Reformation of Criminal Justice System of Pakistan
Keywords:
Adquisitorial, criminal justice system of Pakistan, reformation, judicial reform, Latin America
Abstract
This paper analyzes the loopholes and faults in the Criminal Justice System of Pakistan (CJSP), which is under rising criticism for its ineffectiveness and has been ranked at 108th of the total 139 countries of the world in the Rule of Law Index, 2021. The poor and defective investigation by the police, without any effective prosecutorial or judicial supervision over the process of investigation, is mainly responsible for crippling the CJSP adversarial system, which needs to be reformed to make it effective. A comparative analysis will show that Latin American countries such as Chile, Argentina, México and Colombia have moved from an inquisitorial to an accusatorial system, claiming that this is the best way to protect fundamental rights and to reduce the ever-increasing impunity in these countries. By applying a comparative approach, it shows that both inquisitorial and adversarial system of justice have systematic weaknesses and strengths in their composition. This certainly has motivated the International Criminal Court (ICC), China, Spain, Italy and many other countries to develop an Adquisitorial System-mixed inquisitorial/adversarial system- to get the benefit of best practices of both the systems. The Pakistan case, in relation to the Latin American one, shows that what is important is not to analyze the system in the abstract, but to determine which one solves in a better way the problem a judicial system has: in Pakistan, law and order, given the limitations of police action; in Latin America, the protection of fundamental rights during the criminal process. The case in Pakistan shows that the problems the judicial system is facing can be solved by appealing to a combination of inquisitorial and accusatorial features. This paper concludes suggesting that the existing investigation phase of the CJSP should be transformed, by legal transplant, to an inquisitorial pre-trial investigation process, with necessary modifications, led by the investigative judge while the trial phase remains to be adversarial.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Metrics
Metrics Loading ...
PlumX Statistics
References
1. Ainsworth, J. (2015). Legal Discourse and Legal Narratives: Adversarial versus Inquisitorial Models; Language and Law/ Linguagem e Direito, Vol. 2(1), p. 1-11
2. Abdul Ghaffar v. The State through DG FIA, H.Q Islamabad (2021 P Cr. L J Note 14 -G.B)
3. Aftab Hussain v. State (2021 P Cr. L J 761 [Islamabad))
4. Ali, S. H. (2015). An Analytical Study of Criminal Justice System of Pakistan (with special reference to the Province of Punjab). Journal of Political Studies, Vol. 22 (1), 17:42
5. Ambos, K. (2011). International Criminal Procedure: 'Adversarial', 'Inquisitorial' or Mixed? Third International Criminal Law Review, Vol. 3, pp. 1-37.
6. Auld, LJ., (2001). A Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales, Chapter 10, at [154].
7. Azeem, M.H., (2019, Sep. 14). Police reforms: Causes, outcomes and a way forward. Daily Times.
8. Benavides-Vanegas. F.S. Control penal del crimen organizado en Colombia 1980 – 2014. Bogotá: FES Seguridad, 2015.
9. Benavides-Vanegas, F.S. ‘A global Zero tolerance? Colombian prisons from a world historical perspective. Revista Pensamiento Jurídico No. 23. (2008). Pp. 173-202.
10. Consolidated Statement (31st August, 2021). Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan. https://ljcp.gov.pk/nljcp/assets/dist/news_pdf/courts.pdf
11. Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 Articles, 13, 189, 201 and 203 GG
12. Criminal justice system - PKLJC 22. (n.d.). and Expediting trial proceedings-PKLJC 60. Asian LII-Asian Legal Information Institute. http://www.commonlii.org/pk/other/PKLJC/reports.html. See also Police Reforms Committee Report. (2018). Police Reforms: Way Forward. Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan. Retrieved from http://ljcp.gov.pk/nljcp/#1
13. Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, Pakistan (Cr.P.C). Sections 173, 169, 265-C, 265-D, 265-E, 265-F, 265-G, 265-H, 342 and 340 (2)
14. Crisis Group, Asia Report N°196. (Dec. 6, 2010). Reforming Pakistan’s Criminal Justice System, International Crisis Group., retrieved from http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/asia/south-asia/pakistan/196-reforming-pakistans-criminal-justice- system.aspx
15. Dammer, Harry R. and Jay S. Albanese (2014). Comparative Criminal Justice Systems, 5th ed. And Wadsworth. Reichel, Philip. (2017). Comparative Criminal Justice Systems: A Topical Approach, 7th ed. Pearson.
16. Dammert, Lucía. ‘¿Reformar sin gobernar? Desafíos institucionales de las policías en América Latina’. Revista de Instituto de Ciencias Jurídicas de Puebla vol. 13 No. 44. Julio – Diciembre 2019. Pp. 89 – 120.
17. Dammert, Lucía & Basombrío, Carlos. Seguridad y populismo punitivo en América Latina. Lecciones corroboradas, constataciones y temas emergentes. Washington: Woodrow Wilson Center, 2013.
18. Duff, P. (2007). ‘Disclosure in Scottish criminal procedure: another step in an inquisitorial direction’. International Journal of Evidence & Proof, Vol.(11)- 153.
19. Gross, S.R. (2011/12). Pretrial incentives, post-conviction review, and sorting criminal prosecutions by guilt or innocence. New York Law School Law Review. Vol.56. (56 NYL Sch L Rev 1009-1030).
20. Gupta, L. & Agrawal, P. (2018). Judicial backlog: how India can end the long wait for justice. Daily O.
21. Haider Ali and another v. DPO Chakwal and others (2015 S C M R 1724).
22. Hakim, L. & Zulhuda, S. (2020). Plea Bargaining as a solution for criminal case backlog in Indonesia. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation vol. 24 Issue 05. Pp. 281 – 291.
23. Imtiaz, G. (2014, July 1). Terror, Crime and the Tardy Justice System. Express Tribune.
24. International Legal Systems. An Introduction, U.S Department of Justice, National Security Division Washington, DC: https://www.justice.gov/archives/nsd-ovt/page/file/934636/download
25. Ishikawa, K., Ngo Mandeng, P., Sharma, M., & Mwalili, J. (2019). Issues Concerning Prosecution In Relation To Conviction, Speedy Trial and Sentencing (Rep.). Int. Trg. Course. P.348-367. Retrieved from https://www.unafei.or.jp/publications/pdf/RS_No53/No53_31RC_Group3.pdf107th
26. Jamshed, Hamza. H, Kamil. (2013). A study of Criminal Law & Prosecution System in Pakistan. Manzil Pakistan.
27. Jamshed, J. (2018). Criminal Justice System in Pakistan: An Overview. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3152735
28. Johnston, E. (2016). All rise for the interventionist: The judiciary in the 21st century. Journal of Criminal Law, 80(3), 201-213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022018316647870
29. Justice Project Pakistan. (2018). Counting the Condemned. Retrieved from https://jpp.org.pk/report/counting-the-condemned/
30. K., & T. (2016). Victims and the Criminal Trial (978th-1st-137th-51000th-6 ed. ed., Vol. 1). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51000-6
31. King, M.S. (2009). Solution-Focused Judging Bench Book, Melbourne, Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration, www.aija.org.au/Solution%20Focused%20BB/SFJ%20BB.pdf
32. Lal Khan and another v. SHO, P.S Kotwali, Jhang and 6 others (2010 P Cr. L J 182 [Lahore])
33. Line. L, Wyld. C, Plater.D, ((2016).Pre-trial defence disclosure in South Australian criminal proceeding: time for change. Adelaide Law Review. Vol (37). 101, 103.
34. Low conviction rate. (2010, April 21). The Dawn.
35. Ma, Y. (2002). Prosecutorial Discretion and Plea Bargaining in the United States, France, Germany and Italy: Comparative Perspective, International Criminal Justice Review. Vol.12(1), p.22-52. ISSN: 1057-5677, 1556-3855.
36. Mack, R.L. (2006). It's Broke So Let's Fix It: Using a Quasi-Inquisitorial Approach to Limit the Impact of Bias in the American Criminal Justice System. Indiana International & Comparative Law Review. Vol.7(1) 63-94,10.18060/17685.
37. Mehmood Ali and 3 others v. The State (2015 M L D 1560 [Lahore])
38. Michael R. Pahl. (1992).Wanted: Criminal Justice-Colombia ́s Adoption of a Prosecutorial System of Criminal Procedure, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol.16(3). 608-634
39. Muhammad Ali v. Additional I.G., Faisalabad and others (P L D 2014 Supreme Court 753)
40. Muhammad Farooq Qureshi v. Judicial Magistrate S. 30 (2010 P Cr L J 261 Lahore)
41. Nachkebia, G. (2016). Mixed Type Procedure Model or Adversarial Law? European Scientific Journal, SPECIAL/ edition. ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431.
42. Naveed Asghar v. State (2021 PLD 600 Supreme-Court)
43. Noor Hassan alias Noora v. State (2019 MLD 1671 Islamabad)
44. Pakes, F. (2007). The Changing nature of adversarial, inquisitorial, and Islamic trials, in applying psychology to criminal justice, ed. David Carson et al. London: Jhon Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
45. Peake. J., (2014). Creating a hybrid system of procedure in international criminal law: a blending of adversarial & Inquisitorial processes. International Law Students Association- ILSA Quart 22-28.
46. Peter G. Strasser. (2014). The Evolving Pakistani Criminal Justice System: A Study of the Raymond Davis Matter. Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law, Vol. (23), 108-143.
47. PILDAT, (2016). Media Brief Prosecution Services and Media in Pakistan. Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency, p-6, ISBN: 978-969-558-602-0; See also: Shah, S. (2016, March 11). Poor prosecution plays havoc with judicial system. The News International.
48. Pulecio-Boek, D. (2014). The genealogy of prosecutorial discretion in Latin America: A comparative and historical analysis of the adversarial reforms in the region. Richmond Journal of Global Law and Business, Vol.13(1), 67-144.
49. Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act 2006, Sindh C. P.S Ordinance 2006; Balochistan P. S Act VI of 2003; and NWFP P.S Act 2005.
50. Quadri, Kafayat Motilewa and Kadouf, Hunud Abia and Ishan Jan, Mohammad Naqib and Abdul Wahab, MohdIqbal and Ahamat, Haniff. (2019). Adquisitorial: the mixing of two legal systems. Journal of Education and Social Sciences. Vol. 13(1), ISSN 2289-9855. 129-137.
51. Rajput. M.A, & Rajput. M.R, (2020). Impact of defective investigation and Prosecution on trial: Social Sciences, Vol. 9(1),265-268. doi=10.11648/j.ss.20200906.17
52. Rani, A, B, K.(2007). Between the adversarial and inquisitorial trial (2006), Malayan Law Journal. Vol.(2). [2007] 2MLJA 11. ISSN 0025-1283
53. Risinger, D.M. and Risinger. L.C. (2012). Innocence is different: taking innocence into account in reforming criminal procedure. New York Law School Law Review. Vol. 56(3).869-909; See also K.A. Findley. (2012). Adversarial inquisitions: rethinking the search for the truth. New York Law School Law Review. Vol.56(3).911-941
54. Rule of law index.(2021, October).World Justice Project, USA, Andersen, E.,& Ponce, A.(Eds.).The World Justice Project Rule of Law Index®2021.Retrieved from https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/research-and-data/wjp-rule-law-index-2021
55. Sayed, S. H., Razak, M. A., & H. L., Dr. (2019). Shariah Criminal Mode of Adjudication: Distinctive Features Vis-À-Vis Modern Systems. Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 13(1), 129-137. ISSN 2289-9855
56. Slobogin, C., (2014). Lessons from inquisitorialism. Southern California Law Review. (87)-699-732 Spamann, H. (2009). Contemporary Legal Transplants: Legal Families and the Diffusion of Corporate Law. Brigham Young University Law Review. Vol.2009(6). 1813-1867.
57. State v. Abdul Khaliq (PLD 2011 SC 554)
58. Thaman, Stephen C.(2010). A Typology of Consensual Criminal Procedures: An Historical and Comparative Perspective on the Theory and Practice of Avoiding the Full Trial. Chapter 11, World Plea Bargaining: Consensual Procedures and the Avoidance of the Full Criminal Trial, Carolina Academic Press. pp.297-396
59. The rule of law in Pakistan (2017): Key Findings from the 2017 Extended General Population Poll & Justice Sector Survey. World Justice Project. https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/wjp-rule-law-index/special-reports/rule-law-Pakistan
60. Three under-trial prisoners shot dead in courtroom. (2021, September 5). The Dawn.
61. U.S Department of Justice National Security Division. (n.d.). International Legal Systems - An Introduction. Office of Justice for Victims of Overseas Terrorism (DOJ/OVT). http://www.justice.gov/nsd/ovt
62. Under-trial prisoners ‘victims of slow judicial system’. (2020, February 10). The Express Tribune.
63. Unfair Justice. (2020, September 17). The Dawn.
64. Urbano Martínez, José Joaquín. La nueva estructura probatoria del proceso penal. Bogotá: Ediciones Jurídicas Andrés Morales, 2008.
65. Velásquez, F (2019). El proceso penal de tendencia acusatoria: entre la inoperancia y el reformismo. Revista de Ciencias Sociales No. 74. Pp. 39 – 81.
66. W. Liu; Y. Situ.(1999). Criminal Courts in China Transition: Inquisitorial Procedure to Adversarial Procedure?. Journal Crime & Justice International. Vol.3(25), pp. 13-21
67. Walpin, G. (2003). American’s Adversarial And Jury Systems: More Likely To Justice, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 26(1), p. 175
68. Watan Party and Another v. Federation of Pakistan and Others (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 997)
69. 4000 Judges Can Not Clear 1.9 M Cases. (2018, January 16). The Dawn.
2. Abdul Ghaffar v. The State through DG FIA, H.Q Islamabad (2021 P Cr. L J Note 14 -G.B)
3. Aftab Hussain v. State (2021 P Cr. L J 761 [Islamabad))
4. Ali, S. H. (2015). An Analytical Study of Criminal Justice System of Pakistan (with special reference to the Province of Punjab). Journal of Political Studies, Vol. 22 (1), 17:42
5. Ambos, K. (2011). International Criminal Procedure: 'Adversarial', 'Inquisitorial' or Mixed? Third International Criminal Law Review, Vol. 3, pp. 1-37.
6. Auld, LJ., (2001). A Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales, Chapter 10, at [154].
7. Azeem, M.H., (2019, Sep. 14). Police reforms: Causes, outcomes and a way forward. Daily Times.
8. Benavides-Vanegas. F.S. Control penal del crimen organizado en Colombia 1980 – 2014. Bogotá: FES Seguridad, 2015.
9. Benavides-Vanegas, F.S. ‘A global Zero tolerance? Colombian prisons from a world historical perspective. Revista Pensamiento Jurídico No. 23. (2008). Pp. 173-202.
10. Consolidated Statement (31st August, 2021). Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan. https://ljcp.gov.pk/nljcp/assets/dist/news_pdf/courts.pdf
11. Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 Articles, 13, 189, 201 and 203 GG
12. Criminal justice system - PKLJC 22. (n.d.). and Expediting trial proceedings-PKLJC 60. Asian LII-Asian Legal Information Institute. http://www.commonlii.org/pk/other/PKLJC/reports.html. See also Police Reforms Committee Report. (2018). Police Reforms: Way Forward. Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan. Retrieved from http://ljcp.gov.pk/nljcp/#1
13. Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, Pakistan (Cr.P.C). Sections 173, 169, 265-C, 265-D, 265-E, 265-F, 265-G, 265-H, 342 and 340 (2)
14. Crisis Group, Asia Report N°196. (Dec. 6, 2010). Reforming Pakistan’s Criminal Justice System, International Crisis Group., retrieved from http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/asia/south-asia/pakistan/196-reforming-pakistans-criminal-justice- system.aspx
15. Dammer, Harry R. and Jay S. Albanese (2014). Comparative Criminal Justice Systems, 5th ed. And Wadsworth. Reichel, Philip. (2017). Comparative Criminal Justice Systems: A Topical Approach, 7th ed. Pearson.
16. Dammert, Lucía. ‘¿Reformar sin gobernar? Desafíos institucionales de las policías en América Latina’. Revista de Instituto de Ciencias Jurídicas de Puebla vol. 13 No. 44. Julio – Diciembre 2019. Pp. 89 – 120.
17. Dammert, Lucía & Basombrío, Carlos. Seguridad y populismo punitivo en América Latina. Lecciones corroboradas, constataciones y temas emergentes. Washington: Woodrow Wilson Center, 2013.
18. Duff, P. (2007). ‘Disclosure in Scottish criminal procedure: another step in an inquisitorial direction’. International Journal of Evidence & Proof, Vol.(11)- 153.
19. Gross, S.R. (2011/12). Pretrial incentives, post-conviction review, and sorting criminal prosecutions by guilt or innocence. New York Law School Law Review. Vol.56. (56 NYL Sch L Rev 1009-1030).
20. Gupta, L. & Agrawal, P. (2018). Judicial backlog: how India can end the long wait for justice. Daily O.
21. Haider Ali and another v. DPO Chakwal and others (2015 S C M R 1724).
22. Hakim, L. & Zulhuda, S. (2020). Plea Bargaining as a solution for criminal case backlog in Indonesia. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation vol. 24 Issue 05. Pp. 281 – 291.
23. Imtiaz, G. (2014, July 1). Terror, Crime and the Tardy Justice System. Express Tribune.
24. International Legal Systems. An Introduction, U.S Department of Justice, National Security Division Washington, DC: https://www.justice.gov/archives/nsd-ovt/page/file/934636/download
25. Ishikawa, K., Ngo Mandeng, P., Sharma, M., & Mwalili, J. (2019). Issues Concerning Prosecution In Relation To Conviction, Speedy Trial and Sentencing (Rep.). Int. Trg. Course. P.348-367. Retrieved from https://www.unafei.or.jp/publications/pdf/RS_No53/No53_31RC_Group3.pdf107th
26. Jamshed, Hamza. H, Kamil. (2013). A study of Criminal Law & Prosecution System in Pakistan. Manzil Pakistan.
27. Jamshed, J. (2018). Criminal Justice System in Pakistan: An Overview. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3152735
28. Johnston, E. (2016). All rise for the interventionist: The judiciary in the 21st century. Journal of Criminal Law, 80(3), 201-213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022018316647870
29. Justice Project Pakistan. (2018). Counting the Condemned. Retrieved from https://jpp.org.pk/report/counting-the-condemned/
30. K., & T. (2016). Victims and the Criminal Trial (978th-1st-137th-51000th-6 ed. ed., Vol. 1). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51000-6
31. King, M.S. (2009). Solution-Focused Judging Bench Book, Melbourne, Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration, www.aija.org.au/Solution%20Focused%20BB/SFJ%20BB.pdf
32. Lal Khan and another v. SHO, P.S Kotwali, Jhang and 6 others (2010 P Cr. L J 182 [Lahore])
33. Line. L, Wyld. C, Plater.D, ((2016).Pre-trial defence disclosure in South Australian criminal proceeding: time for change. Adelaide Law Review. Vol (37). 101, 103.
34. Low conviction rate. (2010, April 21). The Dawn.
35. Ma, Y. (2002). Prosecutorial Discretion and Plea Bargaining in the United States, France, Germany and Italy: Comparative Perspective, International Criminal Justice Review. Vol.12(1), p.22-52. ISSN: 1057-5677, 1556-3855.
36. Mack, R.L. (2006). It's Broke So Let's Fix It: Using a Quasi-Inquisitorial Approach to Limit the Impact of Bias in the American Criminal Justice System. Indiana International & Comparative Law Review. Vol.7(1) 63-94,10.18060/17685.
37. Mehmood Ali and 3 others v. The State (2015 M L D 1560 [Lahore])
38. Michael R. Pahl. (1992).Wanted: Criminal Justice-Colombia ́s Adoption of a Prosecutorial System of Criminal Procedure, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol.16(3). 608-634
39. Muhammad Ali v. Additional I.G., Faisalabad and others (P L D 2014 Supreme Court 753)
40. Muhammad Farooq Qureshi v. Judicial Magistrate S. 30 (2010 P Cr L J 261 Lahore)
41. Nachkebia, G. (2016). Mixed Type Procedure Model or Adversarial Law? European Scientific Journal, SPECIAL/ edition. ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431.
42. Naveed Asghar v. State (2021 PLD 600 Supreme-Court)
43. Noor Hassan alias Noora v. State (2019 MLD 1671 Islamabad)
44. Pakes, F. (2007). The Changing nature of adversarial, inquisitorial, and Islamic trials, in applying psychology to criminal justice, ed. David Carson et al. London: Jhon Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
45. Peake. J., (2014). Creating a hybrid system of procedure in international criminal law: a blending of adversarial & Inquisitorial processes. International Law Students Association- ILSA Quart 22-28.
46. Peter G. Strasser. (2014). The Evolving Pakistani Criminal Justice System: A Study of the Raymond Davis Matter. Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law, Vol. (23), 108-143.
47. PILDAT, (2016). Media Brief Prosecution Services and Media in Pakistan. Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency, p-6, ISBN: 978-969-558-602-0; See also: Shah, S. (2016, March 11). Poor prosecution plays havoc with judicial system. The News International.
48. Pulecio-Boek, D. (2014). The genealogy of prosecutorial discretion in Latin America: A comparative and historical analysis of the adversarial reforms in the region. Richmond Journal of Global Law and Business, Vol.13(1), 67-144.
49. Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act 2006, Sindh C. P.S Ordinance 2006; Balochistan P. S Act VI of 2003; and NWFP P.S Act 2005.
50. Quadri, Kafayat Motilewa and Kadouf, Hunud Abia and Ishan Jan, Mohammad Naqib and Abdul Wahab, MohdIqbal and Ahamat, Haniff. (2019). Adquisitorial: the mixing of two legal systems. Journal of Education and Social Sciences. Vol. 13(1), ISSN 2289-9855. 129-137.
51. Rajput. M.A, & Rajput. M.R, (2020). Impact of defective investigation and Prosecution on trial: Social Sciences, Vol. 9(1),265-268. doi=10.11648/j.ss.20200906.17
52. Rani, A, B, K.(2007). Between the adversarial and inquisitorial trial (2006), Malayan Law Journal. Vol.(2). [2007] 2MLJA 11. ISSN 0025-1283
53. Risinger, D.M. and Risinger. L.C. (2012). Innocence is different: taking innocence into account in reforming criminal procedure. New York Law School Law Review. Vol. 56(3).869-909; See also K.A. Findley. (2012). Adversarial inquisitions: rethinking the search for the truth. New York Law School Law Review. Vol.56(3).911-941
54. Rule of law index.(2021, October).World Justice Project, USA, Andersen, E.,& Ponce, A.(Eds.).The World Justice Project Rule of Law Index®2021.Retrieved from https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/research-and-data/wjp-rule-law-index-2021
55. Sayed, S. H., Razak, M. A., & H. L., Dr. (2019). Shariah Criminal Mode of Adjudication: Distinctive Features Vis-À-Vis Modern Systems. Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 13(1), 129-137. ISSN 2289-9855
56. Slobogin, C., (2014). Lessons from inquisitorialism. Southern California Law Review. (87)-699-732 Spamann, H. (2009). Contemporary Legal Transplants: Legal Families and the Diffusion of Corporate Law. Brigham Young University Law Review. Vol.2009(6). 1813-1867.
57. State v. Abdul Khaliq (PLD 2011 SC 554)
58. Thaman, Stephen C.(2010). A Typology of Consensual Criminal Procedures: An Historical and Comparative Perspective on the Theory and Practice of Avoiding the Full Trial. Chapter 11, World Plea Bargaining: Consensual Procedures and the Avoidance of the Full Criminal Trial, Carolina Academic Press. pp.297-396
59. The rule of law in Pakistan (2017): Key Findings from the 2017 Extended General Population Poll & Justice Sector Survey. World Justice Project. https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/wjp-rule-law-index/special-reports/rule-law-Pakistan
60. Three under-trial prisoners shot dead in courtroom. (2021, September 5). The Dawn.
61. U.S Department of Justice National Security Division. (n.d.). International Legal Systems - An Introduction. Office of Justice for Victims of Overseas Terrorism (DOJ/OVT). http://www.justice.gov/nsd/ovt
62. Under-trial prisoners ‘victims of slow judicial system’. (2020, February 10). The Express Tribune.
63. Unfair Justice. (2020, September 17). The Dawn.
64. Urbano Martínez, José Joaquín. La nueva estructura probatoria del proceso penal. Bogotá: Ediciones Jurídicas Andrés Morales, 2008.
65. Velásquez, F (2019). El proceso penal de tendencia acusatoria: entre la inoperancia y el reformismo. Revista de Ciencias Sociales No. 74. Pp. 39 – 81.
66. W. Liu; Y. Situ.(1999). Criminal Courts in China Transition: Inquisitorial Procedure to Adversarial Procedure?. Journal Crime & Justice International. Vol.3(25), pp. 13-21
67. Walpin, G. (2003). American’s Adversarial And Jury Systems: More Likely To Justice, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 26(1), p. 175
68. Watan Party and Another v. Federation of Pakistan and Others (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 997)
69. 4000 Judges Can Not Clear 1.9 M Cases. (2018, January 16). The Dawn.
Published
2022-02-21
How to Cite
Rajput, M. A., & Benavides-Vanegas, F. S. (2022). Reformation of Criminal Justice System of Pakistan. European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 18(5), 87. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2022.v18n5p87
Section
Special Editions
Copyright (c) 2022 Muhammad Arif Rajput, Farid Samir Benavides-Vanegas
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
.jpg)
