Blackstone Law Journal
Volume 1 Issue 1
'Reforms in the Criminal Justice System of Pakistan'
September 2022
Article 1
Decoding the Anti-Honour Killing Law in Pakistan
Hania Riffat
Abstract
The paper discusses the ‘legal loopholes’ in the current legislation governing honour killings in Pakistan i.e. Criminal Law (Amendment) (Offences in the name or pretext of Honour) Act, 2016 (2016 Act). It highlights the background which led to the amendments being promulgated and delves into a critical analysis of whether the law has been able to serve the objectives envisioned. The legislative review is premised on three grounds; firstly it compares and contrasts the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendments Act 2004 (the Honour Killings Act). Secondly, the paper engages with the legal definition of honour killing as provided under Section 299(e) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (PPC). In furtherance of the afore-stated, the paper highlights how the fundamental issue regarding convictions stems from this definition; as the accused in many circumstances successfully evades liability for honour killing by claiming that the killing was a murder by invoking Section 302 of the PPC. At this stage, a brief study of the acquittal in the Qandeel Baloch case by the Lahore High Court is highlighted to substantiate the presentation made. Thirdly the paper evaluates the efficacy of Section 6 of the 2016 Act which amends Section 311 of the PPC and postulates that legal heirs cannot waive punishment when the killing was in the pretext of honour. It concludes in light of a critical analysis of the case law on honour killings that the impact of these legal amendments has not transmitted to the victims and proposes recommendations to improve the state of the law.
Keywords: honour killing, fisaad fil arz, qisas, tazeer, qatl e amd
Introduction
The definition of honour killing, as provided in Section 299 (ee) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (PPC),[1] is any offence committed in the name or on the pretext of karo kari, siyah kari or similar other customs or practices. In rural and tribal areas of Sindh honour killings are referred to as ‘karo-kari,’ in Khyber Pakhtun-khwa ‘tor tora,’ ‘siyah kari’ in Balochistan and in Punjab the term ‘kala kali’ is used for crimes in the name of honour.[2] Crimes in the pretext of honour are rampant all around the world, however, within many Islamic countries extra judicial killing of persons by family members over actual or perceived infractions of societal and cultural norms has been quite common. Although criminalized worldwide, such killings are frequently justified on grounds of religion and are seldom punished. Even when punishments are awarded the sentences are usually light; the existence of the Qisas and Diyat principles enable the legal heirs of the victims to pardon the perpetrators for blood money. Pakistan has been no exception in this regard. Every year hundreds of people mostly but not specifically women across the country are subjected to vicious killings in the name of honour.
Despite the prevalence of the crime there are no accurate and definitive figures available of the exact number of killings as a significant percentage of these cases go unreported. Multiple reasons are cited for such high incidence of this crime however, the root cause of honour crime is the so-called justification that "the murder was necessary in order to wipe away the dishonuor from their so-called family”[3] and this type of gender-based violence is motivated by “the belief that a woman’s value lies in her sexual modesty and “purity.”[4] Subsequently, the ghairat of the men granted them the right and responsibility to come up with the major decision for finding a logical approach to restore the honour they lose when their women defile it. Their so-called logical approach gives birth to social aberration which is called “Crimes in the name of Honour.”[5] Pakistan’s Interior Ministry reports that “since 2001 there have been more than 4,100 honour killings.”[6] Also, according to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, approximately 15222 cases of Honour Killing took place from 2004-to 2016. In 2014, the number was 837 women including 75 minors.”[7]
Historical Evolution of the Honour Killing Laws in Pakistan
The initial laws on honour killing in Pakistan had their historical existence during the British colonial rule. In 1835, the law commission was established by the British to examine and deal with the issue of honour killings. This commission was lenient toward men, subsequently, it concluded in its observations that if the family's honour was tarnished by the women, the benefit of sympathy goes to the men who killed under provocation, and hence such killings should not be defined as murder but rather as manslaughter.[8] After partition and the promulgation of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance of 2000 it became a ritual that perpetrators would be let scot free after the Wali would pardon the perpetrator.[9]
The desire to map a difference between fact and opinion on the issue of honour crimes triggered the Criminal (Amendment) Acts of 2004 and 2016 from state institutions. The Acts of 2004 and 2016 are made specifically as legal responses to sexual violence that deal with ‘honour’ killings in Pakistan. In detailing the reasons for the new law, Senator Farhatullah Babar stated: “Honour killings are common throughout Pakistan, claiming the lives of hundreds of victims every year. Addressing the loopholes and lacunae in the existing law is essential in order to prevent these crimes from being repeatedly committed.”[11] Following this, a few of the most significant changes brought by the Act of 2004 will now be briefly examined. Firstly, the Act of 2004 defined honour crimes as “offence[s] committed in the name or on the pretext of honour means an offence committed in the name or on the pretext of karo kari, siyah kari or similar other customs or practices.”[12] It further states that the offense of qatl-i-amd committed on the pretext of honour will fall under section 302(a) and (b), as the case may be, and will not ipso facto fall under section 302(c). Moreover, the Act of 2004 under section 305, also laid down that the accused or convict will not act as the wali of a victim, but that the state may do so if necessary.
Further, under section 311, it was stated that in cases where there is more than one wali and all of them refuse to waive or compound the right of qisas, or when the principle of causing fasad-fil-arz, the court may punish a perpetrator against whom the right of qisas has been waived or compounded, as well as impose a minimum sentence of ten years in the case of honour crimes. Also, under section 337-N (2), it was further laid down that in the cases of hurt where qisas will not be enforced, the court, coupled with arsh (compensation for hurt), may impose a tazir punishment, particularly if the crime is an honour crime. In addition, the court under the second proviso of section 338-E has made the waiver and/or compounding of honour crimes subject to conditions as the court deems fit according to the facts and circumstances of the case.
The passage of the Criminal Law Amendments Act of 2004, and thereby criminalization of honour crimes in Pakistan is a necessary step taken by the government, but there are insufficient means to address the root cause of the problem in honour crime cases that causes the continuation of these deadly cultural practices in name of honour. Backing the mentioned surveys, this Act of 2004, therefore, failed to counter the statutory reprieves for family members who carry out honour killings. This Act of 2004 was ineffective in dealing with the problem and providing redress to victims of 'honour' killings for the reason being that certain key sections were left out of the final draft of the aforementioned Act of 2004, which is now being laid out. In situations of honour crimes, the sections related to waiver and the compounding of the right of qisas were kept intact by the drafters, thereby allowing for parties to reach a compromise, which is inevitable because honour crimes are frequently perpetrated by family members. The law not only catalyze discriminatory cultural practices that pattern the value of a woman’s life in the hands of her family members, but also the compoundability or waiver of offences concerning murder or bodily hurt were determined depending on the court's satisfaction. Considering the matter, Stephanie Palo’s view is important to mention. He suggested that “since 1999, several amendments to the PPC, particularly the 2004 amendment and the Protection of Women (Criminal Laws Amendment) Act of 2006, purport to enact effective legislative action to end the honour killings and gender discriminatory legal practices in Pakistan.[13] However, until the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance is removed from the PPC, the perpetrators of honour killings need not fear retribution because many of these crimes are committed by and with the consent of family members. Pakistan must revoke its Qisas and Diyat Ordinance to comply with international human rights law, which discourages discrimination against Pakistani women.” However, this Act of 2004 is of no help to the victims because the law makes no provision for courts to ensure when they considered an offense to be compounded, so they are left to ensure that it is not an honour crime. To recall, as honour killing is categorized under fasad-fil-arz, and a minimum sentence of ten years as tazir has been provided for the same, this hardly results in any good. This is due to the reason that the act leaves the important aspect which may make all the difference. It does not include in the definition of honour crimes the words “whether committed due to grave and sudden provocation.” As a result, in such cases where qisas does not apply, the courts are authorized with discretionary powers to deal with the issue with careful leniency and favorability under the plea of “grave and sudden provocation.” Without going much into the details, to wrap this head, the opinion of Aleena Khan on the last point of plea of grave and sudden provocation is worth mentioning, that says “other people who are usually involved in, or encourage such killings like jirgas, panchayats, and family members, and are thus primarily responsible for perpetuating these practices are not made liable under the law in any capacity.”
These lacunas that have been left in the Act of 2004 to let stigmatized the social, and cultural norms under the notion of patriarchal nations need deeper discussion. The critical analysis is required to investigate changes in the attitude of the judicial system in cases of honour killings after the passage of the Act of 2004. Since, as the above discussion indicated the presence of serious loopholes in the law, it did not come as a surprise.
Criminal Law (Amendment) (Offences in the name or pretext of Honour) Act, 2016
In October 2016, a Pakistani model, was murdered in the province of Punjab by her brother on the pretext of honour for dishonouring the family.[14] This high-profile case of honour killing attracted significant public notice, and recent law reform, known as the Criminal Law (Amendment) (Offences in the name or pretext of Honour) Act 2016, was passed on Oct 6, 2016. This new law fixed a loophole that allowed killers (who are usually their family members) to be spared punishment if the rest of the family (legal heirs) forgives them. Also, most strikingly, under the proviso to section 311, the law makes the crime of honour killing a non-compoundable offense. The law included by a way of tazir, as a prerogative of the court despite a waiver of qisas by the victim’s legal heirs, a mandatory punishment with a minimum lifetime jail sentence for the perpetrators. The Act of 2016 adds four important clauses under the qatl-i-amd provisions of the penal code: (1) a “fasad-fil-arz” offense includes offenses committed in the name or on the pretext of honour; (2) for fasad-fil-arz offenses, the waiver of qiṣāṣ and the compounding of the right of qiṣāṣ shall be subject to the ta‘zīr provisions; (3) if a fasad-fil-arz offense has been established, the court may having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case punish the offender against whom the right of qiṣāṣ has been waived by the legal heirs of the victim; (4) if the offense has been committed in the name or on the pretext of honour, the (ta‘zīr) punishment shall be imprisonment for life. However, while commenting on the new law, several commentators point out that in the case of intentional homicide, the rationality and consistency of tazir with sharia; results in the positive fear for the conduct of murder not only in private injury but “it also involves a dreadful threat to society at large, in terms of the chaos and horror it creates in the public mind.”[15] For some Muslim scholars commented, that “the crime of homicide involves two rights, the private right of the aggrieved, and the public right (because of violating the prohibition of Allāh), thus upon remission of one right the other would not be waived.”[16] Therefore, “it is for the authority to determine the kind of punishment in case of the offender who is notoriously known for his/her misdeeds.” On the other hand, while discussing how there are still a few gaps in the new legislation that can undoubtedly shift the balance in favour of the perpetrators, the Aleena Khan suggested that; “It is now upon the prosecution to prove that the murder was an honour crime. This is problematic as women’s lives and conduct will be up for assessment in the courts paving a way for misogynistic rulings on the victims’ morality rather than the act of perpetrators. The judge can commute the death penalty into a life sentence. Perpetrators can easily alter the motive of their crimes by denying that their crimes were on the pretext of honour, and thus escape the mandatory term and hence be charged under section 302, PPC and pardoned under section 309, PPC, by the family members. So essentially, the crime has still not been made non-compoundable, a major loophole paving a way for perpetrators to go scot-free…..It can be said that the new anti-honour killings act is essentially an old law in a new disguise enacted just to appease women and create false consciousness among them, that stricter punishments will translate into justice for them.” Favoring what Aleena Khan said, it is true that honour crimes are sometimes considered not more than myths in the courtroom. Left judges with discretion over whether a murder may be defined as a crime of 'honour,' is problematic considering the patriarchal attitude of some members, particularly at the lower levels. Also, the new legislation does not give any remedy or recourse to survivors of 'honour' crimes, as it exclusively addresses murder and death. Finally, under the new rule, 'honour' crimes have not been declared crimes against the state, allowing room for criminals to walk free or either get lenient punishments."[17]
That's very unfortunate that even after strengthening the law against ‘honour’ killings in 2016, the incidents of honour killings are still one among the highest crimes in Pakistan. “At least 280 such killings were recorded by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan from October 2016 to June 2017, and this figure is still considered to be underestimated and incomplete.”[18] According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, nearly 1,100 women were killed by relatives in Pakistan last year in such killings. However, there are no official statistics since many other incidents go unreported, or are logged as suicide or natural death by family members, as per the study notes. In Peshawar “the Peshawar High Court twice acquitted a man of honour crimes after this law was passed, suggesting no change in the patriarchal mindset of the judiciary.”[19] In the same city, a father in Peshawar killed his two daughters in September 2017 on the suspicion that they had boyfriends, which made him feel embarrassed. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, “ninety-four women were killed by close family members in 2017.”[20] Moreover, a woman with two young children was reportedly murdered by her husband earlier this year in Sindh's Umerkot district, in what is suspected to be a case of 'honour' killing by the police. According to a survey undertaken by the women's rights organization Sindh Suhai Sath (SSS), 176 persons, including women and men, were killed in the name of honour killing (Karo-Kari) in Sindh province in 2021.[21] Recently, “three women and two men were killed in the name of honour in Jaffarabad, Mastung, and Hub areas.” [22]Throughout the analysis of the data indicates that despite the passing of new and stricter anti-honour killings law, the incidents took place at an alarming stage in Pakistan. It shows that to provide a panacea for social justice or change, there is something more required than the mere enactment of harsher law provisions and punishments. We need something more, “we need to listen with care, but also with skepticism, to sweeping definitions of this thing called culture, forged as they are in a world of constantly expanding difference and complexity.”[23]
Though there has been constant social advancement, the problem of honour killing persists in the same way as history had seen in the British era of 1860, at the time of qisas and diyat laws in 1990, and during a period of promulgation of Acts of 2004 and 2016. However, the case of National Commission on Status of Women v. Government of Pakistan,[24] is consider to be a complete shift to some extent from the previous precedent. This case ensure that the people involved in such crimes become totally aware of the fact that they cannot tread an illegal path by way of panchayats, break the law, and offer justification with some kind of moral philosophy of their own. The positive precedents set by the superior courts on the abolishment of the jirga system in the case of National Commission on Status of Women v. Government of Pakistan, is noteworthy here; “We have in recent years heard of "Khap Panchayats" (known as "Katta Panchayats" in Tamil Nadu) which often decree or encourage honour killings or other atrocities in an institutionalized way on boys and girls of different castes and religion, who wish to get married or have been married, or interfere with the personal lives of people. We are of the opinion that this is wholly illegal and has to be ruthlessly stamped out. As stated in the Lata Singh case,[25]there is nothing honourable in honour killing or other atrocities and, in fact, it is nothing but barbaric and shameful murder. Other atrocities in respect of personal lives of people committed by brutal, feudal minded persons deserve harsh punishment. Only in this way can we stamp out such acts of barbarism and feudal mentality. Moreover, these acts take the law into their own hands, and amount to kangaroo courts, which are wholly illegal.” This ruling had one positive aspect, it says that people should forget that the law of the land requires to be shown implicit obedience and profound obeisance. This judgment emphasized that the human rights of a daughter, brother, sister or son are not mortgaged to the so-called or so-understood honour of the family or clan or the collective. The act of honour killing puts the Rule of law in a catastrophic crisis.”
Amendments to the Qisas and Diyat Laws in Pakistan
The process of incorporating qisas and diyat provisions started in 1990 which resulted in the promulgation of the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Ordinance of 1990, and Aleena Khan rightly noted that these “qisas and diyat laws have become powerful means for the offenders to commit honour killings and then go scot-free.”[26] To critically evaluate the effect of this j in facilitating the honour killing, it is important to expound upon the concept of qisas and diyat laws. The Islamic law of qisas and diyat is based and justifiable in light of “equal retribution and compensation.” [27]However, notwithstanding the structural parcel of the quranic notion of justice by the qisas and diyat, these laws are problematic in the cases of honour crimes by implementing three important factors of Islamic law in society, specifically, “the concept of the wali (always male; heirs, brother, or father of the victim), the law of qisas (retaliation/punishment) and diyat (blood money/forgiveness)” in PPC.[28] The cultural fabric and sociological system of norms with qisas and diyat laws mutually work together to obstruct the provision to access justice for women, thereby leading to a miscarriage of justice for victims of honour killings on two grounds. Firstly, the choice of the prosecution that qisas and diyat laws essentially placed in the hands of the wali. As per section 305 of tPPC, in the case of a qatl, a wali as defined under section 299(m) of PPC “a person entitled to claim qisas” shall be the heirs of the victim, according to his personal law; and the government, if there is no heir. This concept of wali is problematic in the case of honour killing because of the authority that he holds under section 309 of PPC. Section 309 of PPC allows a sane wali of the victim to either waive his/her right of qisas which under section 302(a) of PPC is punishable with the death penalty and to compound the offense under section 310 of PPC on accepting or in exchange for compensation badl-i-sulh, except that “a female shall not be given in marriage or otherwise in badl-i-sulh.” [29]Furthermore, as per section 338-E of the PPC, all offenses related to bodily offenses under Chapter XVI of the PPC “may be waived or compounded and the provisions of sections 309 and 310 shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the waiver or compounding of such offences.” Last and most importantly, these sections must be read in conjunction with section 345 of the Cr.P.C, which provides that qatl-i-amd may only be compounded by ‘the heirs of the victims other than the accused or the convict if the offence has been committed by him in the name or on the pretext of karo kari, siyah kari or similar other customs or practices.” To forgive or forgo the killer by waiving/compounding of offence committed under the pretext of ‘Honour’ by following this legal structure of laws make this idea of wali more problematic. The reason is simple, a man who kills another family member in order to redeem family honour does so with the consent of the victim's next kin, and these heirs usually forgive the murderers. Aleena Khan is right in saying that “honour’ killings are committed by the family members of a victim; hence the compounding of the offense by the other family members is inevitable. Hence, the law is assisting and encouraging potential offenders, rather than deterring them from committing ‘honour’ killings.”[30] These laws also witness the failure of the philosophy named “rule of law” by non-legislative social norms and also rejects the notion of social contract theoryby limiting the role of the state as a non-entity to protect the life and liberty of people by promoting social construction of “privatization of legal process and justice.”[31] In an Amnesty International Delegation, while giving a summation of the “legal hurdles to prosecution in honour killings”[32] Hina Jilani made the statement that “Killings are private offenses, against the individual, not the state, so who will bring and pursue the charges of murder? If the father or brother kills a woman, the family of the girl will not pursue the case, as in their eyes no wrong has been done... The prosecution case collapses in almost all the scenarios of an honour killing: In karo-kari cases there is no aggrieved party to pursue the case, society as a whole approves of the killing... If a brother kills his sister on the ground of honour, her guardian, her father[,] can forgive his son.”[33] Meaning thereby, a judge poetically write down in the case of State v. Oliver, as “it is better to draw the curtain, shut out the public gaze, and leave the parties to forget and forgive.”[34] If maintaining this legal cover, the law on point is considered to make it encouragement for perpetrators and murderers of ‘honour’ killings to accomplish or escape punishment merely by other means because at the end the wali has the authority to waive/compound the offence in view of the aforementioned section. These laws operate in practice and the example to fit the point is the Samia Sarwar case, where her brother, who had authority as a wali, compounded her murder committed by her own parents.[35] The opinion of Supreme Court lawyer Jilani that deal with the issue of honour killings is worth quoting here that; “the law really facilitates such killings. Killings arc private offences, against the individual, nor the state, so who will bring and pursue the charges of murder? If the father or brother kills a woman, the family of the girl will not pursue the case, as in their eyes no wrong has been done ... There is no chance of bringing the killer to book ... The prosecution case collapses on almost all the scenarios of an honour killing: In such cases, there is no aggrieved party to pursue the case, society as a whole approves of the killing and usually, there are no prosecution witnesses as nobody testifies against a family member. Since the killing takes place in a family context, forgiveness, voluntary or otherwise, is almost inevitable. If a brother kills a sister on grounds of honour, her guardian, her facher can forgive his son.” However, section 338F of the PPC leads to a second anomaly which is the judicial discretion. According to this section “the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Chapter, and in respect of matters ancillary or akin thereto, the court shall be guided by the injunction of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah.” Under qisas and diyat laws, the tradition of considering threats to honour and provocation as mitigating factors in honour murders still continues, and by this section without establishing any parameters in law for interpreting Islamic injunctions, the judges were confirmed with the broad discretionary powers to decide in cases of offenses against the human body, and the right to qisas and diyat in respect of the same. It is hardly surprising that, in traditional Islamic law, honour crime, as a concept of a criminal offense, is quite unknown in society. However, it is not peculiar to argue that the guiding principles and law in the Quran is not merely an enactment but their essence lies in the way it is implemented, unfolded, and interpreted by the believers
The most significant and widely cheered amendment was the change in the Diyat principle so that even if a legal heir or Wali pardons a perpetrator of honour killings he would still be handed down up to twenty five years of imprisonment. This was a pronouncement completely in consonance with the opinion of the Council of Islamic Ideology which averred that Islamic law and Quran bestow upon the legal heirs of the victim the right to forgive or pardon the perpetrator and completely taking away this right would be against Islamic principles and injunctions. Therefore, instead of completely taking away the right to forgive, it was partially enforced to prevent the reoccurrence of the crime by the same perpetrator.
A Way Forward to Regulate Honour Killings in Pakistan
The article highlights that despite repeated attempts to increase the efficacy of the law there still remains a possibility that the law is misused in favour of the perpetrator. In addition to the legal amendments there are certain changes that need to be brought at policy level to regulate the implementation of the law on honour killings and to ensure justice for victims. A major reason cited for the prevalence of this crime is the inherent gender bias in the state machinery including the police, prosecution department and the courts. This in close connection with the implicit consent of the society in honour crimes enables perpetrators to walk off scot free in such cases. In order to create effective deterrence in society it is not the intensity but the certainty of the punishment that has to be enhanced. Improvements are needed both in the way these crimes are treated by the state and more generally in the way society behaves and perceives these crimes. It has been observed that the lacunae in police investigations that lead to lower conviction rates in honour crimes can be overcome by employing modern and advanced means of investigation. Moreover, these police investigations need to be carried out from a victim-centric and gender sensitive lens. The Jirga system and its investigations in honour killings need to be disregarded and condemned at national level as they widely neglect the victim’s rights. A national helpline needs to be launched so that potential victims of honour killings can report risks of violent behavior at home and can thereafter, be safely transferred to shelter homes and protection centres. Such centres need to be established in both villages and cities and should be equipped to provide quality medical and psychological support to those who reach out for help. Information about their existence and functioning needs to be widely disseminated in public through mass awareness campaigns, print, electronic and social media. Policy guidelines should be drafted by the government in consonance with gender specialists on safety assessments that law enforcement agencies should be conducting before releasing these people back in the custody of their relatives. Instances have been reported from the frontier of the country where female victims of honour killings had initially reached out to the police for safety citing the threatening behavior of their family as the reason, however, after some mediation and without any police safety assessment these women were asked to return to their families who took their lives right after. It is pertinent that no interpretation of cultural or societal norms should be allowed to prevail over fundamental rights of individuals. This can only be achieved through education and sensitivity training.
Author:
Hania Riffat is a final year law student enrolled in University of London’s International Degree Program. She holds certification in International Law from the Hague Academy of International Law and is the Director of Pakistan’s first youth-led national legal forum. She can be reached at haniariffat002@gmail.com.
References:
[1] Section 2 Criminal Law Amendment Act of 2016 < https://na.gov.pk/uploads/documents/1475762285_283.pdf> accessed 4th June, 2022
[2] National Seminar Report: There is no Honour in Killing, The Green Political Foundation < https://www.boell.de/en/2014/01/20/karo-kari-tor-tora-siyahkari-kala-kali-there-no-honour-killing> accessed 4th June 2022
[3] Lynn Welchman and Sara Hossain (ed.), “Honour”: Crimes, Paradigms, and Violence Against Women (Zed Books 2005) (Lynn: Honours)
[4]“9 People Brutally Killed in Pakistan in Alleged 'Honor Killing” July 1, 2019, online: <https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/pakistan-honor-killing-nine-people/> accessed 4th June 2022
[5] Ibid
[6] Human Rights Watch, World Report 2007: Pakistan, online: <https://www.hrw.org/%20englishwr2k7/docs/2007/01/11/pakist14756.htm > accessed 08th June 2022
[7] Media monitoring of human rights violations and concerns in Pakistan, HRCP, online: <http://hrcpmonitor.org/ > accessed 8th June 2022
[8] Paul Henley, ‘Girls in the River: Pakistan’s Struggle to End Honour Killing’ (intpolicydigest) online: <https://intpolicydigest.org/girls-in-the-river-pakistan-s-struggle-to-end-honour-killings> accessed 8th June 2022
[9] Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Ordinance of 1990. The relevant sections of the P.P.C, specifically ss. 299-308, have been amended."
[10] Senate approves criminal laws, Privatisation Commission amendment bills, International The News, March 03, 2015,Online:<Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. >, accessed 10th June, 2022
[12] Miranda Hussain, Comment, Taking the Moral High Ground on Honor, Daily Times: Your Right to Know, A New Voice for a New Pakistan, Oct. 30, 2004, http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_30-10-2004_pg3_5.
[13] Stephanie Palo, “A Charade of Change: Qisas and Diyat Ordinance Allows Honour Killing to go Unpunished in Pakistan” 2.7.2009, online: <https://jilp.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/volume-15-1/Palo.pdf >
[14] The Nation: “The Qandeel brand of Honour”, Saad Rasool Advocate http://nation.com.pk/columns/17-Jul-2016/the-qandeel-brand-of-honour
[15] Kelly Chen et al., Pakistan Passes Legislation Against Honor Killings, CNN (Oct. 8, 2016 12:24AM), https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/06/asia/pakistan-anti-honor-killing-law/index.html.
[16] Sayed Sikandar Shah Haneef, Homicide in Islam, 176 (2000).
[17] 'Honour killings': Pakistan closes loophole allowing killers to go free”, BBC News, 6 October 2016, Online: <https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37578111 > accessed 10th June 2022
[18] Aurat Foundation Pakistan, ‘Women still victims of honour killings despite new law’ (The Express Tribune, 31 October,2017),online:<https://tribune.com.pk/story/1545802/1-women-still-victims-honour-killings-despite-new-law> [“Aurat Foundation Pakistan, ‘Women still victims of honour killings despite new law”] accessed 11th June 2022
[19] Ali Akbar, ‘Man kills two daughters for ‘honour’ in Peshawar'’ (Dawn, 23 September 2017) online: <https://www.dawn.com/news/1359543 > accessed 11th June 2022
[20] Saroop Ijaz, ‘‘Honor’ Killings Continue in Pakistan Despite New Law’ (Human Rights Watch, 25 September 2017) onine: <https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/09/25/honor-killings-continue-pakistan-despite-new-law > accessed 11th June 2022
[21] Hanif Samoon, ‘Mother of two allegedly killed by husband over ‘honour’ in Umerkot’ (Dawn, 1 January 2018) online: <https://www.dawn.com/news/1380162 > accessed 11th June 2022
[22] Imdad Soomro, “Karo-Kari claimed 176 lives in Sindh in 2021: study”, International The News, February 04, 2022, online: <https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/930710-karo-kari-claimed-176-lives-in-sindh-in-2021-study > accessed 11th June 2022
[23] Arati Rao, The Politics of Gender and Culture in International Human Rights Discourse, in WOMEN’S RIGHTS, HUMAN RIGHTS: INTERNATIONAL FEMINIST PERSPECTIVES 167, 171 (Julie Peters & Andrea Wolper eds., Routledge 1995)
[24] National Commisson on Status of Women v. Government of Pakistan, P L D 2019 Supreme Court 218
[25] Lata Singh vs State Of U.P. & Another on 7 July, 2006 Writ Petition 208 of 2004
[26] Aleena Khan, “Honour’ Killings in Pakistan: Judicial and Legal Treatment of the Crime: A Feminist Perspective”, Sheikh Ahmad Hassan School of Law, Volume 7, online: <https://sahsol.lums.edu.pk/law-journal/%E2%80%98honour%E2%80%99-killings-pakistan-judicial-and-legal-treatment-crime-feminist-perspective > [“Aleena: Judicial and Legal Treatment of the Crime”]
[27] Sameera Rashid, “Qisas and Diyat laws: a haven for honour killings”, April 25, 2016, online: <https://dailytimes.com.pk/86758/qisas-and-diyat-laws-a-haven-for-honour-killings/ > accessed 7th June 2022
[28] Paul Hanley: Girls in the River
[29] Mahum Nazar, “The analysis of honor killings in Pakistan and how it is related to the notion of “what will other people say?", Binghamton University--SUNY, Spring 5-2020.
[30] Supra Note 26
[31] Contemporary Approaches to the Social Contract, First published Sun Mar 3, 1996; substantive revision Mon Sep 27, 2021, “The aim of a social contract theory is to show that members of some society have reason to endorse and comply with the fundamental social rules, laws, institutions, and/or principles of that society.
[32] Amnesty Int’l, Pakistan: Violence Against Women in the Name of Honour, AI Index ASA 33/017/1999, at 50 (Sept. 22, 1999)
[33] The State vs. Muhammad Youna; Quoted in a study research report conducted on Qisas and Diyat laws by the National Commission on the Status of Women <http://www.ncsw.gov.pk/previewpublication/2>; The Human Rights Actions Network, “Pakistan: Feared impunity in case of murdered woman” Violence Against Women, Case PAK 120499.1.VAW, Follow-up Case PAK 120499.VAW, Geneva, June 30 1999
[34] State v. Oliver, 70 N.C. 60, 62 (1874)
[35] Supra Note 33
