The International League Against Arbitrary Detention urges the Government of Pakistan to take all necessary actions to implement the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Opinion No. 35/2023 concerning Rohan Ahmad, Usman Ahmad, and Tariq Ahmad Shehzad, calling the Government of Pakistan to immediately and unconditionally release them and to accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations in accordance with international law.
Read the full WGAD Opinion concerning Rohan Ahmad, Usman Ahmad and Tariq Ahmad Shehzad (Pakistan): Opinion No. 35/2023.
PEACEFUL RELIGIOUS ACTIVISTS DEPRIVED OF THEIR LIBERTY
Rohan Ahmad, Usman Ahmad and Tariq Ahmad Shehzad are prominent members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. Before their arrest they were spreading the teachings of the Ahmadiyya faith and fostering interfaith dialogue in Chenab Nagar. In June 2021, the Sessions Court of Lahore formally charged them under several criminal provisions, including section 11 (hate speech) of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, and sections 295-A (religious incitement), 295-B (defiling the Qur’an), 295-C (derogatory remarks towards the Holy Prophet), and 298-C (criminalisation of Ahmadis who claim to be Muslim or propagate their faith) of the Penal Code.
ARRESTED WITHOUT WARRANTS AND HINDERED BY PROCEDURAL DELAYS
All three individuals were arrested without warrants and not informed of the reasons for their arrests. The Government claimed their arrests were lawful due to sufficient evidence. However, the Working Group found that even if compliant with national laws, detention must align with international human rights standards. Violations of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Articles 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant were noted regarding the failure to provide reasons for arrests and lack of impartial, independent, and competent judicial guarantees.
Moreover, mandatory pre-trial detention violates international human rights law, in which individualised assessments are a necessity. The imposition of mandatory pre-trial detention also lacked legal basis and rendered their detention arbitrary, contravening article 9 of the UDHR, article 9 (3) of the Covenant, and Principles 38 and 39 of the Body of Principles. Consequently, the Working Group deemed that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Ahmad, and Mr. Shehzad lacked a legal basis, rendering it arbitrary under category I.
Secondly, the arrests and detentions of the three complainants amounted to a reprisal for their legitimate exercise of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. The Working Group noted the scrutiny on the situation of Ahmadis by UN entities. Previous determinations by the Working Group found the detention of Ahmadis on blasphemy charges arbitrary under category II, as it violated their freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and interpreted by the Human Rights Committee's general comment No. 22 (1993). Reliable information supported the notion that their arrest and detention were solely motivated by their religious beliefs as Ahmadis, as highlighted in the Human Rights Committee's concluding observations on Pakistan's report.
Subsequently, all persons may practice and teach their religion, and the freedom to prepare and distribute religious texts or publications must be upheld. The possession, preparation, and publication of religious texts by Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Ahmad, and Mr. Shehzad did not pose threats to public safety, order, health, morals, or the rights of others. Therefore, their detention could not be justified under any grounds for restricting freedom of religion. Consequently, the Working Group found their deprivation of liberty arbitrary under category II, breaching articles 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 18 and 19 of the Covenant.
THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL MARRED BY PRE-TRIAL DETENTION OF TWO YEARS
Thirdly, the Working Group underscored that no trial should occur. However, as the three individuals were facing prosecution at the time of the source’s communication, the Working Group assessed whether the alleged violations of fair trial and due process rights had rendered their detention arbitrary under category III.
First, the source contended that the Government had violated their right to a timely trial, as they had then been held without bail for over two years, partly due to the Government's failure to provide defence counsel with access to evidence, impeding trial commencement. The Government's late reply did not refute these claims, only detailing the individuals' procedural steps leading to bail denial.
Under the ICCPR, articles 9 (3) and 14 (3) (c), timely trial rights are guaranteed, with delays evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The Working Group considered the pre-trial detention of more than two years unacceptable, exacerbated by the denial of bail hearings and lack of judicial review. Moreover, the denial of access to evidence violated their right to adequate defence preparation, as per article 14 (3) (b) of the ICCPR and Principles 17 (1) and 18 (1) and (2) of the Body of Principles, especially grave given the severity of the charges.
Ergo, the Working Group concluded that the fair trial and due process violations had indeed rendered their detention arbitrary under category III, referring the case to the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
DETAINED ON DISCRIMINATORY GROUNDS, NAMELY FOR BEING AHMADIS
Finally, the source submitted that the trio’s detention was the consequence of their religious belief. Several indicators established the discriminatory nature of their detention, such as patterns of persecution and detention on discriminatory grounds. The Working Group has previously concluded that Ahmadis in Pakistan face persecution and deprivation of freedom for exercising their right to religion and conscience. The source argued that alleging possession of a "defiled Qur'an" was a refusal to recognise the sincere religious beliefs of the three individuals, coupled with their prosecution for practising their religion, demonstrating discriminatory detention.
Based on the source's credible submissions, the Working Group found that Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Ahmad, and Mr. Shehzad were detained on discriminatory grounds related to their religious faith and opinions. Their detention thus violated articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 26 of the Covenant, and contravened Articles 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities. It was therefore found to be arbitrary under category V. The case was referred to the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and the Special Rapporteur on minority issues for subsequent action.
CONCLUSIONS OF THE UN WORKING GROUP AGAINST ARBITRARY DETENTION
In light of the foregoing, the UN Working Group Against Arbitrary Detention considered that the detention of Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad, and Mr. Tariq Ahmad was arbitrary and fell under categories I, II, III, and V because their deprivation of liberty was in contravention of Article 2, 3, 7, 9, 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9, 14, 18, 19 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right.
The Working Group expressed its utmost concern regarding the source’s allegation that Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad, and Mr. Tariq Ahmad had been in pre-trial detention for more than 2 years. The Working Group considered that, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the appropriate remedy would be to unconditionally release Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad, and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shezhad and accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law.
Comments