Human Rights Correspondence School

This lesson is also attached as PDF file. In order to view the PDF file, you would have to use the Adobe Acrobat Reader, software, which is free. If you do not have the Adobe Acrobat Reader, please click here to download. You would have to do it only once.THEME: The Practice of Honour Killings

PDF Format: Lesson Series 35: The Practice of Honour Killings

More about The Practice of Honour Killings in Themes & Issues!

THE ISSUE

Violence against women is an unfortunate but common human rights violation, particularly in South Asia. The practice of honour killings is a particularly atrocious form of such violence against women. These killings have been reported in Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Pakistan, as well as other parts of Asia and the Middle East. The practice of such killings violates many fundamental human rights, such as the right to life, to due process, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. In some instances, honour killings take the life of men and children as well, not just women.

Honour killings have a long history steeped in traditional forms of justice with no relation to the effective rule of law. In Pakistan, the practice of honour killings is linked to the traditional system of jirga or panchayat rule. These tribal councils act as parallel legal systems within the country and not only prevent the abolition of honour killings, but actively encourage them.

THE LESSONS

There are three lessons in this series.

Lesson 1: This lesson introduces the practice of honour killings in Pakistan and provides specific cases as illustration.

Lesson 2: The lesson examines the national and international legal framework relating to honour killings and the system of jirgas.

Lesson 3: The lesson focuses on the collapse of the rule of law within the country, which prevents the deterrence of honour killings.

LESSON 1

Honour killings in Pakistan

Honour killings have taken the lives of innumerable women, many men, and even young girls throughout Pakistan, but especially within Sindh province. The term 'honour killings' comes from the idea of killing for 'honour', usually that of the family. Females are believed to be the repositories of such ‘honour’, as well as being the possessions of men. When this honour is believed to be besmirched, and when possessions are thought to be ‘tainted’, such killing is allowed as retribution and as a means to defend ‘honour’. The practice is given legitimacy due to the traditional authority of the 'jirgas' or the 'panchayats' (tribal councils), which firmly abide by such practices. ('Jirgas' and 'panchayats' both refer to tribal councils, with the usage varying depending on geography. For the purposes of this lesson, 'jirga' will be used.)

According to the jirgas, in cases where a woman is believed to have ‘dishonoured’ her family with immoral conduct (having a male friend, marrying a man of her choice or seeking divorce), all those responsible should be killed or otherwise punished. Inevitably, the undefined concept of ‘honour’ and of what undermines it leads to almost every act of female disobedience amounting to ‘dishonouring’ the family. In fact, it is merely the rumour of a woman’s inappropriate behaviour that damages the ‘honour’ of her family and hence the truth of such an allegation does not need to be established.

Another problem with the system of honour killings is that jirgas allow the families of those who have besmirched the honour to pay compensation instead of being killed; this further undermines the rule of law.

The following three cases illustrate the practice of honour killing, and the last case also refers to a recent court judgment banning jirga trials. Two of the cases are edited urgent appeals from AHRC's Urgent Appeals programme, http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/index.php, while the last case is an excerpt from an article produced in an AHRC e-newsletter, Religious Perspectives on Human Rights, http://www.rghr.net .

***

1. UA-44-2004: PAKISTAN: A honour killing victim's family suffers from police inaction, issued on 24 April 2004

On 7 March 2004 at about 5:30 am, three nephews (Zaheer, Qaaim-u-ddin and Mohammad Salih) killed their 50-year-old aunt, Ms Wazeeran. After the incident, the victim's brother Mr. Hakim Ali lodged the First Information Report (FIR- Case No. 21/04 302,114,34/337Hii PCC) at Rohrri Police Station in Sukkur District. In the FIR, the alleged reason of murder was stated as a matter of property.

According to Hakim Ali, his sister Wazeeran lived with her husband Nawab in Sanjrani Street, Rohrri town. She has another house in her hometown, Rustam village, Shikarpur District. Sometime previously, Zaheer and his family asked Wazeeran to sell her house in Rustam Village to them but she refused. On 6 March 2004, in the afternoon, the victim's brother and his son-in-law Ali Asghar came to Rohrri town to visit Wazeeran. At sunset, Zaheer Ahmed, Mohammad Salih and Qaim-u-ddin also came to Wazeeran's house. Her husband Nawab was not at home at that time because he worked in a dairy farm owned by a person named Sayed Zulfiqar. The three nephews again asked Wazeeran to sell them her house in Rustam Village, but she refused again. Then they asked her if they could stay there for the night. The three nephews slept in a separate room, while Wazeeran, her son Sadaruddin and Ali Asghar slept in the corridor.

At around 5:30 am of the next morning (7 March 2004), Hakim Ali got up to use the toilet. When he came back, he saw that Zaheer Ahmed, Mohammad Salih and Qaaim-u-ddin had come into the corridor holding pistols in their hands. Zaheer woke Wazeeran and asked her whether she would sell her house to him or not. At that time, Wazeeran's son and Ali Asghar got up due to the noise. When Wazeeran said no, Mohammad Salih told the others to kill her. Zaheer then fired on Wazeeran, hitting her right cheek. Qaaim-u-ddin fired at her right shoulder, and Wazeeran fell down on the bed. The three offenders then fled the site, firing randomly behind them so the witnesses could not catch them. When the witnesses came to see Wazeeran, they found her already dead. Wazeeran's brother told Ali Asghar and Sadaruddin to stay at the house while he went to the Rohrri Police Station to report the incident.

According to Wazeeran's husband Nawab, who was contacted by a human rights group on 19 April 2004, the offenders fabricated false allegations of Wazeeran having committing adultery. This would assist them in being easily freed from their crime by the tribal court as well as the court of law, as they could term their act an 'honour killing'. He further told the group that the offenders were constantly threatening his family and pressuring him to withdraw the complaint against them. He also said that Zaheer's father Sherdil, was a police head constable in Sukkur District, and therefore the police have taken no serious action to investigate this matter. According to Nawab, the police have not attempted to arrest the offenders at all.

2. UP-23-2004: PAKISTAN: Three of the nine perpetrators were arrested but the police officer pressured politically, issued on 27 May 2004

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received updated information on the case of the two teenage girls killed in the instance of "honour killings" (FA-12-2004). Apparently, after an urgent appeal was issued, and the local police station notified, the police assigned two policemen to provide security to the complainant and witness in the case. Also, the police appear to be taking action in the case, arresting three of the suspects, conducting an investigation that led to the discovery of the bodies and providing protection for the family.

UPDATED INFORMATION:

However, six other accused persons including Abdul Rasheed Bhutto, who made the decision to kill the victims, are still at large in this double murder case. We also received information that the District Investigation officer, Mr. Fida Hussain Mastoi, who is dealing with this case has been pressured politically and there is apprehension that he maybe be transferred to another place. A human rights group expressed its concern that he can be transferred at any time as all the ministers and members of Parliament of this area are feudal lords.

Ms. Tehmina, 17, and Ms. Aabida, 18, were killed under the fake allegation of honour killings by an influential landlord in the village of Jano in the town of Shikarpur in Sindh Province, Abdul Rasheed Bhutto, along with eight other accomplices. The murders of the two victims were labelled as honour killings in a jirga meeting that was convened after the incident, through an agreement among all of the perpetrators. The alleged reason for the murder of the girls was that they visited their grandparents in the nearby city of Sukkur without permission. After the two victims were killed, they were buried in a dry fish pond about one kilometer away from Jano village by the perpetrators. (If you want to see the photo of the victims, please go to: Photo 1. Please note that the picture is VERY GRAPHIC and DISTURBING.)

Fazal Bhutto, Tehmina's brother, registered a First Information Report (FIR) against Hajji Nazeer, Hajji Shafi, Sulaiman, Abdul Rasheed, Younis, Jamaluddin, Abdul Karim, Ghulam Sarwar and Sanaullah.

In the meantime, a number of people held a demonstration against the murder of Tehmina and Aabida on 18 May 2004, and demanded the immediate arrest of the other six perpetrators and that severe steps be taken against the persons who organized the Jirga even though it has been banned by the High Court of Sindh in Pakistan. (To see the pictures of the demonstration, please go to: Photo 2, Photo 3)

(article originally taken from www.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20040502.htm)

Shazia Mangi and Ehsan Chachar of Daharki decided of their own free will to marry, and they did so on October 16, 2003, according to the requirements of law, but without the permission of Shazia's father. That same day, her father, accompanied by six members of his tribe, physically attacked the house of Ehsan's parents, threatening to kill Shazia, declared by them to be a 'kari' and Ehsan, her legally wedded husband, a 'karo'. The two were lucky to escape. They managed to get to Sukkur, and were able to move the Third Additional Sessions Court Judge, Naseem Ahmed Sheikh, to order that the Sukkur Darul Aman give them shelter and protection. The police proved to be hostile to the desperate couple, their sympathies, for whatever reasons, lying firmly with the Mangi tribal elders.

On October 25, the seven assailants held a jirga, Shazia's father-in-law was summoned and asked to hand over Shazia so that she could be murdered. He could do little but promise to so do, and in the bargain the jirga imposed on him a fine of Rs.500,000.

Shazia's lawyer, Advocate Ghulam Shabir Shar, filed a petition (CP 92 OF 2004) on her behalf in the Sindh High Court. The respondents were seven police officers and seven Mangis who were represented by Advocates Tariq Hanif Gul Mangi and Sarfaraz Akhund, and the province of Sindh represented by A.A.G. Ghulam Dastgir. The court appointed Abdul Fateh Malik and Nizamuddin Baloch amicus curiae.

The petition prayed that the police be restrained from harassing the petitioner's family, that they be restrained from filing false FIRs at the behest of the Mangis, that the Mangis be restrained from carrying out the decision taken at the jirga to murder Shazia and her husband, and most vitally, the court was petitioned to: ".... declare that the jirga system is illegal, unlawful and against the cannons of [the] law of [the] land, same is the inhuman act of feudal lords and Sardars."

Judge Jaffery signed his 48-page judgment on April 21. His findings, and his orders, are:

"47.........The private persons have no authority to execute the decision of jirgas nor the jirgas have the authority to execute their own decisions through their own sources. If such decisions are carried out and executed by killing persons, then the offence of murder will be committed and they will be liable for action as per the law ....... the jirgas have also usurped the powers of the executing authorities which is not permissible under the Constitution or the law.

48. The Constitution is based on a trichotomy of powers, i.e. legislature, judiciary and executive, whose powers and duties are enshrined in the Constitution ..... in jirgas the powers of legislature, judiciary and executive authorities are being exercised. All the learned counsel are unanimous that Jirgas are against the trichotomy powers of the Constitution. It thus appears that Jirgas are undermining or attempting to undermine the provisions of the Constitution.

49. Apart from the above position, in jirgas the assembly may be in the first instance lawful, but the purpose for which they assemble is unlawful and then they conspire to commit some offences therefore they expose themselves for action as provided under various and relevant provisions of [the] PPC ......... In such a situation it is the public duty of the police to act swiftly and to exercise their powers and perform their duties to curb the offences being committed or book the persons who committed the offences ....... It is also one of the public duties of the police to protect the life of the citizens who complain to them. In the present case, the petitioner complained to the police to protect her life and the life of her husband but when she could not get a proper response .... she has approached this court to save her life and the life of her husband ....

50. Consequently, the official respondents are directed to provide due protection to the petitioner to save her life and the life of her husband .....

51. It is pertinent to point out that under the West Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1963, trials, which were commonly known as jirga trials, were permissible, but the said law has been repealed. As such, the jirga system is unlawful and illegal which is against the provisions of the Constitution and the law of the land.

52. The police are duty bound to take appropriate action to prevent the holding of jirgas within their jurisdiction. The press which has already played a commendable and positive role in this behalf is expected to continue to play the same role by pinpointing the assembly of jirgas so that the police may act promptly, according to law and such information can be made available to the police through their own intelligence agencies."

***

As these cases illustrate, the practice of honour killings is widespread and random. The practice has been used to justify killing mainly women but also men for the most arbitrary or personal reasons, far from relating to family 'honour'. For instance the killing of 50-year-old Wazeeran by her nephews, for refusing to sell her property to them. This case had little to do with defending 'honour', but was so termed to justify the arbitrary and cold-blooded killing. In the practice of honour killings, the community plays as significant a role as the families involved. As shown in the case of Shazia and Ehsan, the Mangi tribal leaders were just as if not more adamant in finding the couple and ensuring that 'honour' was defended, as were the couple's families.

The jirga system has been the main obstacle to ending the atrocious practice of honour killings. The recent decision banning jirga trials and calling them unconstitutional and illegal is a good step towards the elimination of honour killings. However, the decision will only be effective if it is implemented; this leads into the discussion on the rule of law, which is addressed in the next two lessons.

Questions For Discussion

1. In your opinion, what is the main obstacle to the elimination of honour killings? What role does society play in the practice of honour killings?

2. Discuss the advantages and obstacles regarding the recent high court judgement relating to jirga trials. How could a campaign be formulated, aiming at the implementation of this judgement?

3. What other customs and traditions are you aware of, perhaps in your own countries, which discriminate against women?

Next Page

3. RGHR newsletter, Vol. 6, no. 22, 31 May 2004: A First Step in Getting Jirga System Abolished, by Ardeshir Cowasjee
On 17 May 2004, the police obtained an eight-day physical remand of three accused suspects of the murder of two girls, Aabida Bhutto and Tehmina Bhutto, killed in a Shikarpur village on the pretext of honour killing. The three are Hajji Nazeer, Hajji Shafi Mohammad and Sulaiman.
In fact, there was even a resolution moved in the Sukkur District Council to arrest the perpetrators of this case, but it did not earn any positive results. The resolution came about due to Wazeeran's long political career. At the time of her death, she was elected as a counselor representing the ladies in Union Council Rohrri, according to the President of Pakistan's progamme of "Devolution of Power" to the district level. This shows the extent of the breakdown of the rule of law in Pakistan, and the impunity of both police and criminals within the country.

Document created on 2004-07-23 14:23:49