Opinion; Subjects: PAKISTAN, ARBITRARY DETENTION; [WGAD: UNO-Arbeitsgruppe über willkürliche Inhaftierung, willkürliche Haft; Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire; Gruppo di lavoro sulla detenzione arbitraria]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.25-19681 (E) 101225 121225
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its 104th session, 10–14 November 2025
Opinion No. 62/2025 concerning Mohammad Idris Khattak (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 60/8.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work, 1 on 8 July 2025, the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Pakistan a communication concerning Mohammad Idris
Khattak. The Government has not replied to the communication. 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
or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings
(category V).
* Miriam Estrada Castillo and Mumba Malila did not participate in the discussion of the case.
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/62
General Assembly
Distr.: General
12 December 2025
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/62
2
GE.25-19681
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Mohammad Idris Khattak is a national of Pakistan, born in 1963. Prior to his arrest,
he resided in the village of Shaidu, Nowshera district, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province,
Pakistan.
5.
Mr. Khattak is a well-known human rights defender who has spent years documenting
human rights violations, including enforced disappearances, in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
province and the former Federally Administered Tribal Areas. He has also worked to defend
the rights of the Pashtun minority, of which he is a member. He previously worked with, inter
alia, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Mr. Khattak holds a master’s degree
in archaeology.
(i)
Context
6.
The source recalls the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee on
the second periodic report of Pakistan submitted under the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights,2 in which the Committee noted violations of the rights to freedom of
expression, association and assembly. The source recalls the concerns raised by special
procedure mandate holders regarding the use of first information reports filed against human
rights defenders,3 the pattern of harassment and intimidation against human rights defenders
from Balochistan,4 and an escalating series of actions by the Pakistan police against the
Baloch Yakjehti Committee, a network advocating for the rights of the minority Baloch
community.5
7.
The judiciary is not independent, and the Human Rights Committee noted in this
regard its concern that judges and prosecutors involved in politically sensitive cases were
frequently subjected to harassment, intimidation and threats. 6 The source submits that
Pakistan also has a history of using military courts to try civilians.
(ii)
Arrest and detention
8.
On 13 November 2019, Mr. Khattak and his driver were abducted while driving on
the Islamabad-Peshawar motorway in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. The abductors,
suspected to have been plain-clothes military officers, blindfolded Mr. Khattak and his driver
and took them to an undisclosed location. Mr. Khattak and his driver repeatedly asked why
they were being detained and who their abductors were, but were given no answers. The
abductors did not produce an arrest warrant.
9.
The next day, some men went to Mr. Khattak’s home and confiscated his laptops,
telephones and hard drives; neither Mr. Khattak or his lawyer were presented with a search
warrant. Mr. Khattak’s family learned about his disappearance only after the driver was
released on the night of 15 November 2019.
10.
On the same night, Mr. Khattak’s family tried to register a complaint (first information
report) at the Chota Lahore Police Station in Swabi district. However, the police refused to
register the first information report at that time and only registered it a month later, on
16 December 2019. The family made inquiries with various authorities, including the
Directorate for Military Intelligence, Inter-Services Intelligence and the police, all of which
denied knowledge of Mr. Khattak’s detention or location.
11.
On 18 November 2019, the family filed a habeas corpus petition in Peshawar High
Court. On 10 January 2020, the High Court ordered the Government to report on
2 CCPR/C/PAK/CO/2.
3 See communication PAK 4/2021. All communications mentioned in the present report are available
from https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/Tmsearch/TMDocuments.
4 See communication PAK 6/2024.
5 See www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/03/pakistan-un-experts-demand-release-baloch-human-
rights-defenders-and-end.
6 CCPR/C/PAK/CO/2, para. 40.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/62
GE.25-19681
3
Mr. Khattak’s whereabouts and to produce him in court, however, the Government did
neither. A group of mandate holders of the special procedures of the Human Rights Council
condemned that lack of cooperation.7
12.
During the initial period, and throughout his detention, Mr. Khattak was subjected to
lengthy interrogations without the presence of his lawyer. He was asked about a wide range
of issues, including his work with civil society organizations. He was also questioned about
his relationship with specific individuals. The interrogators asked for information that
Mr. Khattak would have no way of knowing, such as where illegal immigrants lived in
Pakistan and how the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement was funded, whereas Mr. Khattak had
never been associated with it.
13.
The authorities did not inform Mr. Khattak, his lawyer or his family about the charges
against him. Mr. Khattak and his lawyer instead had to rely on information about the charges
from public reporting by news outlets, Twitter posts and briefs filed by the Government in
litigation before the High Court and the Supreme Court. They learned that Mr. Khattak was
alleged to have communicated information in violation of the Official Secrets Act and the
Pakistan Army Act. He was specifically accused of sharing information, including
information about Pakistani military operations, with an individual accused of being a foreign
intelligence service official on several occasions in June and July 2009. The source denies
that Mr. Khattak has ever shared such information.
14.
Mr. Khattak was put under severe pressure to confess. In April 2020, while still
disappeared, an official reportedly visited Mr. Khattak and showed him a bullet. Emphasizing
that a bullet costs only 100–150 rupees, he noted that that amount would be the cost of
Mr. Khattak’s life. The official also reportedly threatened that harm could come to
Mr. Khattak’s family if he did not cooperate. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Khattak was presented
with a confession statement and told that, if he signed it, he would be brought before a
magistrate, but that, if he refused, he would be kept in detention for years. Fearing for his
family’s safety, he signed it.
15.
The following day, Mr. Khattak was taken before someone who he was told was a
magistrate. He explained to the magistrate how he had been abducted, detained
incommunicado and tortured and that the charges against him were fabricated. Later that
night, back in detention, Mr. Khattak was told that the magistrate had been an impostor
working for Inter-Services Intelligence, and he was interrogated about everything he had told
the imposter.
16.
Three days later, on 21 April 2020, Mr. Khattak was taken to a real magistrate in
Rawalpindi, which was the first time he had appeared before a judicial authority in the over
five months since his abduction. With his interrogators from the detention facility watching,
Mr. Khattak was asked to sign, and to affix his thumbprint to mark it as his official confession
statement, a copy of the printed statement that Mr. Khattak had signed in the detention
facility, which the magistrate had copied by hand. Mr. Khattak did so.
17.
On 11 June 2020, the Secretary of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Home and Tribal Affairs
Department filed a reply brief with Peshawar High Court denying any knowledge of
Mr. Khattak’s whereabouts. On 16 June 2020, the authorities admitted, both at a meeting
with Mr. Khattak’s family and in a letter to the national Commission of Inquiry on Enforced
Disappearances, that Mr. Khattak was being detained by the Directorate for Military
Intelligence. His location was not disclosed. It was revealed that he had been charged under
section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, read in conjunction with the Pakistan Army Act.
18.
Throughout his detention, Mr. Khattak had extremely limited contact with the outside
world, including his family and counsel. His first meeting with a family member was on
7 October 2020. The meeting occurred at an army base under severe restrictions and in the
presence of military officers. They were forced to speak Urdu or English, rather than Pashto,
their native language, and were not allowed to discuss the charges against Mr. Khattak. In
addition, the meeting was recorded on camera. Furthermore, the family member was forced
7 See news.un.org/en/story/2020/09/1071762.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/62
4
GE.25-19681
to undergo a strip-search before the meeting and was not allowed to have other family
members join the meeting.
19.
During the rest of his pretrial detention, until his conviction in November 2021,
Mr. Khattak had only two additional meetings with family members, and they were subject
to the same conditions and restrictions, except that multiple family members were allowed to
meet with him one after the other, for a maximum of five minutes each. He was allowed to
make infrequent telephone calls (only in Urdu or English) but was not allowed to write letters.
20.
Mr. Khattak was detained at least 15 months without access to counsel, with his first
meeting with his counsel occurring only after 9 February 2021. While the trial was ongoing,
he was allowed to meet with counsel for only about an hour before each hearing. All meetings
were video recorded and conducted in the presence of an army officer. Mr. Khattak and his
attorney were prohibited from speaking in their native language.
21.
Mr. Khattak suffered through long periods of incommunicado detention. From
15 November 2019 through at least 9 February 2021, his only contact with the outside world
was a 20-minute visit from a family member.
22.
At various times, Mr. Khattak was kept shackled to a hook on the ground or a window
bar, blindfolded for days, denied proper bedding, forced to sleep on a bug-infested blanket,
denied the ability to bathe for periods exceeding 20 days, forced to bathe using contaminated
water, held in a room with no windows or light and denied access to a toilet. He was also
kept in prolonged solitary confinement, from the time of his abduction on 13 November 2019
until he was transferred to District Jail Jhelum in November 2021.
23.
Mr. Khattak was also denied medical care. In March 2023, he required an MRI
examination to investigate his back pain, but the authorities refused to remove his shackles,
thereby preventing the examination from happening. In March 2025, he was finally able to
get an MRI examination, the results of which showed significant lesions. He also developed
a skin infection from the unsanitary detention conditions, which went untreated.
24.
On several occasions Mr. Khattak was blindfolded, hooded, handcuffed and forced to
walk around his cell until he bumped into a wall or the iron door of the room.
(iii)
Legal proceedings
25.
The trial proceedings were flawed, as materials were withheld from the defence,
including the charge sheet, the summary of evidence, Mr. Khattak’s confession statement,
the calendar of witnesses and statements recorded during the investigation. Mr. Khattak’s
lawyer learned of the allegations against Mr. Khattak only when the charges were reproduced
verbatim in a reply brief by the Government to Peshawar High Court on 21 September 2020.
26.
After the defence reviewed the specific allegations, it became apparent that the
charges were fabricated, given that Mr. Khattak had never shared information about military
operations with anyone and much of the information that Mr. Khattak was accused of sharing
had already been publicly reported.
27.
Despite being a civilian, Mr. Khattak was tried by a military court, the Field General
Court Martial at Mangla. His family challenged the use of a military court, but Peshawar
High Court rejected the challenge.
28.
Proceedings before the military court were closed to the public, the media and
Mr. Khattak’s family. The defence was prevented from calling key witnesses who could have
testified about Mr. Khattak’s human rights work and whether he had communication with
the individuals alleged to be foreign intelligence agents. The witnesses who the defence was
allowed to call could only provide background information regarding the search of
Mr. Khattak’s home and the efforts made to locate him.
29.
Mr. Khattak’s confession statement was admitted into evidence, even though he had
signed it under extreme duress, as he had been enforcedly disappeared, had no access to
counsel and was being mistreated. The prosecution also introduced into evidence a document
that was shown only to the judges; neither Mr. Khattak nor his counsel were informed of its
contents. The prosecution used as evidence abstracts allegedly extracted from emails but
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/62
GE.25-19681
5
never produced the full emails, which would show the date, sender and recipient of each of
them, even though the defence requested them.
30.
In July 2021, the prosecution announced that it would be introducing three additional
witnesses who had not been mentioned in the summary of evidence or listed in the calendar
of witnesses when the trial commenced and whose statements had not been recorded during
the investigation. One of the prosecution witnesses who testified against Mr. Khattak had
been detained for some time in the same location and exhibited visible signs of having been
the victim of torture. Mr. Khattak’s counsel reportedly made numerous objections to these
irregularities, but the military court rejected them all.
31.
In late November 2021, Mr. Khattak was convicted and sentenced to 14 years’
imprisonment with credit for the two years of pretrial detention. Neither Mr. Khattak nor his
lawyer were shown a court order authorizing his pretrial detention up to that point. After the
trial, Mr. Khattak was sent to a civilian prison, District Jail Jhelum in Jhelum district, for one
month, where he had no contact with his family or counsel. In late December 2021, he was
transferred to Central Jail in Rawalpindi, known as Adiala Jail. His family was not informed
of the conviction or his transfer.
32.
The source recalls that the special procedure mandate holders stated in this instance
that Mr. Khattak’s case was emblematic of how the military justice system was being
instrumentalized to repress critical voices and rights activists8 and that his sentencing was an
attack against the human rights community in Pakistan and sent a chilling message to civil
society activists monitoring and reporting on alleged violations.9
33.
On 21 December 2021, defence counsel appealed the conviction to the Appellate
Court of the Field General Court Martial, as article 133 of the Pakistan Army Act prohibited
their submitting an appeal to the civilian court system. Since no action was taken on the
appeal, his counsel filed a petition in October 2022 with the Lahore High Court asking for a
hearing date in the Appellate Court of the Field General Court Martial. The Lahore High
Court requested the Appellate Court to set the appeal hearing as soon as possible. The first
hearing in the Appellate Court did not occur until April 2023, however, and the Appellate
Court did not issue its decision until January 2025, when it rejected the appeal.
34.
The defence did not have key documents necessary to mount an effective appeal, as it
was never given the summary of evidence, Mr. Khattak’s confession statement, the calendar
of witnesses, the statements recorded during the investigation, the trial transcript or a copy
of all the evidence admitted at trial. The authorities did not give a reasoned verdict, but one
that consisted of only a few sentences. The defence never received a written decision from
the Appellate Court of the Field General Court Martial denying the appeal.
35.
Mr. Khattak remains imprisoned in Adiala Jail in a cell with over 70 detainees. He is
not allowed to make calls. He has been classified as a class C prisoner, the lowest
classification with the worst prison conditions.10
36.
Mr. Khattak is currently 61 years old and suffers from various conditions. He is
dependent on family to bring medications to the prison located approximately four hours
away from the family home. The family requested his transfer to a closer facility but received
no response.
37.
Mr. Khattak has no further avenue to appeal, as section 133 of the Pakistan Army Act
prohibits an appeal to the civilian court system. The scope of judicial review by civilian courts
is severely limited.
8 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), “Pakistan: experts
call for release of activist Idris Khattak after five years in detention”, 23 December 2024, see
www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/12/pakistan-experts-call-release-activist-idris-khattak-after-
five-years.
9 OHCHR, “UN experts condemn conviction of Pakistan human rights defender and minority activist
Idris Khattak”, 15 December 2021, see www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2021/12/un-experts-
condemn-conviction-pakistan-human-rights-defender-and-minority.
10 See data.jpp.org.pk/en/document/ij4ejiwvn1e.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/62
6
GE.25-19681
(iv)
Legal analysis
38.
The source submits that Mr. Khattak’s deprivation of liberty is arbitrary, falling under
categories I, II, III and V of the arbitrary detention categories referred to by the Working
Group when considering cases submitted to it.
39.
In relation to category I, there was no legal basis for his detention from his abduction
on 13 November 2019 to his conviction in November 2021. The authorities never provided
a warrant authorizing Mr. Khattak’s arrest, and he was not caught in flagrante delicto.
40.
There was no court order authorizing any portion of Mr. Khattak’s pretrial detention.
Given that Mr. Khattak was first brought before a judicial authority on 21 April 2020, over
five months into his detention, there was no court order authorizing his detention until that
moment. Mr. Khattak was not allowed to meet with counsel for at least 15 months.
41.
The source recalls that, in each of the seven charges against him, Mr. Khattak was
accused of violating section 3 (1) (c) of the Official Secrets Act, which prohibits intentionally
for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State communicating to any other
person information that is calculated to be, might be or is intended to be, directly or indirectly,
useful to an enemy of the State. The source argues that this is an extremely vague provision,
as it is unclear what constitutes the safety or interests of the State or what information would
qualify as that which is calculated to be, might be or intended to be, directly or indirectly,
useful to an enemy of the State.
42.
In relation to category II, the source submits that Mr. Khattak is detained for
exercising his right to freedom of expression, contrary to article 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 (2) of the Covenant. It is widely recognized that
Mr. Khattak has been detained in retaliation for his work identifying, documenting and
exposing human rights abuses, i.e. exercising his right to freedom of expression.11
43.
Moreover, the information that Mr. Khattak is accused of sharing had already been
publicly reported, and once information has been made generally available, any justification
for trying to stop further publication is overridden by the public’s right to know.12 Expression
that is directed at communicating information about alleged violations of international human
rights standards or international humanitarian law cannot be considered a threat to national
security.13 In this context, Mr. Khattak was accused of reporting about activities by the
security forces at a time of armed conflict between the military of Pakistan and armed groups,
during which time serious human rights abuses and violations of humanitarian law against
the civilian population were widely reported.14 The source recalls that, as the Human Rights
Committee has explained, it is not permissible to invoke national security laws to suppress
or withhold from the public information of legitimate public interest that does not harm
national security or to prosecute human rights defenders or others for having disseminated
such information.15 The Government has not provided any evidence that the communications
that Mr. Khattak allegedly made actually harmed the country’s national security.
44.
Under category III, it is submitted that Mr. Khattak was not informed of the reason
for his arrest at the time he was arrested and was not promptly informed of the nature and
cause of the charges against him, contrary to article 9 (2) of the Covenant. The reasons given
must include not only the general legal basis of the arrest, but also enough factual specifics
to indicate the substance of the complaint, such as the wrongful act.16 Where someone has
not yet been charged but is arrested as part of a criminal investigation, they must be promptly
informed of the crimes of which they are suspected or accused, and the Human Rights
11 See www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2020/06/pakistan-un-experts-appalled-enforced-disappearance-
activist-idris-khattak?LangID=E&NewsID=26010 and www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2021/12/un-
experts-condemn-conviction-pakistan-human-rights-defender-and-minority.
12 E/CN.4/1996/39, annex.
13 E/CN.4/1996/39, annex, principle 7 (a) (iv).
14 See communication PAK 8/2024.
15 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011) on the freedoms of opinion and
expression, para. 30.
16 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person,
para. 25.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/62
GE.25-19681
7
Committee has emphasized that this right applies not just in ordinary criminal prosecutions
but also in connection with military prosecutions.17
45.
Article 14 (3) (a) of the Covenant separately provides that persons charged with a
crime have the right to be informed promptly of the nature and cause of the charge against
them. This requires both the law and the alleged general facts on which the charge is based
to be provided as soon as the person concerned is formally charged or the individual is
publicly named as such.18
46.
The Government has violated the above provisions. When Mr. Khattak was
apprehended, he repeatedly inquired why he was being detained but was given no
information. He was unaware about the reason for his arrest or any charges he was being
investigated for or facing until June 2020, seven months after his arrest. Even then, he
remained unaware of the specific factual allegations against him.
47.
Mr. Khattak was forcibly disappeared from 13 November 2019 until 16 June 2020,
contrary to article 9 (1) of the Covenant. The Human Rights Committee has explained that
enforced disappearances violate numerous substantive and procedural provisions of the
Covenant, including the rights to personal liberty and security, and constitute a particularly
aggravated form of arbitrary detention.19
48.
During the period of Mr. Khattak’s disappearance, his family made numerous
inquiries with the relevant authorities, all of which denied knowledge of Mr. Khattak’s
detention or location. In court filing on 11 June 2020, days before the Government confirmed
that Mr. Khattak was in the custody of the Directorate for Military Intelligence, the Secretary
of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Home and Tribal Affairs Department denied that Mr. Khattak
was detained, in a filing with Peshawar High Court.
49.
Mr. Khattak was not brought promptly before a court, in breach of article 9 (3) and
(4) of the Covenant, as he was abducted on 13 November 2019 but not brought before a
judicial authority until 21 April 2020. The Human Rights Committee has explained that
48 hours’ delay is ordinarily sufficient, and any delay longer than that must remain absolutely
exceptional and be justified under the circumstances.20
50.
Mr. Khattak was also denied the presumption of bail, contrary to article 9 (3) of the
Covenant. The Human Rights Committee has explained that pretrial detention should be the
exception rather than the rule 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.21 Although article 9 (3)
of the Covenant applies only after a criminal defendant has been charged, the Human Rights
Committee has explained that a similar requirement prior to charging results from the
prohibition of arbitrary detention in article 9 (1).22
51.
Neither Mr. Khattak nor his counsel were shown a court order containing an
individualized determination that pretrial detention was reasonable and necessary, much less
the multiple court orders that would have been required to justify two years of pretrial
detention. Given that Mr. Khattak was first brought before a judicial authority over five
months into his detention, there was clearly no court order authorizing his detention up to
that point.
52.
Mr. Khattak was denied access to his family and counsel for prolonged periods,
contrary to principles 15 and 16 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons
under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment and rule 58 (1) of United Nations Standard
Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules). He was detained
incommunicado from 13 November 2019 to November 2021. Apart from a brief telephone
17 Ibid., para. 29.
18 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and
tribunals and to a fair trial, para. 31.
19 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), paras. 17 and 55.
20 Ibid., para. 33.
21 Ibid., para. 38.
22 Ibid.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/62
8
GE.25-19681
call with his family member on 13 November 2019 and being forced to call a friend the next
day to facilitate the Government’s access to his house, his first contact with the outside world
occurred nearly 11 months after his abduction. During the rest of his pretrial detention until
late November 2021, he had only two additional meetings with family members and was
permitted only infrequent telephone calls.
53.
Mr. Khattak’s first meeting with counsel reportedly occurred 15 months after his
abduction, after 9 February 2021, and, during the trial, he had only brief meetings with
counsel immediately before each hearing. As a result, there were prolonged periods of
incommunicado detention; for example, from 15 November 2019 to at least 9 February 2021,
Mr. Khattak’s only contact with the outside world was a single 20-minute visit with a family
member.
54.
Mr. Khattak was subjected to torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment, in breach of article 7 of the Covenant and article 5 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. He was forced to walk around his cell blindfolded, hooded and handcuffed.
He was also forcibly disappeared for more than seven months, which constitutes both a risk
factor for torture23 and a form of ill-treatment in itself. He was also held in prolonged
incommunicado detention and prolonged solitary confinement, both of which constitute
ill-treatment.24 Mr. Khattak was denied needed medical care, which is a recognized form of
torture,25 as well as a violation of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons
under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.26 The conditions of Mr. Khattak’s detention
represent serious violations of the Nelson Mandela Rules and additional violations of article 7
of the Covenant.
55.
The source alleges numerous violations of article 14 of the Covenant and article 10 of
the Constitution of Pakistan, which guarantee the right to a fair trial and due process.
Mr. Khattak’s trial was closed to the public, without any explanation being provided by the
Government. The source notes in this regard that the Working Group has previously found
that the Government violated article 14 (1) of the Covenant in proceedings under the Official
Secrets Act by failing to invoke any of the permissible exceptions to justify a closed trial.27
56.
Mr. Khattak was also denied the right to the presumption of innocence, in violation of
article 14 (2) of the Covenant, as he has been held in pretrial detention, without legal basis,
for over two years.28
57.
Mr. Khattak was denied the right to have adequate time and facilities for the
preparation of his defence, in violation of article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant. As such, he was
denied access to key case documents and evidence. In addition, the prosecution introduced
into evidence segments of text that were allegedly extracted from certain emails, and the
prosecution refused to provide or produce the full emails so that the defence could challenge
their legitimacy. In July 2021, the prosecution added three new witnesses who were not
mentioned in the summary of evidence or the calendar of witnesses when the trial
commenced, nor were their statements recorded during the investigation. Mr. Khattak had no
opportunity to prepare a defence against the new witnesses prior to the start of the trial
proceedings. Mr. Khattak was also denied the opportunity to meaningfully engage with
counsel, given that he had been detained for at least 15 months before his first meeting with
counsel and his access to counsel during the trial proceedings was limited to brief meetings
immediately before each hearing. During those meetings, he was not allowed to speak in his
native Pashto and was monitored by guards.
23 E/CN.4/2006/56, para. 22.
24 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 56; see also
www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2020/02/united-states-prolonged-solitary-confinement-amounts-
psychological-torture.
25 See e.g. www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/02/russia-un-torture-expert-calls-urgent-medical-care-
crimean-prisoners.
26 Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment,
principle 24; and Nelson Mandela Rules, rule 24 (1); see also Nelson Mandela Rules, rule 27 (1).
27 Opinion No. 22/2024, para. 92.
28 Opinion No. 27/2011, para. 34.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/62
GE.25-19681
9
58.
The source argues that Mr. Khattak’s right to equality of arms under article 14 (1) of
the Covenant was breached, as, during the trial, the prosecution introduced into evidence a
secret document that was shown only to the judges. The source notes that the disclosure of
information to a defendant can be restricted in certain narrow circumstances, including where
necessary to protect national security, but the Government must demonstrate that less
restrictive measures would be unable to achieve the same result.29 The military court never
demonstrated that restricting defence access to the secret document was necessary and
proportionate and for a legitimate purpose, nor did the court consider whether less restrictive
means would have been possible.
59.
Mr. Khattak’s right to present defence witnesses was also breached, in contravention
of article 14 (3) (e) of the Covenant. While the prosecution called six witnesses, the defence
was allowed to present only two witnesses whose testimony did not address the substantive
allegations against Mr. Khattak. The military court did not allow the defence to call its other
proposed witnesses who could have testified about Mr. Khattak’s human rights work and
directly rebutted key allegations.
60.
Mr. Khattak signed a confession on 21 April 2020, having been disappeared for over
five months, repeatedly interrogated without access to counsel and subjected to torture and
ill-treatment. The use of his confession at trial was therefore a violation of article 14 (3) (g)
of the Covenant, a safeguard which must be understood in terms of the absence of any direct
or indirect physical or undue psychological pressure from the investigating authorities on the
accused, with a view to obtaining a confession of guilt.30 The use of his confession at trial
also constitutes violation of article 7 of the Covenant, notes the source.
61.
Despite being a civilian, Mr. Khattak was tried, convicted and sentenced by a military
court, contrary to article 14 (1) of the Covenant and in breach of his right to an independent
and impartial tribunal. The source recalls in this regard that a military court cannot even try
military personnel if civilians have also been indicted in the case.31 The source also recalls
that the right to an independent and impartial tribunal applies with equal force to appellate
proceedings.32
62.
According to the source, Mr. Khattak was also denied the right to have his conviction
reviewed by a higher tribunal, contrary to article 14 (5) of the Covenant. Mr. Khattak’s only
substantive appeal was to the court of appeal created under section 133B of the Pakistan
Army Act, which comprised army officers. While the civilian courts can exercise
extraordinary writ jurisdiction over military court verdicts, the scope of review is severely
limited and would not even include severe rights violations, such as enforced disappearance.
The source recalls in this regard that the draft principles governing the administration of
justice through military tribunals, which have been cited by the Human Rights Committee
and the European Court of Human Rights,33 provide that in all cases where military tribunals
exist, their competence should be limited to the first degree of jurisdiction. Consequently,
recourse procedures, in particular appeals, should be brought before the civil courts.
63.
Furthermore, as the Human Rights Committee has explained, the right to review by a
higher tribunal can only be exercised effectively if the convicted person is entitled to have
access to a duly reasoned, written judgement of the trial court and to other documents, such
as trial transcripts, necessary to enjoy the effective exercise of the right to appeal. 34
Mr. Khattak did not receive key documents, such as the summary of evidence, the confession
statement or even the trial transcript, and the defence was not given a reasoned, written
29 A/HRC/30/37, para. 80.
30 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 41.
31 A/HRC/27/48, para. 69 (b).
32 Human Rights Committee, Larrañaga v. Philippines (CCPR/C/87/D/1421/2005), para. 7; and
Mennen v. Netherlands (CCPR/C/99/D/1797/2008), para. 8.2.
33 E/CN.4/2006/58; Human Rights Committee, Kholodova v. Russian Federation
(CCPR/C/106/D/1548/2007), para. 10.5; and European Court of Human Rights, Ergin v. Turkey,
Application No. 47533/99, Judgment of 4 May 2006, para. 24.
34 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 49.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/62
10
GE.25-19681
judgment. The defence also never received a written decision from the Appellate Court of
the Field General Court Martial denying Mr. Khattak’s appeal.
64.
Mr. Khattak’s counsel appealed his conviction in December 2021, but the appellate
military court did not issue a decision on the appeal until January 2025, over four years later.
The source recalls that the Working Group has clarified that the effectiveness of the right to
appeal is impaired, and article 14 (5) of the Covenant violated, if the review by the higher
instance court is unduly delayed.35
65.
In relation to category V, the source argues that Mr. Khattak has been deprived of his
liberty on discriminatory grounds. The source asserts that Mr. Khattak has been targeted,
prosecuted and imprisoned for engaging in his work as a Pashtun human rights defender. The
source recalls that both independent human rights organizations and United Nations experts
have directly connected his detention with his human rights work. The source also reiterates
that United Nations experts have described the Official Secrets Act, the law used to imprison
Mr. Khattak, as yet another means of silencing dissent from human rights defenders.36 They
have also expressed concern about the arbitrary use of the legal system to harass, intimidate,
threaten and retaliate against human rights defenders and members of the Pashtun minority
who are seeking to expose alleged wrongdoing or human rights violations committed by the
Pakistani authorities, as well as the systematic abuse of counter-terrorism and security
legislation against human rights defenders advocating for the Pashtun community.
(b)
Response from the Government
66.
On 8 July 2025, 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 8 September 2025 about the current situation
of Mr. Khattak. The Working Group also requested the Government to clarify the legal
provisions justifying his 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 Mr. Khattak’s
physical and mental integrity.
67.
The Working Group regrets that it did not receive a response from the Government,
nor did the Government request an extension of the time limit for its reply, as provided for
in paragraph 16 of the Working Group’s methods of work.
2.
Discussion
68.
In the absence of a response from the Government, the Working Group has decided
to render the present opinion, in conformity with paragraph 15 of its methods of work.
69.
In determining whether the detention of Mr. Khattak 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 of 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.37 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
70.
The Working Group will first consider whether there have been violations under
category I, which concerns deprivation of liberty without a legal basis.
71.
The source submits that Mr. Khattak was arrested without an arrest warrant and that
he was clearly not caught in flagrante delicto, as his alleged criminal activities occurred more
than 10 years before his arrest. The source adds that Mr. Khattak was not informed of the
reasons for his arrest and remained unaware of the reason for his arrest or any charges that
35 Opinion No. 45/2016, paras. 44 and 45.
36 See www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2020/09/un-experts-pakistan-must-end-enforced-
disappearance-human-rights-defender.
37 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/62
GE.25-19681
11
he was being investigated for or facing until June 2020, seven months after his arrest. The
Government has chosen not to address these allegations.
72.
The Working Group recalls that, pursuant to article 9 (1) of the Covenant, no one is
to be deprived of his or her liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such
procedures as are established by law. Article 9 (2) of the Covenant provides that anyone who
is arrested should be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for the arrest and should
be promptly informed of any charges. As the Working Group has previously stated, 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.38 This is typically done through an arrest warrant, arrest order or
equivalent document.39 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.40
73.
The Working Group is persuaded by the source’s unrefuted submission that
Mr. Khattak was subjected to warrantless arrest in 2019 and was not informed, at the time of
arrest, of the reasons for it, nor of the charges against him, until seven months later. There is
no indication that it was a situation of flagrante delicto. The Working Group therefore finds
a violation of article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant.
74.
The source also submits that, given that Mr. Khattak was first brought before a judicial
authority on 21 April 2020, over five months into his detention, and given that there was no
court order justifying his pretrial detention, his rights were further violated. The Government
has not addressed this argument.
75.
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 frame as possible41 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.42
Courts must examine whether alternatives to pretrial detention would render detention
unnecessary in the case in question.43 It also notes that article 9 (3) of the Covenant states
that anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge is to be brought promptly before a judge
or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power. Similarly, article 8 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights addresses the rights of an individual to challenge and
seek remedy against violations of an individual’s rights, including the right to a fair trial and
due process, stating that everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent
national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him or her by the
constitution or by law.
76.
In the present case, the Working Group concludes that an individualized
determination of Mr. Khattak’s circumstances was absent and that he was deprived of the
opportunity to challenge the basis for his detention in a prompt manner. As a result, his
detention lacked a legal basis and was ordered in violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant
and article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as principles 38 and 39
of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment. His prolonged pretrial detention, for over two years, illustrates the importance
of this fundamental legal principle.
77.
Moreover, the Working Group takes note of the source’s unrefuted submission that
Mr. Khattak’s family made numerous inquiries with a variety of government agencies, all of
38 Opinions No. 9/2019, para. 29; No. 46/2019, para. 51; and No. 59/2019, para. 46.
39 Opinions No. 88/2017, para. 27; No. 3/2018, para. 43; and No. 30/2018, para. 39. In cases of arrests
made in flagrante delicto, the opportunity to obtain a warrant will typically not be available.
40 Opinion No. 2021/85, para. 69.
41 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.
42 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38.
43 A/HRC/19/57, paras. 48–58.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/62
12
GE.25-19681
which denied knowledge of Mr. Khattak’s detention or location, and that his detention was
even denied in a court filing on 11 June 2020, days before the Government confirmed that
Mr. Khattak was in the custody of the Directorate for Military Intelligence. The Working
Group considers that this effectively resulted in his enforced disappearance, which is
expressly prohibited under the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons
from Enforced Disappearance, and considers that this further exacerbated the violations
under category I by undermining Mr. Khattak’s ability to challenge his detention.
78.
For these reasons, the Working Group considers that the deprivation of liberty of
Mr. Khattak lacks legal basis and is therefore arbitrary, falling under category I.
(b)
Category II
79.
The source alleges that Mr. Khattak’s detention of amounts to reprisal for the
legitimate exercise of his rights to freedom of expression, which arose due to his activities as
a human rights defender.
80.
The Working Group recalls that freedom of opinion and freedom of expression, as
expressed in article 19 of the Covenant, are indispensable conditions for the full development
of the person; they are essential for any society and constitute the foundation for every free
and democratic society.44 Article 19 (2) of the Covenant protects the holding and expression
of opinions, including those that are not in line with government policy.45 The Human Rights
Committee has specifically recognized that article 19 (2) of the Covenant includes the right
of individuals to criticize or openly and publicly evaluate their Government without fear of
interference or punishment.46 As stipulated by the Human Rights Council, certain types of
expression should never be subject to restrictions, such as the discussion of government
policies and political activities, including for peace or democracy.47 The Council has called
upon States to refrain from imposing restrictions under article 19 (3) that are not consistent
with international human rights law.48
81.
Although freedom of expression is not an absolute right, the Human Rights
Committee has stated that, when a State imposes restrictions on the exercise of freedom of
expression, they may not put in jeopardy the right itself.49 Moreover, it has stipulated that
article 19 (3) of the Covenant may never be invoked as a justification for suppressing any
advocacy of multiparty democracy, democratic tenets or human rights. The permitted
restrictions on the right may relate either to respect of the rights or reputations of others or to
the protection of national security or of public order or of public health or morals. Similarly,
articles 21 and 22 (2) of the Covenant set out restrictions on the exercise of the right to
freedom of assembly and association, respectively.
82.
The source’s unrefuted submissions indicate that Mr. Khattak was detained as a result
of his work as a human rights defender. Nothing in the circumstances of Mr. Khattak’s arrest
demonstrates that any of the permitted restrictions on freedom of expression found in
article 19 (3) of the Covenant applied. The Working Group notes in this respect that the
Government has not provided any evidence that Mr. Khattak revealed any information that
would have undermined national security.
83.
The Working Group takes note of the source’s argument that Mr. Khattak was accused
of violating section 3 (1) (c) of the Official Secrets Act, which the source argues is an
extremely vague provision. The Working Group reiterates that extreme care must be taken
by States to ensure that provisions relating to national security, whether described as official
secrets or sedition laws or otherwise, are crafted and applied in a manner that conforms to
the strict requirements of article 19 (3) of the Covenant, as set out in its earlier opinions
44 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011), para. 2.
45 Opinions No. 79/2017, para. 55; and No. 8/2019, para. 55.
46 Human Rights Committee, Marques de Morais v. Angola (CCPR/C/83/D/1128/2002), para. 6.7.
47 A/HRC/14/23, para. 81 (i).
48 Human Rights Council resolution 12/16, para. 5 (p).
49 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011), para. 21.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/62
GE.25-19681
13
concerning Pakistan.50 This vagueness exacerbates the violation of Mr. Khattak’s right to
freedom of expression that resulted in his detention.
84.
For the reasons set out above, the Working Group finds that the deprivation of liberty
of Mr. Khattak is arbitrary under category II and in breach of article 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the Covenant.
(c)
Category III
85.
Given its finding that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Khattak is arbitrary under
category II, the Working Group wishes to emphasize that, in such circumstances, no trial
should take place. However, as Mr. Khattak has already faced 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 his deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character such that
it falls within category III.
86.
The source submits that Mr. Khattak was denied access to counsel. The source states
in this regard that Mr. Khattak was detained incommunicado for much of his pretrial
detention, from 13 November 2019 to November 2021. The source argues that Mr. Khattak
was denied access to key case documents and evidence, including the summary of evidence,
his confession statement, the calendar of witnesses and the statements recorded during the
investigation. The Government has not refuted these claims.
87.
In relation to access to a lawyer, the Working Group recalls that all persons deprived
of their liberty have the right to legal assistance by counsel of their choice at any time during
their detention, including immediately after their apprehension. Such access is to be provided
without delay, in the absence of exceptional reasons justifying a restriction on such access,51
as set out, inter alia, in article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant.52
88.
Given the lack of any response from the Government, the Working Group is of the
view that the evidence before it substantiates the claim that Mr. Khattak’s right to legal
counsel under 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant was violated, as was his right to adequate time and
facilities for the preparation of his defence, in violation of article 14 (3) (b). His
incommunicado detention exacerbated these violations.
89.
The source submits that Mr. Khattak was subjected to torture and cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment, in breach of article 7 of the Covenant and article 5 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The source reiterates that Mr. Khattak was forced
to walk around his cell blindfolded and handcuffed and was reportedly held in prolonged
solitary confinement, both of which constitute ill-treatment, in particular in the circumstances
of the present case; he was also denied needed medical care.
90.
Given the lack of a response from the Government, the Working Group is satisfied
that the evidence before it establishes that this mistreatment undermined Mr. Khattak’s ability
to conduct his defence, given that it compromised his health and endangered his ability to
advise his defence team. It thus violated article 14 of the Covenant. Moreover, to the extent
that the evidence was generated through the infliction of torture, the trial was held in violation
of fair trial rights, under, inter alia, article 15 of the Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Working Group notes that the
source has also convincingly shown that this violated the right of Mr. Khattak not to be
compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt, as stipulated under article 14 (3) (g)
of the Covenant.
91.
In relation to the right to a public hearing enshrined in article 14 (1) of the Covenant,
the source recalls that Mr. Khattak’s trial was closed to the public, without any explanation
50 Opinions No. 37/2021, para. 80; and No. 22/2024, para. 91.
51 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, principle 9 and guideline 8; Human
Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 35; A/HRC/45/16, paras. 50–55; and
A/HRC/48/55, para. 56. See also A/HRC/27/47, para. 13.
52 Opinion No. 32/2019, para. 42. See also opinions No. 47/2017, para. 28; and No. 52/2018,
para. 79 (j); and E/CN.4/2004/3/Add.3, para. 33.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/62
14
GE.25-19681
by the Government. The Working Group is satisfied that this violation has been established,
again noting the lack of a response from the Government.
92.
Similarly, in response to the source’s arguments that Mr. Khattak’s right to equality
of arms stipulated under article 14 (1) of the Covenant was breached, due to the prosecution’s
introduction into evidence of a secret document, that despite being a civilian, Mr. Khattak
was tried, convicted and sentenced by a military court, contrary to article 14 (1) of the
Covenant and in breach of his right to an independent and impartial tribunal, and that
Mr. Khattak’s right to present defence witnesses was also allegedly breached, in
contravention of article 14 (3) (e) of the Covenant, the Working Group considers that these
actions violated his rights, in the absence of an explanation from the Government. The
Working Group recalls that civilians should not be tried before military courts. In relation to
the jurisdiction of the military courts, the Working Group has consistently argued that the
trial of civilians by military courts is in violation of the Covenant and customary international
law and that, under international law, military tribunals can only be competent to try military
personnel for military offences.53
93.
The source submits that Mr. Khattak was also denied the right to have the conviction
reviewed by a higher tribunal, contrary to article 14 (5) of the Covenant, as the court of appeal
was staffed by military officers. Although this has been addressed in part under the previous
argument concerning the use of a military tribunal, the Government has not addressed the
possibility that the reviewing panel was lacking in judicial independence, thereby
undermining its value as a genuine review. On this basis, the Working Group considers that
Mr. Khattak’s rights were violated through the deprivation of his right to judicial review.
94.
For the reasons above, and noting the multiple violations of his fair trial rights, the
Working Group concludes that the breaches of the fair trial and due process rights of
Mr. Khattak are of such gravity as to give his deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character,
falling within category III.
(d)
Category V
95.
The source argues that Mr. Khattak has been deprived of his liberty on discriminatory
grounds. The source asserts that Mr. Khattak has been targeted, prosecuted and imprisoned
for engaging in his work as a human rights defender and in particular as a Pashtun human
rights defender.
96.
The Working Group recalls several non-cumulative indicators that serve to establish
the discriminatory nature of detention, including the deprivation of liberty being part of a
pattern of persecution against the detained person, such as, for example, if other persons with
similarly distinguishing characteristics have also been persecuted, and the context suggesting
that the authorities have detained a person on discriminatory grounds or to prevent the person
from exercising his or her human rights.54
97.
In the light of the source’s credible submissions, and noting that United Nations
experts have described the Official Secrets Act, the law used to imprison Mr. Khattak, as yet
another means of silencing dissent from human rights defenders and that they have also
expressed concern about the arbitrary use of the legal system to harass, intimidate, threaten
and retaliate against human rights defenders and members of the Pashtun minority who are
seeking to expose alleged wrongdoing or human rights violations committed by the Pakistani
authorities and the systematic abuse of counter-terrorism and security legislation against
human rights defenders advocating for the Pashtun community, the Working Group finds that
Mr. Khattak was deprived of his liberty on discriminatory grounds, based on his activity as a
human rights defender. His detention is in violation of articles 2 and 7 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and article 26 of the Covenant. It is therefore arbitrary, falling
within category V of the Working Group.55
53 A/HRC/27/48, paras. 67–70; see also opinions No. 44/2016, No 30/2017, No. 28/2018, No. 32/2018,
No. 66/2019 and No. 3/2021.
54 A/HRC/36/37, para. 48.
55 See also opinion No. 7/2023, para. 72.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/62
GE.25-19681
15
(e)
Concluding remarks
98.
The Working Group takes note of the unrefuted allegations concerning the
mistreatment of Mr. Khattak and the impact on his health. It takes this opportunity to remind
the Government of its obligation under article 10 (1) of the Covenant to ensure that all persons
deprived of their liberty are treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity
of the human person and of the absolute prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.
3.
Disposition
99.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Mohammad Idris Khattak, being in contravention of
articles 2, 9, 10, 11 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles
9, 14 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary
and falls within categories I, II, III and V.
100.
The Working Group requests the Government of Pakistan to take the steps necessary
to remedy the situation of Mr. Khattak 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.
101.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Khattak immediately and accord him
an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international
law.
102.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of
Mr. Khattak and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of
his rights.
103.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
104.
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. Khattak has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Khattak;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of
Mr. Khattak’s rights 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.
105.
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.
106.
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.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/62
16
GE.25-19681
107.
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.56
[Adopted on 10 November 2025]
56 Human Rights Council resolution 60/8, paras. 6 and 9.