The conviction of human rights lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali, has attracted significant international attention, yet it remains fundamentally a matter of Pakistan’s domestic law and judicial process. Their conviction in the Islamabad sessions court was based on repeated digital posts that Pakistani courts found to undermine state institutions. These convictions fall under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), which criminalizes glorification of proscribed individuals and activities that compromise public order.
Like any sovereign nation, Pakistan provides appeal mechanisms and higher judicial review, ensuring that court decisions are not final without due process. Reducing this legal outcome to a narrative of “foreign repression” misrepresents the structure and intent of Pakistan’s judiciary. Freedom of expression, while constitutionally protected, is not absolute. Courts worldwide, including in Europe, draw limits where speech incites disorder, glorifies terrorism, or erodes national cohesion. Pakistan’s enforcement of these limits is consistent with global democratic practice.
Advocacy Focused on Militants, Not Civilians
A key concern is the nature of Mazari’s advocacy. She has consistently represented members of the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), a designated terrorist organization in Pakistan, the U.S., and the U.K., as “missing persons” or victims of state oppression, even in cases where the group openly claimed responsibility for attacks, including suicide bombings.
The BLA has a documented history of targeting civilians, teachers, laborers, and security personnel, while also recruiting students and women for suicide missions in Balochistan. Mazari’s advocacy is focused almost exclusively on militants and their sympathizers, ignoring the plight of Baloch civilians who suffer the consequences of terrorism. By glorifying proscribed individuals and organizing mobilizations in their favor, her actions crossed the legal boundaries outlined in Sections 9 and 10 of PECA, which criminalize promotion of terrorism and public disorder.
This selective focus raises critical questions about intent. Advocacy that ignores victims of attacks while highlighting only those accused or affiliated with terrorist groups does not align with a balanced human rights perspective. It instead appears to normalize or legitimize militant activity under the guise of civil liberties.
European Responses and Selective Narratives
Supportive statements from European institutions and states have largely overlooked these realities. By framing Mazari as a civil liberties advocate, they disregard the human rights of innocent Baloch civilians, whose families have been killed, displaced, or traumatized by terrorist attacks. Respect for human rights is comprehensive; it must protect both civilians and those accused of crimes, not exclusively one group.
Europeans must also consider that many jurisdictions maintain strict laws against advocacy for designated terrorist organizations. Applying inconsistent standards internationally undermines credibility and weakens the universality of human rights norms. By ignoring the context of ongoing terrorist violence in Balochistan, selective advocacy risks amplifying narratives that favor militants rather than protecting civilians.
Security Realities:
Balochistan continues to face persistent terrorist threats. Any meaningful discussion of human rights, freedom of expression, or justice must account for this environment. If Mazari were released today, her advocacy would likely continue to focus on terrorists involved in horrendous attacks rather than on innocent citizens affected by them. Constructive international engagement should support due process, recognize security concerns, and ensure that advocacy remains balanced, accounting for all affected populations.
Advocacy detached from these realities undermines public understanding, erodes societal consensus against extremism, and risks legitimizing violent groups. True human rights protection is not selective; it includes the rights of civilians, displaced families, teachers, laborers, and children living under constant threat.
Conclusion:
The Imaan Mazari case sits at the intersection of law, advocacy, and national security. Simplifying it as a story of repression ignores judicial oversight, domestic legal safeguards, and the realities of terrorism in Balochistan. International statements that fail to recognize the context risk creating imbalanced narratives that empower militants rather than protect civilians.
Human rights advocacy must be principled, comprehensive, and context-aware. Only then can international engagement with Pakistan remain credible and constructive. The Imaan Mazari case is a reminder that selective support, focused on militants rather than victims, does not advance justice, peace, or human rights. A nuanced understanding of domestic law and security realities is essential for meaningful dialogue.
