A/HRC/WGAD/2023/35

GE.23-19524 (E)

Human Rights Council

Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary

Detention at its ninety-seventh session,

28 August–1 September 2023

Opinion No. 35/2023 concerning Rohan Ahmad, Usman Ahmad and

Tariq Ahmad Shehzad (Pakistan)

1.

The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of

the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and

clarified the mandate of the Working Group. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251

and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the

Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a

three-year period in its resolution 51/8.

2.

In accordance with its methods of work, 1 on 12 May 2023 the Working Group

transmitted to the Government of Pakistan a communication concerning Rohan Ahmad,

Usman Ahmad and Tariq Ahmad Shehzad. The Government submitted a late response on 27

July 2023. The State is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

3.

The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases:

(a)

When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the

deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her

sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);

(b)

When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or

freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25,

26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II);

(c)

When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to

the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the

relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to

give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);

(d)

When asylum-seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged

administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy

(category IV);

(e)

When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on

the grounds of discrimination based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,

religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation, disability,

1 A/HRC/36/38.

United Nations

A/HRC/WGAD/2023/35

General Assembly

Distr.: General

23 October 2023

Original: English

A/HRC/WGAD/2023/35

2

GE.23-19524

or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings

(category V).

1.

Submissions

(a)

Communication from the source

4.

Rohan Ahmad is a national of Pakistan. He usually resides in Lahore, Pakistan.

Mr. Rohan Ahmad was 32 years old at the time of his detention in May 2020.

5.

Usman Ahmad is a national of Pakistan. He usually resides in Chenab Nagar, Pakistan.

Mr. Usman Ahmad was 37 years old at the time of his detention in September 2020.

6.

Tariq Ahmad Shehzad is a citizen of Pakistan. He usually resides in Chenab Nagar,

Pakistan. Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad was 39 years old at the time of his detention in

September 2020.

7.

The source reports that Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad

Shehzad are Ahmadis who, prior to their arrests, were active members of the Ahmadiyya

Muslim Community.

8.

Mr. Rohan Ahmad works as a missionary for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community,

operating out of its office in Chenab Nagar. Mr. Usman Ahmad volunteers for the Ahmadiyya

Muslim Community’s youth organization, Majlis Khuddam Ul Ahmadiyya, serving as its

national director of religious education in Pakistan. Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad is a

vice-principal at Nusrat Jehan College in Chenab Nagar, which is a college affiliated with

the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.

9.

The source submits that the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has faced particularly

harsh treatment under the national laws of Pakistan and by the authorities thereof. The source

reports that article 260 (3) (b) of the Constitution of Pakistan explicitly prohibits members of

the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community from being referred to as Muslim. Furthermore, sections

298-B and 298-C of the Penal Code of Pakistan criminalize sharing the Ahmadiyya Muslim

Community’s religion, professing core theological tenets of its beliefs and identifying its

members as Muslims.

10.

The source claims that the Government has repeatedly used those provisions of the

Penal Code, in addition to its provisions relating to blasphemy, to prosecute and imprison

members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. In the light of such interference with the

right of Ahmadis to practise their religion, several special procedure mandate holders have

called for the Government to repeal discriminatory legal provisions against the Ahmadiyya

Muslim Community and have raised concerns about the persecution of its members.2

11.

According to the source, on 15 May 2020, a resident of Lahore filed a criminal

complaint with the Federal Investigation Agency against Mr. Rohan Ahmad. In the

complaint, it was alleged that, on 27 September 2019, Mr. Rohan Ahmad had sent him a

message on WhatsApp inviting him to take part in an essay writing and general knowledge

competition held by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community’s youth organization. The

complainant also alleged that, in the following weeks, Mr. Rohan Ahmad sent him several

messages that linked to websites containing literature of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.

The complainant specifically mentioned two books – a translation of the Qur’an with

commentary from a former leader of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and a collection of

his writings. The complainant claimed that the books contained content that was blasphemous

to Islam and the Prophet of Islam. However, the source notes that the complainant did not

identify which portions of the texts amounted to blasphemy. Furthermore, according to the

source, the complainant did not specify why there had been a delay of approximately eight

months before reporting those events to the authorities.

12.

As a result of that complaint, a criminal investigation was allegedly initiated against

Mr. Rohan Ahmad. On 26 May 2020, officials of the Federal Investigation Agency reportedly

2 OHCHR, “Pakistan must repeal discriminatory measures leading to persecution of Ahmadis, say

UN experts”, 25 July 2018.

A/HRC/WGAD/2023/35

GE.23-19524

3

obtained a warrant from the Lahore District Court to search the premises of Mr. Rohan

Ahmad’s home to look for evidence that he had shared “blasphemous and edited verses of

the Holy Qur’an through WhatsApp”.3 The officers reportedly proceeded to execute the

search warrant.

13.

Reportedly, on 26 May 2020, after obtaining the search warrant, officers from the

Federal Investigation Agency’s Cyber Crimes Unit of Lahore visited the home of Mr. Rohan

Ahmad in Lahore. According to the source, only one of the officers was in uniform, while

the remaining officers were in plain clothes. Initially, the officers allegedly failed to identify

themselves as government agents, leading Mr. Rohan Ahmad and his family to believe that

they were being robbed. The source notes that the officers executed the warrant, confiscating

Ahmadiyya literature, mobile phones, a laptop and a tablet.

14.

The officers then proceeded to arrest Mr. Rohan Ahmad, without allegedly showing

him a warrant for his arrest. During the course of the arrest, officers reportedly beat

Mr. Rohan Ahmad and threatened his family. The source reports Mr. Rohan Ahmad was

taken to the office of the Federal Investigation Agency in Lahore, where he was interrogated

and held until 28 May 2020, at which point he was transferred to the district jail in Lahore.

15.

When conducting a search of Mr. Rohan Ahmad’s mobile phone, officers of the

Federal Investigation Agency found links to online, publicly available, versions of

Ahmadiyya literature. Furthermore, through the interrogation of Mr. Rohan Ahmad and an

examination of the seized materials, officers of the Federal Investigation Agency allegedly

came to believe that Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad had assisted

Mr. Rohan Ahmad in organizing the competitions and sharing the religious texts. The Federal

Investigation Agency opened a criminal case against Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq

Ahmad Shehzad on suspicion of a criminal conspiracy among the three individuals.

16.

On 29 September 2020, officers of the Federal Investigation Agency reportedly

summoned Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad to the office of the Federal

Investigation Agency in Lahore. The source claims that Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq

Ahmad Shehzad arrived at the station to find that a prominent critic of the Ahmadiyya

Muslim Community was also present, seemingly involved in the police action against them.

The source notes that, while at the station, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad

were arrested and their phones were seized and searched. Officers of the Federal Investigation

Agency allegedly found that they were in possession of books similar to those that were the

subject of the complaint against Mr. Rohan Ahmad. Moreover, it is alleged that the officers

believed that Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad had shared those materials

with people around the world. The officers reportedly proceeded to combine the investigation

into Mr. Rohan Ahmad with that into Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad.

17.

It is alleged that Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad were held at the

office of the Federal Investigation Agency in Lahore until 5 October 2020, when they were

transferred to the district jail in Lahore.

18.

Reportedly, on 29 June 2021, the Sessions Court of Lahore confirmed charges against

Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad. They were each

charged under the following criminal provisions: the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act,

sect. 11 (hate speech); and the Penal Code, sect. 295-A (religious incitement), sect. 295-B

(defiling the Qur’an), sect. 295-C (derogatory remarks towards the Holy Prophet) and

sect. 298-C (criminalization of Ahmadis who claim to be Muslim or propagate their faith).

19.

Under the first charge, the Sessions Court of Lahore alleged that the three subjects of

the current communication had maliciously outraged the religious feelings and prepared and

disseminated blasphemous content, namely, defiled and desecrated a copy of the Holy Qur’an

through information systems or devices that had caused sectarian racial hatred among citizens

and communities, in violation of both section 11 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act

and section 295-A of the Penal Code. The source notes that the fact that the first charge is

framed under two separate legal instruments, namely the Penal Code and the Prevention of

Electronic Crimes Act, is a procedural irregularity.

3 Search warrant issued under section 33 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act.

A/HRC/WGAD/2023/35

4

GE.23-19524

20.

Under the second charge, the Sessions Court of Lahore alleged that Mr. Rohan

Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad, with common intention, had

wilfully defiled or desecrated a copy of the Holy Qur’an by changing the content and

translation thereof, which is prohibited by law, in violation of section 295-B of the Penal

Code.

21.

Under the third charge, the Sessions Court of Lahore alleged that Mr. Rohan Ahmad,

Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad, with common intention, had deliberately

and maliciously outraged religious feelings and prepared and disseminated blasphemous

content, namely, derogatory material against the honour of the Holy Prophet through

information systems or devices that had caused sectarian racial hatred among citizens and

communities, in violation of section 295-C of the Penal Code.

22.

Under the fourth charge, the Sessions Court alleged that Mr. Rohan Ahmad,

Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad, with common intention and in criminal

conspiracy, had each intentionally planned to engage the others in order to prepare and

transmit the defiled copies of the Holy Qur’an that had been altered through information

systems and devices, while professing to be Muslims, in violation of section 298-C of the

Penal Code.

23.

On each count, Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad

were alleged to have acted with common intention and having abetted one another in the

commission of the crimes, in violation of section 34 (acts done by several persons in

furtherance of common intention) and section 109 (abetment) of the Penal Code.

Additionally, for the fourth charge, the three individuals were alleged to have engaged in a

criminal conspiracy in violation of section 120-B of the Penal Code (punishment of criminal

conspiracy).

24.

On the date on which the charges were confirmed, Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman

Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad reportedly requested a hearing before the Sessions

Court of Lahore in order to be released on bail. On 9 March 2021, the Sessions Court

allegedly denied their request to be released on bail on the grounds that the offences for which

they were charged, namely sections 295-A, 295-B and 295-C of the Penal Code, were not

eligible for bail under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure due to the potential

punishments carried by these charges (which carry the possibility of a maximum sentence of

imprisonment for 10 years, imprisonment for life and the death penalty, respectively).

25.

Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad reportedly

subsequently submitted an appeal against the denial of bail to the High Court of Lahore.

However, the source notes that, on 26 September 2021, the High Court denied their appeal,

affirming the decision of the Sessions Court of Lahore that the offences with which they were

charged were non-bailable. It is alleged that Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and

Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad subsequently appealed the High Court decision to the Supreme

Court, but the latter also denied reconsideration of the denial of bail.

26.

The source adds that another bail application has recently been filed on behalf of

Mr. Rohan Ahmad before the High Court of Lahore. According to the source, it has been

pending for several months.

27.

It is alleged that the criminal trial of Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and

Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad is pending, as the defendants and their legal counsel have not yet

been provided with access to the evidence collected against them by the Federal Investigation

Agency during the course of the investigation. The trial date has been allegedly indefinitely

postponed due to an injunctive order issued by the High Court of Lahore.

28.

The source reports that, in October 2021, Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and

Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad made a request to the High Court of Lahore for the Government

to provide them with access to copies of the evidence prior to the commencement of the trial.

However, the High Court has reportedly yet to rule on their request for access to evidence.

The High Court issued the injunctive order to halt the trial while it considers an interlocutory

appeal from the defence counsel. The defence’s appeal reportedly challenged the trial court’s

attempt to conduct the trial before it was provided with access to the evidence obtained by

the prosecution. Allegedly, the trial will proceed after the High Court has decided whether

A/HRC/WGAD/2023/35

GE.23-19524

5

the prosecution is required to provide the defence with full access to the evidence collected

by the investigators.

29.

According to the source, Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq

Ahmad Shehzad remain in pretrial detention in the district jail of Lahore. They are continuing

to file new applications requesting reconsideration of the decision to deny bail before the

Supreme Court. However, those applications have not been granted.

30.

The source submits that if Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq

Ahmad Shehzad are found guilty, they face the possibility of life imprisonment. Furthermore,

if specifically convicted of section 295-C (derogatory remarks about the Holy Prophet) of the

Penal Code, the defendants may be punished with death.

Legal analysis

31.

The source submits that the arrest and detention of Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman

Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad is arbitrary under categories II, III and V. The

detention is arbitrary under category II because the detention of the above-mentioned

individuals resulted from and amounts to reprisal for the legitimate exercise of their rights to

freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as well as their right to freedom of expression.

It is arbitrary under category III because their arrest, detention and prosecution failed to meet

the minimum standards of due process. Lastly, the detention is arbitrary under category V

because their arrest, detention and prosecution resulted from discrimination against them.

32.

In relation to category II, the source recalls that the right to freedom of thought,

conscience and religion is protected by article 18 of the Covenant, to which Pakistan acceded

in 2010. The right to religion is also protected under article 18 of the Universal Declaration

of Human Rights, as well as article 20 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The rights contained

in article 18 of the Covenant include the freedom of all persons to have or to adopt a religion

or belief of their choice and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in

public or private, to manifest their religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and

teaching. In its general comment No. 22 (1993), the Human Rights Committee explains that

article 18 encompasses freedom of thoughts on all matters, personal conviction and the

commitment to religion or belief. 4 Furthermore, the Human Rights Committee has

determined that the freedom to prepare and distribute religious texts or publications is an

activity that is integral to the conduct by religious groups of their basic affairs and,

accordingly, is protected under article 18 of the Covenant.5

33.

In the present case, the activities that serve as the basis of the detention of the above-

mentioned three individuals fall within the scope of the right to freedom of religion. The

express grounds for detaining them are the allegations that they desecrated the Qur’an and

prepared and disseminated blasphemous content by sending links to it. The source notes that

what the authorities refer to as a desecrated copy of the Qur’an is a translation thereof

containing a commentary by a former leader of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. It is a

holy book of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. The book is used by the Ahmadiyya

Muslim Community for religious instruction and guidance, in the practice of its members’

religious faith. It was not in any way created to insult or blaspheme other Muslims, but instead

it is a core component of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community’s practice of its members’

sincerely held religious beliefs. As a result, possessing that book and other religious texts is

a protected activity under the right to freedom of religion.

34.

Moreover, Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad are

detained in relation to publishing that book and other religious texts online and sharing links

to those publications. However, the Human Rights Committee has already determined that

distributing religious texts is protected by the right to freedom of religion. As a result, the

alleged publication and distribution of the religious texts of the Ahmadiyya Muslim

Community is a legitimate exercise of its members’ right to freedom of religion, argues the

source.

4 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 22 (1993), para. 1.

5 Ibid., para. 4.

A/HRC/WGAD/2023/35

6

GE.23-19524

35.

Accordingly, both possession and distribution of the book and other religious texts is

protected under the right of Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad

Shehzad to freedom of religion. Thus, detaining them on the basis of those activities amounts

to a restriction of their right to freedom of religion, as protected under article 18 of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 18 of the Covenant.

36.

The source also notes that none of the exceptions mentioned in article 18 (3) of the

Covenant apply in the present case. The source recalls that article 18 (3) provides that

freedom of religion may only be limited by the State when such restrictions are prescribed

by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental

rights and freedoms of others. The Human Rights Committee has been clear that any

limitation must not be applied in a manner that would vitiate the rights guaranteed in

article 18.6 Furthermore, limitations on the right to freedom of religion may not be imposed

for discriminatory purposes or applied in a discriminatory manner.

37.

In the present case, the continued detention of Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad

and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad does not fall within the scope of any permissible limitation

on the right to freedom of religion. Their possession, preparation and publication of religious

texts does not threaten public safety, order, health, morals or the rights of others. As a result,

the authorities cannot justify detention under any of the enumerated grounds for restricting

freedom of religion, argues the source.

38.

Moreover, the detention of Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq

Ahmad Shehzad is the result of discriminatory action by the Government on the basis of their

religious beliefs. The source argues that the claim that possession of the above-mentioned

book amounts to possession of a “defiled Qur’an” is a refusal by the Government to recognize

the sincere religious beliefs of Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad

Shehzad as legitimate. The refusal to recognize their religion as legitimate, coupled with their

prosecution on the basis of practising their religion, demonstrates that their detention is

imposed for discriminatory purposes.

39.

As no exception applies to the Government’s restriction of the right to freedom of

religion of Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad, the source

contends that their detention and continued prosecution amounts to a violation of article 18

of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 18 of the Covenant.

40.

Moreover, the source argues that the detention of Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman

Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad violates their right to freedom of expression. The

source recalls that article 19 (2) of the Covenant provides that everyone should have the right

to freedom of expression; the right should include freedom to seek, receive and impart

information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print,

in the form of art, or through any other media. The same right is protected under article 19 of

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Freedom of expression is also guaranteed in the

Constitution of Pakistan under article 19. The right to freedom of expression as provided in

article 19 (2) of the Covenant is not limited by form or subject matter. As the Human Rights

Committee explains, in its general comment No. 34 (2011), the right protected by

article 19 (2) includes the expression and receipt of communications of every form of idea

and opinion capable of transmission to others. It includes cultural and artistic expression,

teaching and religious discourse.7 Moreover, all forms of expression are covered, including

electronic and Internet-based modes of expression.8

41.

According to the source, in the present case, Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad

and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad are detained, in part, due to their preparation and transmission

of religious texts related to their membership of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. Their

activities are a form of religious expression that used the Internet to convey religious

materials and information. Such activities fall within the scope of protected expression under

article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the Covenant.

6 Ibid., para. 8.

7 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011), para. 11.

8 Ibid., para. 12.

A/HRC/WGAD/2023/35

GE.23-19524

7

Accordingly, their detention on the basis of such activities amounts to a restriction of their

right to freedom of expression.

42.

The source argues that none of the exceptions to article 19 (3) of the Covenant apply

in the present case. The source recalls that article 19 (3) of the Covenant provides that

freedom of expression may only be restricted when provided by law and necessary for respect

of the rights or reputations of others or for the protection of national security or of public

order, health or morals. The Human Rights Committee has held that such government

limitations in accordance with article 19 (3) must meet a strict test of justification.9

43.

The source concludes that, as no exception applies to the Government’s restriction of

the right to freedom of expression of Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq

Ahmad Shehzad, their detention and continued prosecution amounts to a violation of

article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the Covenant.

44.

In relation to category III, the source argues that the authorities have violated the right

of Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad not to be subjected

to arbitrary arrest. It is recalled that article 9 (1) of the Covenant, which confirms the right to

liberty and freedom from arbitrary detention, states that no one shall be deprived of liberty

except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.

That right is also enshrined in article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and

principles 2 and 36 (2) of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any

Form of Detention or Imprisonment.

45.

The source argues that, at the time of each arrest, there were no warrants issued for

the arrests of Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad.

Although the arrests complied with criminal procedure in Pakistan, which does not require a

warrant for the offences for which they were arrested, the absence of such a requirement for

a warrant under national law does not exempt the Government from its international

obligations in relation to due process.

46.

Moreover, the Government had the opportunity to obtain a warrant from a judicial

authority, particularly in the case of Mr. Rohan Ahmad, as authorities obtained a search

warrant to search his home immediately prior to his arrest. However, the authorities chose

not to seek a warrant for his arrest. The requirement for a warrant is a key safeguard to protect

against arbitrary arrest and the failure to obtain a warrant for the arrest of the

above-mentioned individuals amounts to a violation of their procedural rights. Accordingly,

their arrest was arbitrary in violation of article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights, article 9 (1) of the Covenant and principles 2 and 36 (2) of the Body of Principles.

47.

Furthermore, it is argued that the Government has violated the right of Mr. Rohan

Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad to release pending trial. In this

context, the source recalls that article 9 (3) of the Covenant provides for the right of an

individual to release pending trial. Pretrial detention under that provision should be the

exception not the norm and must be justified based on the circumstances. The Human Rights

Committee has found that detention pending trial must be based on an individualized

determination that such detention is reasonable and necessary taking into account all the

circumstances, for such purposes as to prevent flight, interference with evidence or the

recurrence of crime. Pretrial detention should not be mandatory for all defendants charged

with a particular crime, without regard to individual circumstances.10 Principles 38 and 39 of

the Body of Principles confirm that, except in special cases, a criminal detainee is entitled to

release pending trial.

48.

The source recalls that, in the present case, Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad

and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad were denied bail on the basis that they were charged under

sections 295-A, 295-B and 295-C of the Penal Code, which precludes individuals being

released on bail under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As a result, the courts

denied bail because denial is mandatory for the above-mentioned charges. The source argues

that the blanket bail denial on the basis of being charged with a particular crime is a violation

9 Human Rights Committee, Park v. Republic of Korea (CCPR/C/64/D/628/1995), para. 10.3.

10 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38.

A/HRC/WGAD/2023/35

8

GE.23-19524

of the right to release pending trial and, accordingly, the Government has violated the due

process rights of the three individuals by denying them bail on this basis. However, even if

the courts had considered the factors that are required under international norms on due

process, there is no evidence to suggest that the three defendants pose a threat to public safety

as they have never engaged in violent activity in the past. Moreover, there is no evidence that

they could destroy any evidence not already collected by investigators or that they are a flight

risk. As such, there were no circumstances present that could reasonably justify the period of

detention without trial.

49.

The source concludes that the Government has thus violated the rights of Mr. Rohan

Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad that are protected under

article 9 (3) of the Covenant, as well as principles 38 and 39 of the Body of Principles.

50.

Lastly, in relation to category III, the source submits that the Government has violated

the right to be tried without undue delay. It recalls that article 14 (3) (c) of the Covenant

guarantees that each individual subject to arrest shall be tried without undue delay. The

Human Rights Committee has explained that an important aspect of the fairness of a hearing

is its expeditiousness11 and in cases in which the accused are denied bail by the court, they

must be tried as expeditiously as possible.12 The right to be tried without undue delay is

further reiterated by principle 38 of the Body of Principles.

51.

The source recalls that, in the present case, the three defendants have been held

without bail for more than two years. The source submits that, in part, the reason for the delay

has been due to the Government’s failure to provide the defence counsel with access to the

evidence collected against the three defendants without any justification. Without providing

access to those materials, the trial cannot commence. The three defendants have filed a

petition with the High Court in Lahore to obtain access to investigators’ evidence but have

not yet received such access. As a result, the responsibility for the unjustified delays rests,

according to the source, with the Government. The trial delays, particularly while the

above-mentioned individuals are held in pretrial detention, lack any legitimate justification.

According to the source, the Government has therefore failed to provide promptly a trial for

Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad, in violation of

article 14 (3) (c) of the Covenant.

52.

Lastly, in relation to category V, the source submits that the detention of Mr. Rohan

Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad is the result of discriminatory

action by the Government on the basis of their religious beliefs. It is argued that the three

individuals were targeted entirely on the basis of their membership of the Ahmadiyya Muslim

Community. The Government has refused to recognize the defendants’ religion as legitimate

and is prosecuting them for engaging in peaceful activities that are a component of their

religion. It is only because the individuals are members of a Muslim sect that is not

recognized by the authorities of Pakistan that they are detained; were they members of the

religious majority in Pakistan, they would not be a target of prosecution. As a result, their

detention is a direct result of the Government’s discriminatory attitudes and practices against

the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.

(b)

Response from the Government

53.

On 12 May 2023, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source to

the Government under its regular communication procedure. The Working Group requested

the Government to provide detailed information by 11 July 2023 about the current situation

of Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad. The Working

Group also requested the Government to clarify the legal provisions justifying their detention,

as well as its compatibility with the State’s obligations under international human rights law

and, in particular, with regard to the treaties ratified by the State. Moreover, the Working

Group called upon the Government to ensure the physical and mental integrity of the three

individuals.

11 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 27.

12 Ibid., para. 35.

A/HRC/WGAD/2023/35

GE.23-19524

9

54.

The Government submitted its response on 27 July 2023, which was after the deadline.

The Government did not request an extension of the time limit for its reply, as provided for

in the Working Group’s methods of work. Consequently, the Working Group cannot accept

the reply as if it were presented within the time limit.

2.

Discussion

55.

In determining whether the detention of Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and

Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad is arbitrary, the Working Group has regard to the principles

established in its jurisprudence to deal with evidentiary issues. If the source has established

a prima facie case for breach of international law constituting arbitrary detention, the burden

of proof should be understood to rest upon the Government if it wishes to refute the

allegations.13 In the present case, the Government has chosen not to challenge in a timely

fashion the prima facie credible allegations made by the source.

(a)

Category I

56.

The Working Group will first consider whether there have been violations under

category I, which concerns deprivation of liberty without any legal basis.

57.

The source submits that Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad

Shehzad were arrested without arrest warrants and not informed, at the time of arrest, of the

reasons for their arrests. The Government in its late reply submits that they were arrested by

the Federal Investigation Agency in accordance with the applicable law and procedure after

issuing notices to them, as sufficient evidence existed to arrest them.

58.

While the Government in its late reply also asserts that the accused have been

exercising their rights under the constitutional and legal requirements regarding due process

and fair trials, the Working Group emphasizes that, even if the detention is in conformity

with national legislation, regulations and practices, it is entitled and indeed obliged to assess

the circumstances of the detention and the law itself to determine whether such detention is

also consistent with the relevant provisions of international human rights law.14

59.

Article 9 (2) of the Covenant provides that anyone who is arrested shall be informed,

at the time of arrest, of the reasons for the arrest and shall be promptly informed of any

charges. The Working Group has previously stated that, for deprivation of liberty to have a

legal basis, it is not sufficient that there is a law that may authorize the arrest. The authorities

must invoke that legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case.15 This is typically16

done through an arrest warrant or equivalent document.17 The reasons for an arrest must be

provided immediately upon arrest and must include not only the general legal basis of the

arrest, but also enough factual specifics to indicate the substance of the complaint.18 That

right is procedurally inherent in the right to liberty and security of person and the prohibition

of arbitrary deprivation of liberty, under articles 3 and 9, respectively, of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights, article 9 (1) of the Covenant and principles 2, 4 and 10 of the

Body of Principles. In addition, any form of detention or imprisonment should be ordered by,

or be subjected to the effective control of, a judicial or other authority under the law, the

status and tenure of which should afford the strongest possible guarantees of competence,

impartiality and independence, in accordance with principle 4 of the Body of Principles. The

Working Group therefore finds a violation of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights and article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant.

13 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.

14 Opinions No. 1/1998, para. 13; No. 82/2018, para. 25; No. 36/2019, para. 33; No. 42/2019, para. 43;

No. 51/2019, para. 53; No. 56/2019, para. 74; No. 76/2019, para. 36; No. 6/2020, para. 36;

No. 13/2020, para. 39; No. 14/2020, para. 45; and No. 32/2020, para. 29.

15 In cases of in flagrante delicto, the opportunity to obtain a warrant will not be typically available.

16 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 23. See also opinions No. 88/2017,

para. 27; No. 3/2018, para. 43; and No. 30/2018, para. 39.

17 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), paras. 21–23; and opinion No. 30/2017,

paras. 58 and 59.

18 Opinion No. 85/2021, para. 69.

A/HRC/WGAD/2023/35

10

GE.23-19524

60.

The source submits that Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad

Shehzad have been denied bail. The grounds for denying bail provided by the courts are that

the offences for which they were charged, namely sections 295-A, 295-B and 295-C of the

Penal Code, are not eligible for bail under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As

a result, the courts denied bail because denial is mandatory for the above-mentioned charges.

The Working Group has found that non-bailable offences imply in effect mandatory pretrial

detention.19 In its jurisprudence, the Working Group has confirmed that mandatory pretrial

detention – in the present case, sections 295-A, 295-B and 295-C of the Penal Code – violates

a State’s obligations under international human rights law. 20 As the Human Rights

Committee has stated, pretrial detention should not be mandatory for all defendants charged

with a particular crime, without regard to individual circumstances.21 The Working Group

recalls the view of the Human Rights Committee, as well as its own recurrent findings, that

pretrial detention must be the exception and not the rule, should be ordered for as short a time

as possible22 and must be based on an individualized determination that it is reasonable and

necessary, taking into account all the circumstances, for such purposes as to prevent flight,

interference with evidence or the recurrence of crime.23

61.

Courts must examine whether alternatives to pretrial detention would render detention

unnecessary in the case in question. 24 Mandatory pretrial detention deprives judicial

authorities of one of their essential functions as members of an independent and impartial

tribunal, namely, assessing the necessity and proportionality of detention in each case. The

imposition of mandatory pretrial detention for certain offences reverses the burden of proof,

so that those subject to ongoing criminal proceedings are automatically detained without a

balanced consideration of non-custodial alternatives to detention.25 In the present case, the

Working Group concludes that an individualized determination of the circumstances of

Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad was absent and, as a

result, their detention lacked a legal basis and was ordered in violation of article 9 of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 9 (3) of the Covenant and principles 38 and

39 of the Body of Principles. Their prolonged pretrial detention illustrates the importance of

that fundamental legal principle of personal liberty.

62.

For those reasons, the Working Group considers that the deprivation of liberty of

Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad lacks a legal basis

and is thus arbitrary, falling under category I.

(b)

Category II

63.

The source alleges that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman

Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad is arbitrary because their arrest and subsequent

detention amount to a reprisal for their legitimate exercise of the rights to freedom of thought,

conscience and religion.

64.

The Working Group notes that the situation of Ahmadis remains under close scrutiny

by United Nations entities. 26 The Working Group has previously determined that the

19 Opinions No. 8/2020, paras. 77 and 78; and No. 14/2022, para. 79.

20 Opinions No. 57/2014, No. 24/2015, No. 16/2018, No. 53/2018, No. 61/2018, No. 75/2018,

No. 14/2019, No. 64/2019 and No. 8/2023. See also A/HRC/19/57, paras. 48–58; and

A/HRC/42/39/Add.1, paras. 36–38.

21 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38.

22 See, for example, opinions No. 57/2014, para. 26; No. 8/2020, para. 54; No. 5/2021, para. 43; and

No. 6/2021, para. 50. See also Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38;

and A/HRC/19/57, paras. 48–58.

23 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38.

24 Ibid.; and United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right

of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court, guideline 15.

25 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38; opinion No. 8/2020, para. 78;

and United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of

Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court, guideline 15 (the burden of

proof must be met in a manner known in detail to the detainee, complete with supporting evidence,

including those who are defendants in security-related cases).

26 See www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Religion/Submissions/CSOs/01.amla.pdf.

A/HRC/WGAD/2023/35

GE.23-19524

11

detention of several individuals from the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community on blasphemy

charges was arbitrary under category II, as they were deprived of their freedom merely for

exercising their legitimate right to freedom of religion and conscience, as guaranteed by

article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.27 The Working Group recalls that

the obligation of Pakistan to respect the freedom of conscience and religion of Mr. Rohan

Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad derives from article 18 of the

Covenant. As interpreted by the Human Rights Committee in its general comment No. 22

(1993), as a consequence of freedom of religion, in conjunction with freedom of thought and

belief (art. 18) and freedom of expression (art. 19), all persons may express their opinions in

public or private, including on matters of religion, noting that the practice and teaching of

religion or belief includes acts integral to the conduct by religious groups of their basic

affairs, such as the freedom to prepare and distribute religious texts or publications.28

65.

Moreover, there is a substantial body of reliable information that supports the source’s

position that the arrest and detention of the individuals was motivated solely by their religious

beliefs as members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. For example, the Human Rights

Committee in its concluding observations on the initial report of Pakistan stated that it was

concerned by the blasphemy laws, including sections 295 and 298 of the Penal Code, which

carried severe penalties, including the mandatory death penalty (sect. 295-C), and reportedly

had a discriminatory effect, particularly on Ahmadis (sects. 298-B and 298-C).29 Moreover,

the arbitrary arrest and detention of members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community on the

basis of their faith has been well documented by other special procedure mandate holders.

For example, the joint statement by several United Nations human rights experts highlighted

that Ahmadis were particularly vulnerable to violations under laws on offences related to

religion, targeted by laws regulating new technologies and social media platforms, with the

aim of suppressing their dissenting views and beliefs and the target of discrimination,

exclusion, hate campaigns and violence, including arbitrary arrests and detentions.30

66.

The Working Group further recalls the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms

of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief (1981), which protects the

right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,31 including the freedom to write, issue

and disseminate relevant publications in these areas.32 In addition, the Working Group recalls

the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and

Linguistic Minorities (1992), which protects the right of persons belonging to religious

minorities to profess and practise their own religion freely and without interference or any

form of discrimination.33

67.

Nothing in the case of Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad

Shehzad demonstrates that any of the permitted restrictions on freedom of expression found

in article 19 (3) and on freedom to manifest religion or beliefs found in article 18 (3) of the

Covenant applied. Their possession, preparation and publication of religious texts does not

threaten public safety, order, health, morals or the rights of others. As a result, the authorities

cannot justify detention under any of the enumerated grounds for restricting freedom of

religion. As observed by the Human Rights Committee, article 18 (3) is to be strictly

interpreted and restrictions may not be imposed for discriminatory purposes or applied in a

discriminatory manner.34 As a result, the alleged publication and distribution of the religious

27 Opinions No. 10/1996 and No. 7/2023.

28 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 22 (1993), para. 4.

29 CCPR/C/PAK/CO/1, para. 33.

30 Joint Statement of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, the Special Rapporteur on

the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the Special

Rapporteur on minority issues, “International community must pay attention to the persecution of

Ahmadi Muslims worldwide”, 13 July 2021.

31 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion

or Belief (General Assembly resolution 36/55), art. 1 (1).

32 Ibid., art. 6 (d).

33 Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic

Minorities (General Assembly resolution 47/135), art. 2 (1).

34 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 22 (1993), para. 8.

A/HRC/WGAD/2023/35

12

GE.23-19524

texts of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is a legitimate exercise of their right to freedom

of religion.

68.

For those reasons, the Working Group finds that the deprivation of liberty of

Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad is arbitrary under

category II and breaches articles 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

and articles 18 and 19 of the Covenant.

(c)

Category III

69.

Given its finding that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman

Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad is arbitrary under category II, the Working Group

wishes to emphasize that, in such circumstances, no trial should take place. However, as they

are facing prosecution, the Working Group will now consider whether the alleged violations

of the right to a fair trial and due process were grave enough to give their deprivation of

liberty an arbitrary character, such that it falls within category III.

70.

The source submits that the Government has violated the right to be tried without

undue delay, noting that Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad

Shehzad have been held without bail for more than two years. The source submits that, in

part, the reason for the delay has been due to the Government’s failure to provide the defence

counsel with access to the evidence collected against the three defendants, without any

justification, which impedes the commencement of the trial. The three defendants have filed

a court petition to gain access to the evidence but have not yet received such access. As a

result, the responsibility for the unjustified delay rests, according to the source, with the

Government. The Government in its late reply does not rebut those specific allegations and

sets out the procedure followed by the individuals that resulted in the denial of bail.

71.

Under articles 9 (3) and 14 (3) (c) of the Covenant, anyone arrested or detained on a

criminal charge is entitled to trial within a reasonable time and without undue delay. The

reasonableness of any delay in bringing a case to trial must be assessed in the circumstances

of each case, taking into account the complexity of the case, the conduct of the accused and

the manner in which the matter was dealt with by the authorities. 35 The Human Rights

Committee has stated that an important aspect of the fairness of a hearing is its

expeditiousness and that, in cases in which those accused are denied bail by the court, they

must be tried as expeditiously as possible.36 The delay in the present case was exacerbated as

Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad were not given a bail

hearing and their detention was not reviewed by a judicial authority, as discussed above.

72.

In the light of the Working Group’s finding that the detention of Mr. Rohan Ahmad,

Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad was arbitrary under category II because

it resulted from the peaceful exercise of their rights, any delay in trying their case is

unreasonable.37 The Working Group considers that the three individuals’ pretrial detention

of more than two years is unacceptably long and is in violation of articles 9 (3) and 14 (3) (c)

of the Covenant and principle 38 of the Body of Principles.

73.

Noting the Government’s failure to provide the defence counsel with access to the

evidence collected against Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad

Shehzad, the Working Group recalls that the effectiveness of legal counsel is fundamentally

related to the principle of equality of arms, as enshrined in article 11 of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 of the Covenant, which protect the right to have

adequate time and facilities for the preparation of one’s defence. The Government in its late

reply submits that the right of the individuals accused to hire counsel of their choice was met

but does not address the allegation that the access of their counsel to evidence was denied. In

those circumstances, the Working Group finds that their right to adequate time and facilities

for the preparation of their defence under article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant was violated and

35 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 37; and general comment No. 32

(2007), para. 35. See also CCPR/C/VNM/CO/3, paras. 35 and 36.

36 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), paras. 27 and 35.

37 Opinions No. 8/2020, para. 75; No. 16/2020, para. 77; and No. 10/2021, para. 78.

A/HRC/WGAD/2023/35

GE.23-19524

13

contrary to principles 17 (1) and 18 (1) and (2) of the Body of Principles.38 Those violations

of due process and fair trial rights are all the more egregious considering the fact that the

three individuals are facing serious charges that carry the possibility of a sentence of life

imprisonment and the death penalty. The Working Group recalls the Human Rights

Committee’s guidance that it is axiomatic that the accused must be effectively assisted by a

lawyer at all stages of proceedings in cases involving capital punishment.39

74.

For the reasons above, the Working Group concludes that the violations of the fair

trial and due process rights of Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad

Shehzad are of such gravity as to give their deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character,

falling within category III. The Working Group refers the present case to the Special

Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and

expression.

(d)

Category V

75.

The source submits that the detention of Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and

Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad is the result of discriminatory action by the Government on the

basis of their religious belief.

76.

In the discussion above concerning category II, the Working Group established that

the detention of Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad

resulted from the peaceful exercise of their rights under international law. The Working

Group recalls that it has repeatedly stated in its jurisprudence that when detention results

from the active exercise of civil and political rights there is a strong presumption that the

detention also constitutes a violation of international law on the grounds of discrimination.40

77.

The Working Group recalls several non-cumulative indicators that serve to establish

the discriminatory nature of detention. Those include the following: the deprivation of liberty

was part of a pattern of persecution against the detained person, including, for example, other

persons with similarly distinguishing characteristics have also been persecuted; or the context

suggests that the authorities have detained a person on discriminatory grounds or to prevent

them from exercising their human rights.41 In that regard, the Working Group recalls that it

has previously concluded that Ahmadis in Pakistan are persecuted and deprived of their

freedom merely for exercising their legitimate right to freedom of religion and conscience.42

Moreover, it notes that, according to several human rights experts, Ahmadis are often denied

access to public service employment on religious grounds and are particularly vulnerable to

violations under laws on offences relating to religion (blasphemy laws). They are also

targeted by laws regulating new technologies and social media platforms, with the aim to

suppress their dissenting views and beliefs, enhance control of their minority communities

and further increase their persecution through coordinated online hate campaigns and, in

certain cases, online coordinated acts of collective punishment. They have often been the

target of discrimination, exclusion, hate campaigns and violence, including arbitrary arrests

and detentions, verbal and physical attacks in the public sphere, as well as attacks against

their cultural sites and places of worship.43

78.

The source argues that the allegation that the possession of the above-mentioned book

amounts to possession of a “defiled Qur’an” is a refusal by the Government to recognize the

sincere religious beliefs of Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad

Shehzad as legitimate, which, coupled with their prosecution on the basis of practising their

religion, demonstrates that their detention is imposed for discriminatory purposes.

38 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 32.

39 Ibid., para. 38.

40 Opinions No. 88/2017, para. 43; No. 13/2018, para. 34; No. 59/2019, para. 79; No. 36/2020, para. 75;

No. 42/2020, para. 93; No. 62/2020, para. 74; and No. 75/2022, para. 91.

41 A/HRC/36/37, para. 48.

42 Opinion No. 7/2023, para. 72.

43 Joint statement of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, the Special Rapporteur on

the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the Special

Rapporteur on minority issues, “International community must pay attention to the persecution of

Ahmadi Muslims worldwide”.

A/HRC/WGAD/2023/35

14

GE.23-19524

79.

In the light of the source’s prima facie credible submissions, the Working Group finds

that Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad were deprived of

their liberty on discriminatory grounds, based on their religious faith and opinions. Their

detention violates articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article

26 of the Covenant and contravenes articles 1–4 of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons

Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities. It is therefore arbitrary,

falling within category V. 44 The Working Group refers the present case to the Special

Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and to the Special Rapporteur on minority issues,

for appropriate action.

(e)

Concluding remarks

80.

The Working Group expresses its serious concern about blasphemy laws in Pakistan

and the criminalization of Ahmadis for practising their faith. It would welcome the

opportunity to carry out a country visit to Pakistan to work constructively with the authorities

in addressing its concerns in relation to the arbitrary deprivation of liberty. The Working

Group made a request to the Government on 11 June 2018 to conduct a country visit. As an

elected member of the Human Rights Council from 2021 to 2023, Pakistan is well placed to

demonstrate its commitment to human rights by inviting the Working Group to carry out a

visit.45

3.

Disposition

81.

In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:

The deprivation of liberty of Rohan Ahmad, Usman Ahmad and Tariq Ahmad

Shehzad, being in contravention of articles 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, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II, III

and V.

82.

The Working Group requests the Government of Pakistan to take the steps necessary

to remedy the situation of Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad

Shehzad without delay and bring it into conformity with the relevant international norms,

including those set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

83.

The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the

case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and

Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad immediately and accord them an enforceable right to

compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law.

84.

The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent

investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of

Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad and to take

appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of their rights.

85.

The Working Group requests the Government to bring its laws, particularly, sections

295-A, 295-B, 295-C, 298-B and 298-C of the Penal Code, into conformity with the

recommendations made in the present opinion and with the commitments made by Pakistan

under international human rights law.

86.

In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers

the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to

freedom of opinion and expression, the Special Rapporteur on minority issues and the Special

Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, for appropriate action.

44 Opinion No. 7/2023, para. 72.

45 The Government made a voluntary commitment prior to its election to the Human Rights Council to

continue to strengthen cooperation with the special procedures, including by arranging visits of the

High Commissioner for Human Rights and the special rapporteurs” (A/75/119, para. 30 (p)).

A/HRC/WGAD/2023/35

GE.23-19524

15

87.

The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion

through all available means and as widely as possible.

4.

Follow-up procedure

88.

In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests

the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up

to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:

(a)

Whether Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad

Shehzad have been released and, if so, on what date;

(b)

Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Rohan

Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad;

(c)

Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of the rights of

Mr. Rohan Ahmad, Mr. Usman Ahmad and Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shehzad and, if so, the

outcome of the investigation;

(d)

Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to

harmonize the laws and practices of Pakistan with its international obligations in line with

the present opinion;

(e)

Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.

89.

The Government is invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties it may

have encountered in implementing the recommendations made in the present opinion and

whether further technical assistance is required, for example through a visit by the Working

Group.

90.

The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the

above-mentioned information within six months of the date of transmission of the present

opinion. However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up

to the opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action

would enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in

implementing its recommendations, as well as of any failure to take action.

91.

The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all States

to cooperate with the Working Group and has requested them to take account of its views

and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily

deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken.46

[Adopted on 28 August 2023]

46 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.