According to , the number of prisoners in Pakistan on death row in 2024 was 3,646 individuals. Shockingly, the of years spent by a person on death row in Pakistan is 11.4 years. For a death row prisoner in Pakistan, the sentence begins not with the execution, but with the waiting. In the solitary confines of a 9-by-12 foot death cell, day by day, time loses its structure. Amidst the lack of certainty and a devastating silence of delay, the punishment does not merely occur, it stretches beyond the scope of the punishment itself. Consider the case of Ghulam Shabbir in a recent judgement by the Pakistani Supreme Court titled Ghulam Shabbir v. The State (PLD 2024 SC 951), who was convicted of murder and his death sentence was confirmed in 1994. When the Supreme Court revisited his case in 2024, he had served more than 30 years behind the bars and 24 of them in a death cell awaiting his execution. In addition, similar details have been discussed in another recent judgement by the Pakistani Supreme Court in , where the appellant was incarcerated for 25 years of which 11 years were spent on death row awaiting his execution before the Supreme Court converted the death sentence into life imprisonment. What was initially a capital punishment gradually converted into something more barbaric 鈥� a tale of institutional neglect, mental deterioration and violation of human dignity!
This piece examines that how prolonged incarceration on death row in Pakistan exposes a deeper flaw in the criminal justice system: the simultaneous violations of constitutional provisions and international legal norms. It explains the human cost of these delays accompanied by the legislative neglect which results in the ultimate denial of justice.
Jurisprudential Context
Under Section 302(b) of the , the courts are vested with the power to impose death penalty or imprisonment for life. Despite this explicit discretion, even in the cases where death sentence is given, the convicts are forced to undergo a third type of punishment. This third type is prolonged detention in inhumane conditions in death cells, which is neither warranted by the procedural law nor the Constitution. The Honorable Supreme Court in Hassan v. The State (PLD 2013 SC 793) observed that when the period of custody of a convict on death row was equal to or greater than life imprisonment, the state, acting through its judicial organ, ought to acknowledge its failure of its constitutional responsibility to ensure expeditious justice. The court referred to the plaintiff鈥檚 circumstances in Hassan as an 鈥渦nconscionably delayed punishment, delayed to such an extent that the punishment is aggravated beyond the contemplation of the relevant law itself.鈥� The judicial criticisms of these delays point towards a stark reality: these delays are not administrative lapses, but are instead severe human rights violations.
Human Rights Violations & International Obligations
International legal norms would demand that along with the guarantee of right of appeal of persons accused of capital crimes, that right of appeal should be effective too. Under Article 14(3) of the ( 鈥淚CCPR鈥� ), defendants have a right 鈥渢o be tried without undue delay鈥� which includes the right of appeal. In , the petitioners were unable to proceed to appeal to the Privy Council because it took the Court of Appeal almost three years and nine months to issue a written judgment. The United Nations Human Rights Committee, in concluding that Jamaica had violated ICCPR Article 14(3)(c), stated that 鈥渋n all cases, and especially in capital cases, accused persons are entitled to trial and appeal without undue delay, whatever the outcome of those judicial proceedings turns out to be.鈥�
A death row inmate is equally entitled to the constitutional guarantees of due process of law and inviolable dignity as enshrined in Articles 4 and 14 of the respectively. When a person is forced to endure a legal stasis for decades, unwarranted by any sentence imposed by law, and they are then further subjected to , that person is being unlawfully detained. Limited natural light, cells closed for twenty three hours a day, no participation in activities with other prisoners and shared toilets resulting in the violation of right to privacy 鈥� all these conditions listed by Justice Mandokhail in Ghulam Shabbir depicts how the supposedly inviolable dignity of these inmates is gradually shredded into pieces. Due to an , prisoners are kept in overcrowded cells resulting in the deterioration of their health which is in violation of Articles 7 & 10 of the ICCPR, respectively. A from the District Jail in Mandi Bahauddin described the grim conditions: 鈥渙ur cell was five feet wide and eight feet long. There is also a shower. It is very hard to sleep, since there were six other people. One鈥檚 foot would be touching someone鈥檚 head.鈥� In this saga of indefinite delay, with an uncertain date of execution, every sunrise adds to the mental agony of the inmates, which has a continuous detrimental effect on their psychological state. In , the Human Rights Committee has acknowledged that 鈥渢he psychological tension created by prolonged detention on death row may affect persons in different degrees.鈥�
Rules 3 and 43 of categorically state that the conditions of imprisonment should not be used as additional punishment or aggravate the inherent suffering of detention, and also prohibit indefinite or prolonged solitary confinement. These rules, named after a man who survived one of the harshest forms of political imprisonment, are grounded in a simple principle: that any kind of punishment must not strip someone of their dignity, being inviolable. The cases of Ghulam Shabbir and Tahir referenced above, and countless others, are tales of sustained cruelty. These prisoners were both prisoners of state as well as of the state鈥檚 criminal silence!
Way Forward
Several reforms are needed to address this deplorable situation. To make clemency an effective remedy, instead of a mere possibility, clearer rules need to be made under Article 45 of the Constitution of Pakistan. These rules must outline fixed timelines for mercy petitions and ensure that, decisions are backed by cogent reasoning, thus increasing transparency. Legislation must specify that prolonged death row confinement amounts to double jeopardy. In this regard, a provision should be added to the that after a certain period of confinement on death row, the death sentence will be converted to life imprisonment. The formation of special high court benches to assess death row cases, with bi-annual review systems should also take place. These benches could check for systemic delays, interpret the principle of 鈥榚xpectancy of life,鈥� and prevent prolonged unconstitutional detention. Lastly, Pakistan鈥檚 Prison Rules should be amended in accordance with the Nelson Mandela Rules, and ought to limit solitary confinement periods and ensure quarterly psychological assessments for death row prisoners. Judicial pronouncements are not enough without the backing of the legislature and executive. It is high time that stakeholders realize that the essence of justice includes the manner in which a sentence is carried out, instead of merely convicting.
Muhammad Abdullah is a final-year law student at Government College University, Lahore. His research and academic interests include constitutional law and international human rights law.