Human rights protection law

Pakistan finally fulfilled a longstanding UN human rights requirement on Wednesday when President Asif Ali Zardari signed the National Commission for Human Rights Bill, 2012. Soon afterwards, presidential spokesman Farhatullah Babar claimed credit for the government saying "it is no mean achievement considering the fact that Pakistan is fighting a war against militancy" amid complaints of human rights violations.
Indeed, the setting up of a human rights commission which is to have complete financial and administrative independence is an important step towards protecting human rights guaranteed by the Constitution. To ensure that the commission acts as a non-partisan and independent entity, the appointment of its chairman and members is to be made by the Prime Minister in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. And they can be removed from office only on the grounds and in the manner provided for the Supreme Judicial Council under Article 209. That, of course, means the commission should have no reason to fear or favour anyone in the performance of its duties.
Lamentably, however, the bill first introduced in the National Assembly in 2008, took four long years to become law. Which is not without significance. It is pertinent to recall in the context that human rights violations increased substantially during the last decade. Some of the worst cases of rights abuses happened not only in the militancy infested tribal areas and some settled parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, but in Balochistan where the most sensitive issue is enforced disappearances and extra-judicial killings, allegedly, at the hands of security agencies. A Supreme Court bench hearing the missing persons' cases in Quetta is trying to establish accountability. Given the background, the delay most likely is related to reservations on the part of security agencies. It is good to note therefore that the commission's jurisdiction extends into a wide-range of areas.
As per the new law, in the performance of its functions the commission will act either by taking suo motu or on the petition by a victim or any person on his behalf for violation of human rights or abetment thereof, and the negligence in the prevention of such violations by a public servant. Of more immediate import in the present situation is the provision that the commission, or any person authorised by it, may visit any jail, place of detention or any other institution or place under control of the government or its agencies where convicts, under trial prisoners, detainees or other persons are lodged or detained for the purposes of ascertaining the legality of their detention as well as to find out whether the provisions relating to inmates' living conditions and other rights are being complied with. Equally important, in cases of human rights violations it may ask for information or report from the government or its 'organisations.' This is a much desired and admirable line of action. It remains to be seen though how committed is the government to implement the law. Time is of essence. The commission must be made functional without any further loss of time.