 million unregistered Afghans in urban areas throughout the country, including in Peshawar, Quetta, Islamabad, Rawalpindi, and Lahore. In January UNHCR set up two new camps (Dara I and Dara II) on the Pakistan side of Chaman border to accommodate the approximately 20,000 refugees in one week. On February 27, the Ministry of Interior announced that the country would not allow UNHCR to process new arrivals. At one point, there were up to 40,000 persons waiting to be registered and relocated. The Government officially never reversed its position on vulnerable persons, but said that none of the new arrivals met the vulnerable criteria. In response, UNHCR improved the humanitarian conditions in the waiting areas and redoubled its efforts to establish Zhare Dasht settlement on the Afghan side of the Chaman border. UNHRC reported the situation for refugees improved during the year.

Many Afghan refugees continued to live and work in the country, and were self-supporting and lived outside of refugee camps, usually in urban or semi-urban areas. This resulted in some hostility among local communities whose residents resent the economic competition and believe that the refugees contribute to high crime rates. Conditions for refugees outside of the camps often were worse than for those in the camps. Refugees outside the camps also faced harassment by the police, especially in Peshawar, Islamabad, and Rawalpindi. Single women, female-headed households, and children who work on the streets faced pa