SC reserves verdict on what constitutes ?terrorism?

[ahlam1399]

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court Tuesday reserved its verdict on the definition of terrorism and what cases could be tried in the Anti-Terrorism Courts (ATCs) under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) 1997.A seven-member larger bench was constituted to settle the question last month by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Asif Saeed Khosa after this question was posed to the court in Fazal Bashir vs The State and Sibtain vs The State cases, a priavet TV channel reported.The larger bench discussed the ramifications of Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) 1997 and “ambiguities” in the law making its implementation problematic.The court also deliberated upon whether a settlement between the parties in a ‘terrorism’ case was admissible before the court.The lawyer representing the government told the court that settlement was not time-barred and it could take place at any time.To this, the CJP said the court wanted to know whether there was room for settlement in a terrorism offence.“There cannot be a settlement in terrorism offences. The ATA 1997 has no provision for settlement,” the CJP remarked, adding that the law could not be overlooked just because two parties in a terrorism case had reached a settlement.The court asked the lawyers whether a case that has been heard [and decided] could be reopened if new evidence appeared or a settlement was reached.The government lawyer responded that the court could revisit the case to “serve justice”, to which the chief justice responded that “justice” could be done only by remaining within the ambit of the law.“The court doesn’t have the authority to make law; provisions [for all these points] can only be made by lawmakers alone,” he remarked.Citing former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s case, Chief Justice Khosa said even that case was not reopened after new evidence had emerged.“There is only one way for this, that the court itself recommends the country’s president to allow the mercy petition of such a criminal,” said the chief justice.Commenting on the misuse of ATA 1997, the chief justice said the said law was “full of ambiguities” and the court would have to interpret the Anti-Terrorism Act broadly.“It is a broad question what constitutes terrorism,” remarked Justice Mansoor Ali Shah. The chief justice said spreading a sense of fear through a planned and coordinated activity was terrorism.“If a crime is carried out with an intention to spread fear, then it is terrorism”, he said.Justice Shah said the consequences of activity wouldn’t necessarily accurately describe what the intentions [of the person carrying out the activity] were.Chief Justice Khosa, on Justice Shah’s remarks, laid out a hypothetical scenario to further elaborate on the matter.“If a person’s enemy is standing at a fuel station, and the assassin shoots his enemy, but the bullet, instead of hitting the target, hits the fuel station’s storage, resulting in a huge explosion which kills several people and destroys many vehicles; will this be called terrorism?” asked the CJP, adding that it was beyond anyone’s capacity to control the consequences of his/her actions.To this, Justice Shah said if the entire fuel pump was gutted due to one bullet hitting the storage, would it be tantamount to creating ‘unrest’. “Hence, we cannot judge the intentions by the consequences of actions,” he said.Justice Ejazul Ahsan asked if it would be called terrorism if a person, with the intention to kill one person, ended up killing 15 others present at the scene [without an intention].http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/com/cwEr/~4/yomEL8pmlrU

أكثر... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/com/cwEr/~3/yomEL8pmlrU/452921-sc-reserves-verdict-on-what-constitutes-terrorism)