Jan Balochby Jan Baloch
語言:
English
Photo Credit: Isak Khan/WikiCommons/CC BY 4.0
ON JUNE 22, 2026, a Pakistani Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) in Quetta, the capital of Balochistan, sentenced Dr. Mahrang Baloch and fellow members of the Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC) to life imprisonment. Dr. Baloch is a medical doctor from Balochistan and a leading figure in the province’s non-violent movement against enforced disappearances and extra-judicial killings. Her sentence is considered at the centre of one of Pakistan’s most fiercely contested political trials in recent years.
While prosecutors have linked the convictions to the July 2024 Gwadar protests, during which a paramilitary soldier was killed, the broader sequence of events suggests that the court proceedings were connected to a much wider chain of developments in Quetta. These included disputes surrounding enforced disappearances, security operations in Balochistan and subsequent protests by members of the BYC. At the center of this wider case was a dispute that emerged in March 2025 over unidentified bodies, an issue that later became intertwined with the legal proceedings and the escalating tensions between activists and authorities.
Unidentified Bodies and the Dispute over Their Burial
IN MID-MARCH 2025, Pakistani security forces conducted an operation in Balochistan’s Bolan area following the Jaffar Express train hijacking incident. Several people were killed during the operation, and their bodies were transferred to the Quetta Civil Hospital morgue as unidentified remains.
Families of missing persons, along with members of the BYC travelled to hospital to have access to the dead bodies. They wanted to know whether any of the deceased were family members who had disappeared in previous years. Authorities identified those killed as militants involved in the operation. However, families requested access for identification and verification.
According to rights advocates, access to the bodies was not granted. They further allege that approximately thirteen unidentified bodies were later buried at Kasi Graveyard in Quetta city during the night of March 20-21 2025 without forensic identification procedures such as DNA testing or fingerprint analysis.
Following the burial, demonstrations broke out across Quetta that led to confrontations between protesters and security forces, including the use of tear gas and baton charges.
The Baloch Yakjehti Committee alleged that during this confrontation, police opened fire, killing three protesters, including a 12-year-old boy. The protesters carried those three dead bodies and launched a sit-in on main Sariab Road. This protest later became central to the criminal proceedings that led to the convictions on June 22, 2026, because Dr. Mahrang and other BYC members were arrested from there.
What International Law Requires in Cases of Unidentified Deaths
INTERNATIONAL LEGAL STANDARDS set detailed expectations for how states are to handle unidentified human remains. The Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (UN OHCHR) outlines forensic guidelines for situations where deaths occur in uncertain or contested circumstances. It requires states to preserve remains, conduct independent autopsies where feasible, collect DNA evidence, and ensure transparent identification before burial wherever possible. It also emphasizes that forensic integrity is central to determining whether a death was lawful or unlawful under applicable standards.
Legal experts note that where bodies are buried without identification, DNA profiling, or independent forensic examination, such situations constitute a direct violation of international law. According to the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions, the investigation, forensic documentation, and proper identification of dead bodies is not optional, it is a strict obligation under the non-derogable right to life. Legal experts note that where bodies are buried secretly without identification, DNA profiling, or independent forensic examination, such situations constitute a direct violation of international law.
The UN OHCHR maintains that proper identification and forensic transparency are paramount. By carrying out secret nighttime burials, authorities actively bypass the global standards established in the UN Minnesota Protocol. Human rights monitors argue this disruption is intentionally used to shield perpetrators from accountability. Furthermore, guidelines from the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances dictate that concealing human remains or hiding the identities of deceased individuals constitutes a continuation of an enforced disappearance, cruelly denying the victims’ families their legally protected right to truth and justice.
Pakistan is also a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified in 2010. Article 6 protects the right to life and requires states to investigate deaths where state responsibility may be implicated, while Article 19 protects the right to freedom of expression, which encompasses the right to access information held by public authorities. UN treaty bodies have interpreted these provisions as contributing to an emerging right to truth for families of missing persons.
A Quetta-based advocate, Imran Baloch, says:
“Once identity is removed from a dead body, law requires the state to restore it through process, not erase it through burial. Without forensic transparency, everything else becomes allegation.”
Legal expert said that the central issue in Quetta was not only the burial itself, but whether procedural safeguards required under domestic and international standards were followed in a context involving allegations of unlawful death and enforced disappearance.
Several lawyers interviewed for this feature argue that if identification procedures such as DNA testing or fingerprinting were not completed prior to burial, such actions could raise questions under Pakistan’s criminal procedure laws as well as international human rights obligations.
According to Section 174 of Pakistan’s Criminal Procedure Code, law enforcement authorities are required to conduct an inquest in cases of sudden or suspicious deaths to establish identity and cause of death.
International humanitarian law experts further point to Articles 16 and 17 of the First Geneva Convention, which require parties to a conflict to properly record and identify the dead prior to burial wherever feasible. They also refer to Customary International Humanitarian Law Rule 116, which obliges parties to take all feasible measures to account for and identify the deceased.
A Quetta-based legal observer describes the situation as:
“A confrontation between administrative closure and forensic truth.”
According to rights advocates, the controversy over the handling of the bodies became a central factor in the escalation of protests in Quetta and the subsequent arrests of Dr. Mahrang Baloch and other BYC members. An anonymous BYC activist adds:
“The authorities couldn’t handle being challenged by women they saw as weak. They simply could not tolerate Dr. Mahrang leading a movement that dared to question state power.”
Enforced Disappearance and the Right to Truth
THE SIT-IN PROTESTS on Sariab Road Quetta by BYC members on March 22, 2025, should also be understood within Pakistan’s broader and long-documented allegations of enforced disappearances. Under international law, particularly the framework developed by the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID), states are expected to investigate allegations of disappearance, disclose the fate and whereabouts of missing persons, and maintain transparent records of detention and custody.
Pakistan has not ratified the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. However, UN bodies and human rights experts have noted that core safeguards against enforced disappearance are reflected in customary international law and should be considered alongside Pakistan’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). At the center of this framework is the principle commonly described as the right to know, which holds that families are entitled to information regarding the fate of missing relatives.
Human rights advocate Imran Baloch argued that the burial of unidentified bodies without full forensic identification may interfere with this right, as it can prevent confirmation of identity, complicate investigations, and limit accountability processes in cases where enforced disappearance is alleged.
From Protest to Arrest
ON MARCH 22, 2025, during the ongoing sit-in in Quetta, police conducted an operation to disperse protesters. According to BYC members and their legal team, Dr. Mahrang Baloch was taken into custody during this operation without prior notice or formal presentation of charges at the time of arrest. Authorities have maintained that arrests were made in connection with law-and-order concerns arising from the protests.
Following her detention, BYC representatives and human rights lawyers alleged that her whereabouts were not immediately disclosed for a period, raising concerns among activists about short-term incommunicado detention. Legal experts note that allegations of delayed disclosure in custody cases are assessed under constitutional safeguards and applicable domestic law, including Article 10 of the Constitution of Pakistan.
Activists and legal advocates argue that the initial stage of her detention mirrored the very state practices she campaigned against. Because she was whisked away during the raid without a warrant or formal charges, BYC representatives initially treated the unnotified arrest as a short-term enforced disappearance designed to terrorize the movement. Commenting on the procedural bypass, Advocate Imran Baloch condemned the state’s tactics, declaring the secret arrest format completely unlawful.
“This is a black law being used to punish someone who dared to speak out,” Imran Baloch stated. He said that authorities routinely fail to provide detention notifications or adhere to proper legal procedures when targeting high-profile dissidents.
The authorities later justified her continued detention by invoking Section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) Ordinance, 1960. Under this provision, individuals may be placed under preventive detention through administrative orders issued by the relevant Home Department. The detention of Dr. Baloch along with other BYC members was extended through these administrative orders over a period.
Human rights lawyers said that preventive detention laws must comply with constitutional safeguards, including the right to be informed of grounds for detention and the ability to challenge such orders before a competent forum. Imran Baloch in this matter said,
“Under established constitutional principles and Article 10 of the Constitution, preventive detention requires clear procedural safeguards, including timely notification of grounds and the opportunity to challenge detention before a competent authority.”
Legal observers describe the dispute as one over the scope and application of administrative detention powers versus constitutional guarantees of due process. Authorities, however, maintain that detention orders were issued in accordance with law.
In July 2025, shortly before a High Court-constituted review board was scheduled to examine the legality of the MPO detention order, the government withdrew the preventive detention order, ending the detention before the review process could take place. According to legal representatives of the detainees, this withdrawal effectively ended the administrative detention framework. Subsequently, Dr. Mahrang Baloch was re-arrested under provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) on charges linked to earlier demonstrations in Gwadar in 2024, where a paramilitary soldier was killed.
Legal experts note that the transition from preventive detention to criminal charges is a matter that may raise questions of procedural timing and legal strategy, while authorities maintain that the arrest was based on separate and independent criminal allegations. In international legal frameworks, the practice of releasing a detainee from one set of charges or administrative orders only to immediately re-arrest them on different grounds is recognized as revolving-door detention or chain re-arrest. International treaty bodies and human rights courts explicitly define this cyclical tactic as a severe manifestation of arbitrary detention.
This practice stands in direct violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), where Article 9(1) explicitly guarantees that no individual shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or deprivation of liberty. Evaluating these patterns, the UN Human Rights Committee treats successive, bad-faith re-arrests as an abuse of process engineered solely to circumvent valid judicial release mandates.
The systemic illegality of this practice is routinely codified under Category I and Category III jurisprudence of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD). The expert panel classifies these maneuvers as arbitrary because the state extends captivity without an independent legal foundation while intentionally dismantling the detainee’s right to a fair trial. WGAD case precedents firmly establish that:
“Once a court or review board orders an individual’s release, the state cannot weaponize parallel administrative files to sustain imprisonment—a circumvention that violates the legal doctrine of res judicata and renders the entire duration of custody unlawful.”
Furthermore, Principle 32 of the UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention stipulates that any court-ordered release must be effective, absolute, and genuine. Executing a secondary arrest at the prison gates or the court room, directly invalidates judicial authority, stripping the target of their internationally protected right to an effective legal remedy.
Preventive Detention and High Court Proceedings
DURING HABEAS CORPUS proceedings before the Balochistan High Court, the provincial state counsel defended the continued detention of Dr. Mahrang Baloch under preventive detention laws, citing concerns related to public order. According to court submissions, the state also referenced Article 5 of the Constitution of Pakistan, arguing that public statements made by the accused were relevant to questions of constitutional loyalty.
The defense objected to a request made during proceedings to require an affidavit affirming allegiance to the state, arguing that such a requirement had no basis in procedural law and raised serious concerns regarding constitutional rights during preventive detention hearings.
The Home Department placed multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) on record, arguing that these cases justified continued detention under the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) Ordinance. Defense lawyers, however, countered that the timing and sequencing of FIRs raised critical concerns about due process and access to bail remedies, pointing out that using overlapping criminal filings to block immediate release undermined basic legal safeguards.
One defense lawyer stated:
“Dr. Baloch was detained before being formally informed of the allegations in several FIRs. In our view, this undermines the ability to seek timely legal remedies, including pre-arrest bail.”
Imran Baloch added:
“There are concerns regarding the procedural handling of FIRs and whether due process safeguards were fully observed in practice.”
Human rights lawyers argue that preventive detention frameworks must be applied in accordance with constitutional safeguards, including the right to legal representation and the ability to challenge detention before a competent authority.
During High Court proceedings, defense counsel Advocate Sajid Tareen publicly challenged the bench and walked out of the hearing, stating he had lost confidence in the process. He said,
“I can no longer be part of a process where justice is being compromised in favor of the state”.
When the bench warned him of contempt proceedings, Tareen responded:
“Go ahead, be quick about it.”
The episode unfolded in Courtroom No. 1 before Acting Chief Justice Ejaz Swati and Justice Amir Rana. It was later cited by defense lawyers as reflecting escalating tensions between the judiciary and defense counsel during preventive detention hearings.
Trial Inside Custody and Defense Case
THE ANTI-TERRORISM COURT delivered its verdict on June 22, 2026 inside Hudda Jail, Quetta, where the accused were detained. Human rights organizations and legal observers have described prison-based trials as raising concerns over transparency and effective legal access, highlighting that conducting judicial proceedings behind closed prison walls restricts public scrutiny and limits the ability of defence counsels to consult confidentially with their clients.
According to defense counsel, proceedings were boycotted at stages due to objections over the venue, procedural conditions, and perceived restrictions on fair trial guarantees. Lead defense counsel Israr Jattak stated:
“We did not have confidence in the process. This was not an ordinary trial.”
After the boycott, the court appointed state-funded defense counsel to represent the accused. Legal experts note that such appointments are permissible under Pakistani law, but controversial when made against the expressed wishes of the accused. Defense lawyers argue that the short timeframe between appointment and sentencing limited the ability to review extensive case material and prepare an effective defense. They relied on Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR and Article 10 of the Constitution of Pakistan, both guaranteeing the right to legal representation of one’s choosing. Authorities maintain that proceedings were conducted in accordance with law.
Family members, including the lawyer and sister of Dr. Baloch, Nadia Baloch, described the trial as “lacking transparency and access to evidence”. Former Supreme Court Bar Association president Senator Kamran Murtaza also raised concerns about prison-based hearings and the ability of the defense to effectively cross-examine prosecution witnesses. Defense lawyers further pointed to alleged procedural irregularities, including the failure to record the accused’s statement under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which they argue is a mandatory step before judgment. Legal experts note that such procedural issues, if established, may form grounds for appellate review.
The Digital Convergence of ATA and PECA
UNDER THE FRAMEWORK of national security legislation, Pakistan’s counterterrorism and cybercrime laws have increasingly been interpreted in overlapping ways in cases involving digital expression and protest documentation. In the prosecution of Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC) members, prosecutors relied on what legal observers describe as an intersection between the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) of 1997 and the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) of 2016.
According to legal analysts, this overlap has allowed digital activity such as live-streaming, online reporting, and protest coordination to be examined not only as protected expression but also, in certain cases, as potential facilitation or incitement under counter-terrorism provisions. Authorities maintain that such material may be relevant where it is linked to public disorder or alleged violent activity. Human rights lawyers, however, argue that the combined application of ATA and PECA in protest-related cases risk expanding the scope of terrorism-related offences into areas of peaceful expression and digital journalism.
Rejection of the UN Model Definition of Terrorism
THE EXPANSION OF terrorism-related charges in domestic contexts has been criticized by human rights advocates as inconsistent with international guidance on counterterrorism. The UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism has outlined a widely cited framework under which an act is generally considered terrorism only when three cumulative elements are present: (1) serious physical violence or comparable harm, (2) intent to achieve a political, ideological, or religious objective, and (3) an intention to intimidate a population or compel state action.
Legal experts note that the Special Rapporteur has also emphasized that non-violent political activity, peaceful protest, and journalistic or digital documentation do not fall within this definition. On this basis, lawyers representing the defense argue that applying terrorism-related provisions to digital reporting or protest coverage raises questions about the consistency of such charges with internationally recognized standards.
Principle of legality (ICCPR articles)
ARTICLE 15(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) establishes that no person may be convicted of an act that was not considered a criminal offence under law at the time it was committed. Derived from the principle of nullum crimen sine lege (no crime without law), this standard requires criminal offences to be clearly defined, accessible, and foreseeable.
Human rights lawyers argue that when broadly worded counterterrorism or cybercrime provisions are applied to acts such as protest documentation, political advocacy, or online expression, questions arise about whether individuals can reasonably predict what conduct may lead to criminal liability.
Legal observers also connect these concerns with the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, particularly Articles 1 and 12(2), which recognize the right of individuals to promote human rights and call on states to protect defenders from retaliation, threats, or arbitrary legal measures linked to their peaceful activities.
The use of closed-door, video-link proceedings from high-security facilities has generated additional debate over compliance with fair-trial standards. Critics argue that remote hearings may affect transparency, public scrutiny, and the ability of defendants to participate effectively in their own proceedings. These concerns are examined considering ICCPR Article 14(1), which guarantees the right to a fair and public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal.
The UN Human Rights Committee, in General Comment No. 32, has stated that restrictions on public hearings must be justified for legitimate reasons and applied only where necessary and proportionate. Legal experts therefore argue that virtual proceedings should not become a substitute for essential safeguards, including public oversight and equality between prosecution and defense
Questions have also been raised regarding the confidentiality of lawyer-client communication in prison-based video hearings. ICCPR Article 14(3)(b) requires that accused persons have adequate facilities to prepare their defense, while Principle 8 of the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers requires confidential communication between lawyers and their clients. Human rights monitors have argued that since prison authorities control the digital infrastructure, ensuring fully private communication presents severe practical challenges.
Defense lawyers and international observers have further raised concerns about whether remote hearings allow defendants to participate meaningfully in their own trials. They have pointed to ICCPR Article 14(3)(d), which protects the right of an accused person to be tried in their presence, and Article 14(3)(e), which guarantees the ability to examine witnesses and present a defense. Critics argue that virtual formats create systemic difficulties in reviewing evidence, interacting with courtroom proceedings, and challenging testimony.
Supporters of remote hearing often cite security concerns, logistical constraints, and the need to protect court personnel or witnesses as reasons for using digital proceedings. However, international legal standards emphasize that any such measures must remain consistent with the core requirements of a fair trial, including transparency, equality of arms, effective participation, and access to legal representation
UN Security Council Frameworks
PARAGRAPH 6 of UN Security Council Resolution 1456 (2003) establishes that human rights remain entirely non-negotiable during national emergencies. Under this framework, the Security Council dictates that domestic security legislation—such as preventive custody under public order ordinances or fast-tracked anti-terror charges—cannot be weaponized as a legal blank check to bypass global fair-trial standards or execute arbitrary detentions.
Furthermore, paragraph 4 of UN Security Council Resolution 1624 (2005) mandates that all member states must aggressively safeguard the fundamental freedom of expression protected under Article 19 of the ICCPR. Monitoring these mandates, the UN Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) explicitly prohibits states from utilizing vague or overbroad national definitions of terrorism to detain peaceful civil rights activists, live-streamers, or journalists who are merely documenting regional protests.
This standard is heavily reinforced by UN Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001), which requires states to strictly harmonize their domestic judicial mechanisms with global due process protocols. To ensure compliance, member states are systematically audited on their adherence to the international rule of law by the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED). Within this regulatory framework, tactical maneuvers like “revolving-door” re-arrests or holding trials behind closed doors inside high-security prison walls are increasingly scrutinized as direct failures to provide a transparent, fair, and predictable legal environment.
Ultimately, the Security Council consistently reaffirms that the arbitrary deprivation of liberty is fundamentally incompatible with international legal standards. According to oversight guidelines embedded in the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Coordination Compact, keeping a suspect in perpetual custody via shifting administrative orders—without an independent, legitimate legal basis—directly violates the Security Council’s global mandate to protect human rights while countering terrorism.
Nobel Precedents and International Recognition
THE NOMINATION of Dr. Mahrang Baloch for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize has been cited by supporters as a powerful form of international recognition for her non-violent activism. She was also nominated for the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize. According to an official announcement by BYC, Dr. Baloch secured her second consecutive nomination, a milestone that human rights monitors argue directly reframes her politically sensitive case. Advocates point to major historical precedents such as Nelson Mandela in 1993, Liu Xiaobo in 2010, and Narges Mohammadi in 2023—all of whom were recognized internationally while actively facing domestic criminal proceedings, prison sentences, or state-sanctioned crackdowns.
Supporters argue that this repeated global acknowledgement reflects escalating international scrutiny over systemic allegations of enforced disappearances in Balochistan. Analysts note that international recognition in such highly contested legal cases frequently generates sharp, competing narratives between domestic judicial determinations and the broader assessments of global civil society.
Conclusion
THE CONVICTION of Dr. Mahrang Baloch has become part of an ongoing debate over the application of counterterrorism and preventive detention laws in Pakistan. Human rights lawyers and civil society groups argue that the case raises concerns about the intersection of counter-terrorism legislation, cybercrime provisions, and procedural safeguards under domestic and international law, including Article 10 of the Constitution of Pakistan and Article 14 of the ICCPR. Authorities maintain that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and based on evidence presented before the court.
Observers note that the case has drawn significant international attention, including human rights organizations and civil society networks, which contribute to broader discussions about the boundaries between national security enforcement and political expression.