Imaan Mazari Sentencing Rights Concerns in Pakistan

Finn Right International Human Rights Commission Finland | Human Rights Monitoring Report

Information as of 29 October 2026. Status: draft for editorial review. Items marked [VERIFY] must be checked before publication. The case is ongoing and further developments are likely.

Executive Summary

On 29 October 2026, an Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) sitting at Adiala Jail in Rawalpindi sentenced human rights lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha to 10 years’ imprisonment each. The case concerns the alleged removal of security barriers and interference in official duties during the October 2024 visit of an international cricket team to Islamabad.

Pakistani media report that the court convicted both defendants under three provisions, that the sentences run concurrently, and that the term under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (ATA) was 10 years with a fine of Rs100,000 each.

The prosecution’s case, as reported, is that the couple removed barriers on a route designated for the visiting team and interfered with police duties.

The defendants deny the allegations. They state that police closed a public road without a magistrate’s order, that a plainclothes police official injured Ms Mazari-Hazir with an iron barrier, and that Mr Chattha acted only to protect her. They also say the prosecution is retaliation for their work on enforced disappearances and free legal aid.

Finn Right has not investigated the case independently. On the basis of public reporting and statements by UN human rights experts, Finn Right is concerned about three matters: the application of counter-terrorism legislation to a dispute that, on the public record, arose from a road closure; reported fair-trial deficiencies, including a trial held inside a prison, a short timetable,

the appointment of state counsel and evidence reportedly recorded in the defendants’ absence; and the cumulative pattern of proceedings against the couple, including a 17-year sentence in January 2026 and re-arrests after bail. The reasoned judgment is not yet public. Finn Right calls for prompt, independent and transparent appellate review and for the authorities to respect the rights of the defendants and of human rights defenders in Pakistan.

Introduction

This report documents publicly reported developments in the conviction and sentencing of Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir (also written Imaan Mazari) and Hadi Ali Chattha (also written Hadi Ali), who are married and both practise as lawyers.

It sets the reported facts against international human rights standards, separates confirmed facts from allegations, and offers Finn Right’s editorial assessment and recommendations. The report addresses the Imaan Mazari sentencing in the barrier case and the wider legal context relevant to it.

Background and Context

Ms Mazari-Hazir and Mr Chattha are known for representing families of the forcibly disappeared, marginalised communities, journalists and activists, and for providing pro bono legal assistance, as they themselves describe in their court statements.

• The barrier case. A case was registered on 25 October 2024 at Aabpara Police Station in Islamabad in connection with the visit of an international cricket team. Charges were framed on 7 October 2026. The prosecution presented seven witnesses.
• The January 2026 social media case. On 24 January 2026, an Islamabad court convicted the couple under sections 9, 10 and 26-A of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 (PECA), according to a statement by UN experts. Pakistani media report a combined sentence of 17 years, with the longest term, 10 years, under section 10 (cyber-terrorism). The UN experts stated that the prosecution began in August 2025 over posts on X and reposts of those posts.
• Bail and re-arrest. According to UN experts, the Supreme Court granted the couple bail and they were re-arrested on 17 September 2026 on terrorism-related charges from a separate, older case. An Islamabad ATC refused a police request for 30 days of interrogation and ordered 14 days of judicial remand. The Pakistani daily The News reports that on 29 October 2026, hours after the verdict, police arrested the couple again in connection with a further case, in which the first information report alleges anti-government slogans and road blocking during a protest.

Key Findings

A. Reported by multiple outlets (treated as established for this report, subject to the reasoned judgment)

1. ATC Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra announced the verdict at Adiala Jail on 29 October 2026.
2. Each defendant received 10 years under the ATA with a fine of Rs100,000. One outlet reports a further two years and a fine of Rs50,000 each under section 353 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The News reports that all sentences run concurrently, giving a total of 10 years.
3. The trial was held inside Adiala Jail. The court appointed state counsel Atif Mahmood, who cross-examined the prosecution witnesses.
4. Defence counsel asked the court to defer the verdict because petitions by the couple were pending before the Supreme Court and the Islamabad High Court. The court proceeded to announce the verdict.
5. The time between the framing of charges on 7 October and the verdict on 29 October was 22 days.

Allegations by the prosecution (as reported)

The couple removed security barriers on a route designated for a visiting international cricket team, interfered in official duties and posed a security risk. Some reports describe an alleged assault on police. The prosecution’s evidence has not been published and Finn Right has not seen it.

Allegations and claims by the defendants (as reported)

• Police closed the road without a magistrate’s order. Ms Mazari-Hazir says she was on her way to represent a client at the ATC.
• A plainclothes official, named in reports as Ibrahim, threw an iron barrier (some reports say iron rod) at her and injured her. Mr Chattha says he acted to protect his wife, whom he describes as pregnant at the time.
• All prosecution witnesses were police officials, no independent witness was produced, and no evidence shows a police officer was injured.
• The prosecution withheld a video transcript that, in Mr Chattha’s account, exposes weaknesses in the police case.
• They were held in a cage during the trial, which they say prevented effective communication with counsel and the court, and the trial was a retaliation for their human rights work.

Contested or unclear points

• State counsel. Defence counsel Azad told the Islamabad High Court that state counsel was appointed when he sought a single adjournment and that cross-examination took place in his absence. Another report says state counsel was appointed after the defence team declined to cross-examine witnesses. The couple’s Supreme Court petition describes the walkout by them and their lawyers as a protest and not a waiver of their right to be present.
• Evidence in absence. The couple’s petition states that testimony of six prosecution witnesses was recorded on 10 and 14 October 2026 in their absence.
• Public access. Counsel told the High Court that journalists and the public were not allowed into the jail proceedings. Finn Right has not found an official response.
• Cage. The cage allegation comes from the defendants. No independent confirmation or official response has been found.

Documented Evidence

The evidence available to Finn Right consists of: contemporaneous reports on the verdict by Pakistani outlets (Geo News and The News International, The Nation, Aaj English, Dawn, Minute Mirror, 24NewsHD, Chitral Today, Daily Qudrat); published excerpts of the defendants’ statements under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; reports of High Court and Supreme Court petitions; and two public statements by UN human rights experts, dated 4 February 2026 and 30 September 2026.

Evidence gaps. The written reasoned judgment, the charge sheet, the prosecution witness testimony, the video referred to by the defence, the court order on jail trial, any official statement from the Government of Pakistan or the prosecution on the fair-trial allegations, and the exact ATA provisions applied have not been located. The third provision under which the couple were convicted is not identified in the reports reviewed. Finn Right has not attended hearings or interviewed witnesses.

Human Rights Implications

1. Fair trial. A trial inside a prison with limited public access, evidence recorded in the defendants’ absence, a state-appointed lawyer, and a 22-day period from charges to verdict raise questions about adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence, the right to counsel of one’s choosing, the right to examine witnesses and the principle of a public hearing.
2. Use of counter-terrorism law. UN experts have repeatedly warned that Pakistan’s broad definition of terrorism-related offences risks criminalising the work of lawyers and human rights defenders. If the conduct at issue is a dispute over a road closure and an alleged altercation with police, the characterisation of that conduct as terrorism warrants close scrutiny. Whether the statutory elements were met can only be assessed once the reasoned judgment is available.
3. Human rights defenders and lawyers. Prosecuting lawyers whose work challenges state conduct can have a chilling effect on legal representation and civil society, and can compromise the independence of the legal profession.
4. Liberty and repeated detention. Re-arrest after the grant of bail, and again on the day of the verdict, raises concerns about the protection against arbitrary detention. Finn Right makes no finding that any detention is arbitrary, a determination for competent bodies such as the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.
5. Allegations of police violence. The allegation that a police official injured Ms Mazari-Hazir is a separate human rights issue. Finn Right is not aware of any independent investigation into it. [VERIFY]
6. Treatment in court. Presenting defendants in a cage is, according to the UN Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No. 32, normally incompatible with the presumption of innocence and respect for dignity.

International and European Human Rights Framework

Universal standards.

• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified by Pakistan in 2010 [VERIFY]. Article 9 (liberty and security), Article 12 (freedom of movement), Article 14 (fair trial, including adequate time and facilities, communication with counsel of one’s choosing, trial in one’s presence, examination of witnesses, and public hearing), Article 19 (freedom of expression) and Article 21 (peaceful assembly).
• UN Human Rights Committee General Comments No. 32 (fair trial), No. 34 (freedoms of opinion and expression) and No. 35 (liberty and security of person).
• UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders (1998), including the right to promote and protect human rights and to benefit from an effective remedy.
• UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (1990), including the duty of States to ensure that lawyers can work without intimidation, harassment or improper interference, and the principle that lawyers must not be identified with their clients’ causes.

Regional and comparative standards. Pakistan is not a party to the European Convention on Human Rights. European standards are cited as persuasive and comparative benchmarks: Articles 5, 6, 10 and 18 of the Convention, the Council of Europe Recommendation Rec(2000)21 on the freedom of exercise of the profession of lawyer, and the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders. Pakistan’s participation in the EU GSP+ trade scheme is linked to the implementation of core human rights conventions, including the ICCPR. [VERIFY current status and monitoring arrangements]

Domestic law. The Constitution of Pakistan includes guarantees on fair trial and due process (Article 10A), freedom of movement (Article 15) and freedom of speech (Article 19). [VERIFY article numbers and text]

Stakeholder Perspectives

• Prosecution and state authorities. Reports describe the allegations as removal of barriers, interference in official duties and a security risk during a visiting team’s route. Finn Right has not found a statement by the prosecution, police or government responding to the fair-trial concerns, and invites any response for inclusion.
• The defendants. They deny the charges, call the case fabricated and retaliatory, describe themselves in court as prisoners of conscience, and say they challenged the jail trial before the Islamabad High Court and the Supreme Court.
• Defence counsel. Counsel argued before the verdict that the ATC should not rule while petitions were pending before higher courts and challenged the jail trial and the appointment of state counsel before the High Court.
• UN experts. On 4 February 2026, UN Special Rapporteurs including those on human rights defenders, independence of judges and lawyers, counter-terrorism, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly expressed alarm at the PECA convictions and said the exercise of freedom of expression should not be conflated with terrorism. The “worrying speed” and inadequate preparation time they described concerned that January trial, not the barrier case. On 30 September 2026, experts called for the couple’s release and for terrorism charges to be dropped, and condemned the use of vague and overbroad counter-terrorism provisions.
• Other international and domestic reactions (February 2026). A report by All India Radio News states that the UN Human Rights Office, the European Union, Amnesty International and the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan criticised the January sentences. This is a secondary source and should be confirmed against primary statements. [VERIFY]
• Legal observers. Legal experts quoted in local media say the couple may appeal to the Islamabad High Court.

Finn Right’s Observations and Assessment

The following is editorial assessment, not an independently established finding.

1. The public record indicates that the conduct at the centre of the barrier case concerns a road closure on a visiting team’s route. Finn Right is concerned that classification of such conduct under counter-terrorism law, with a 10-year term, may be disproportionate, and that the reasoned judgment should set out clearly how the statutory definition was met.
2. The reported features of the trial, if confirmed, would not be consistent with the guarantees of ICCPR Article 14. The most serious are evidence recorded in the defendants’ absence, the appointment of state counsel over the objection of the defence, the allegation of caging and the reported limits on public attendance. The accounts of how state counsel came to be appointed conflict and should be clarified by the court record.
3. The verdict was announced while challenges to the jail trial and the appointment of state counsel were pending before the High Court and the Supreme Court. Finn Right regards this as a significant concern for the integrity of the process, although the legal consequences are for the courts to determine.
4. The sequence of a January 2026 conviction, re-arrest after bail in September, a verdict on 29 October and a further arrest within hours supports the concern, voiced by UN experts, that criminal proceedings may be having the effect of restricting the couple’s legitimate work. Finn Right makes no finding on motive.
5. The alleged police violence against Ms Mazari-Hazir should be investigated independently, whatever the outcome of the criminal case.

Recommendations and International Measures

To the Government of Pakistan and prosecuting authorities

1. Ensure that the appeals of Ms Mazari-Hazir and Mr Chattha are heard promptly by an independent and impartial court, and that the High Court and Supreme Court petitions on the jail trial and state counsel are decided without delay.
2. Publish the reasoned judgment, including the statutory provisions applied and the evidence relied upon.
3. Pending appeal, consider release on bail unless an individualised, lawful and necessary basis for detention is shown. Finn Right supports the UN experts’ call for release and for the withdrawal of unfounded terrorism charges.
4. Review whether the Anti-Terrorism Act is being applied in line with a precise definition of terrorism, and refrain from using it against lawyers and human rights defenders for peaceful and professional activity.
5. Open an independent, effective investigation into the allegation that a police official injured Ms Mazari-Hazir.

To the judiciary

6. Ensure that any retrial or further proceedings meet ICCPR Article 14 standards, including counsel of the defendants’ choosing, adequate preparation time, presence at the taking of evidence, open hearings in a court accessible to the public and press, and no use of cages.

To the UN system

7. Special Procedures mandate holders may wish to continue engaging with Pakistan on this case and consider trial and appeal monitoring, and a request for a country visit.

To the European Union, Finland and other States

8. Raise the case with Pakistani authorities, including in the EU-Pakistan human rights dialogue and in GSP+ monitoring, seek trial observer access to appeal hearings, and make clear that protection of lawyers and human rights defenders is a matter of international concern.

Conclusion

The sentencing of Imaan Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha to 10 years’ imprisonment each is a serious development for lawyers and human rights defenders in Pakistan.

On the information available, there are substantial concerns about the use of anti-terrorism legislation in this case and about the fairness of the proceedings.

The defendants are entitled to the presumption of innocence in the appellate process, and the authorities are entitled to respond to the allegations of procedural failings. Finn Right urges prompt, transparent and independent review in accordance with Pakistan’s international obligations and will update this report as verified information becomes available.