1

Dissertation

"Ensuring Fair Trials in Terrorism Cases: A Comparative Study of Legal Frameworks in the UK,
US, and Pakistan"

[Your Degree Name]

By
[Your Name]
[Your Student ID]

Supervised by
[Supervisor's Name]
[Institution Name]
[Department Name]

Date of Submission
[Month, Year]
 2

Abstract
The right to a fair trial is the basic principle of justice, yet it faces considerable challenges in
cases of terrorism, where concerns about national security often take precedence. This study
performs a comparative analysis of legal frames governing terrorist studies in the UK (Great
Britain), the United States (USA) and Pakistan and examines how every jurisdiction equals anti -
terrorism measurements with fundamental human rights.

Research evaluates key legislation, including the 2000 Terrorism Act (UK) (Walker, 2021), USA
Patriot Act (USA) (Roach, 2011) and Pakistani protection of 2014 (Pakistan) (International
Commission for Lawyers, 2016) By analyzing court decisions, legal frameworks and
international human rights reports, a study identifies critical similarities and differences in
solving tests related to terrorism.

A comparative legal methodology is used, which includes analysis of case -law, legal
interpretation and human rights evaluation (Davis, 2019). The findings show that while all three
countries have passed strict laws against terrorism, their approaches to balance of security and
fair process differ significantly. The United Kingdom emphasizes judicial supervision and
procedural guarantees (Fenwick, 2020), while the US uses military tribunals and indeterminate
detention (Cole & Dempsey, 2006). Pakistan, which deals with serious threats of internal safety,
founded special courts and broad powerful powers and often raised concerns about violating
proper processes and lack of transparency (Rehman, 2017). The study concludes that while
national security is a legitimate problem, adherence to the rights to a fair proceedings is
necessary to maintain a rule of law. It recommends legal reforms to strengthen transparency,
judicial independence and procedural guarantees to ensure a more balanced approach to
terrorism. These findings have significant consequences for the creators of politicians, lawyers
and human rights organizations that work on justice in the efforts of counter and terrorism.

______________________

1. Committee on Human Rights UN, General Comment No. 32 in Article 14 ICCPR, UN DOC CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007).

2. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Article 6 (1950).

 3

Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................................2
Graphs and Images:.....................................................................................................................................5
Graph 1: Number of convicts and exemption related to terrorism.........................................................5
Graph 2: Duration of detention before test in cases of terrorism...........................................................5
Graph 3: Breach of a fair process in cases of terrorism (depending on type)..........................................5
Figure 4: Judicial decision on the rights of a fair trial related to terrorism..............................................5
Graph 5: Compliance a International Human Rights Standards...............................................................5
Graph 6: Public Perception of Righteous Attempts In Cases....................................................................5
Graph 7: Legal Protection vs. Exceptions to national security.................................................................5
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................6
1.1 The background and importance of righteous attempts in cases of a terrorism...............................6
1.2 Research question and goals.............................................................................................................7
1.3 Justification of comparative analysis.................................................................................................8
1.4 Overview of Methodology and Structures of the Dissertation Thesis...............................................9
Chapter 1: Conceptual and Legal Framework of Righteous Exams............................................................11
1.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................11
1.2 Definitions and key principles of righteous attempts......................................................................11
1.2.1 a proper process.......................................................................................................................12
1.2.2 assumption of innocence..........................................................................................................12
1.2.3 Right to legal representation....................................................................................................12
1.2.4 Judicial Independence..............................................................................................................13
1.3 International legal standards concerning fair tests..........................................................................14
1.3.1 The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)................................................................14
1.3.2 International Treaty on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)..........................................................14
1.3.3 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).......................................................................15
1.3.4 Other international tools..........................................................................................................15
Chapter 2: Legal framework for terrorist proceedings in the UK, USA and Pakistan.................................15
2.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................15
2.2 Legal framework of the United Kingdom for Terrorism Examination..............................................15
2.2.1 Terrorism Act 2000...................................................................................................................16
1. Erosion of the assumption of innocence........................................................................................16
2. Restrictions of legal representation and defense rights................................................................17
 4

3. Using secret and forced evidence..................................................................................................18

4. Threats for judicial independence.................................................................................................19
2.3 US legal framework for terrorism exams.....................................................................................20
2.4 Pakistani legal framework for terrorist courts.............................................................................21
2.5 Comparative analysis of the right of a fair trial............................................................................21
Chapter 3: National Security vs. Human Rights - Comparative Analysis....................................................22
1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................22
2. Theoretical views of national security vs. human rights....................................................................22
Theoretical views of the national security vs. human rights..............................................................23
Realistic approach: Priority of National Security................................................................................23
Liberal Approach: Human Rights Protection......................................................................................24
Finding...................................................................................................................................................24
Laws against terrorism and human rights: a comparative overview.................................................25
Comparative analysis: Finding balance..............................................................................................26
Chapter 4: Judicial Overview and Protection of Human Rights.................................................................27
Judicial review and legality of measures against terrorism...................................................................27
Calls in the court supervision.................................................................................................................28
Strengthening the judicial supervision of fair exams.........................................................................29
Forensic supervision in the UK...............................................................................................................29
Judicial supervision in the US.................................................................................................................30
Judicial supervision in Pakistan..............................................................................................................30
Summary...............................................................................................................................................31
Similarity:...........................................................................................................................................32
Differences:.......................................................................................................................................33
Conclusions and recommendations...........................................................................................................35
Bibliography (Oscola format).....................................................................................................................37
Legislation..............................................................................................................................................37
Cases......................................................................................................................................................37
International Treaty and Convention.....................................................................................................37
Book......................................................................................................................................................38
Bibliography (Harvard format)...................................................................................................................38
Book......................................................................................................................................................38
Magazine articles...................................................................................................................................39
 5

Reports and political documents...........................................................................................................39

Graphs and Images:

Graph 1: Number of convicts and exemption related to terrorism
A column chart comparing the number of convictions and liberation from terrorism in the UK, USA and
Pakistan over the last decade.

Data sources: Government reports, court statistics, human rights organization.

Graph 2: Duration of detention before test in cases of terrorism

Line graph comparing the average period of preliminary proceedings suspected of terrorism within
various legal frameworks (eg the Act on Terrorism of 2000, USA Patriot Act, Pakistani Act on Protection
2014).

Graph 3: Breach of a fair process in cases of terrorism (depending

on type)
A sectors' chart showing the proportion of righteous processes such as rejection of legal representation,
using secret evidence, military courts and prolonged detention without charges across three jurisdictions.

Figure 4: Judicial decision on the rights of a fair trial related to

terrorism
A comparative column chart illustrating the key court decision on just judicial proceedings from the
United Kingdom, the US Supreme Court and Pakistani judiciary, which emphasizes cases where the
courts have confirmed or set outrings for human rights.

Graph 5: Compliance a International Human Rights Standards

A radar chart compares how well each country adheres to the principles of fair court proceedings.

Graph 6: Public Perception of Righteous Attempts In Cases

A bar or column based on a survey showing public opinion on whether suspects from terrorism receive
fair trials in every country.

Graph 7: Legal Protection vs. Exceptions to national security

A composed column chart comparing the number of legal provisions protecting the right of a fair court
compared to those that allow exceptions in the name of National Security.
 6

Introduction
1.1 The background and importance of righteous
attempts in cases of a terrorism
The fair trial ensures that individuals accused of crimes, including terrorism, are considered
innocent until they have proven guilty, access to legal representation and are tested by the
independent and impartial tribunals (DWORKIN, 2011). However, politicians against terrorism
often question these principles because governments seek to protect national security while
preventing terrorist activities (Roach, 2011).

Terrorism represents unique legal and ethical dilemmas. Governments around the world have
adopted special laws to prosecute suspicious terrorism, often allowed prolonged detention
without charges, secret evidence, military tribunals and restrictions on legal advisor (Cole &
Dempsey, 2006). Although these measures aim to increase safety, they raise concerns about
violations of proper processes, arbitrary detainees and erosion of human rights (Amnesty
International, 2018). This study examines how three countries - the United Kingdom (Great
Britain), the United States (USA) and Pakistan - create tensions between security imperatives
and fair laws of court proceedings.

The importance of this research is the global consequences of laws against terrorism. As terrorist
threats exceed borders, nations often accept similar anti -terrorism strategies influenced by
international security cooperation (Davis, 2019).

________________

1. The right to a fair trial is the fundamental human rights enshrined in international treaties, including Article 10
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 14 of the International Treaty on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR). See: Organization of the United Nations, Universal Human Rights Declaration, 1948,
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human--rights.

2. In connection with the cases of terrorism, the rights of fair court proceedings are often contrary to concerns
about national security, leading to the creation of special laws and courts that can reduce the rights of proper
processes. See: A. Greene, permanent emergency states and rule of law: institutes of the age of crisis (Hart
Publishing 2018).
 7

1.2 Research question and goals

This dissertation seeks to answer the following research question:

How do the legal framework in the UK, the US and Pakistan relate to the balance between
concerns about national security and the right to a fair process for individuals accused of
terrorism?

Research has the following key objectives to resolve this question:

1. Explore laws against terrorism regulating terrorist proceedings in the UK, USA and Pakistan,
including the 2000 Terrorism Act (Great Britain), the USA Patriot Act (USA) and Pakistani
protection 2014 (Pakistan).

2. Analyze the impact of measures against terrorism - for example, detention without court
proceedings, special courts, military courts and secret evidence - on the fair rights of the court
with a focus on the proper trial, legal representation and law of public proceedings.
 8

3. Evaluate the role of judicial supervision and human rights protection in the provision of
righteous court proceedings, with regard to court decisions such as the British Supreme Court,
the US Supreme Court and the Pakistan Supreme Court.

4. Compare the calls that each country faces in the balance of national security with the rights of
just judgment and identify common trends or significant differences in legal frames.

5. Provide recommendations for legal reforms for strengthening the protection of fair lawsuits in
cases of terrorism while maintaining national security.

1.3 Justification of comparative analysis

Comparative analysis of Great Britain, USA and Pakistan is justified because of their different
but influential legal framework, geopolitical roles and approaches to anti -terrorism terrorism. In
the last two decades, these three countries have faced significant terrorist threats, leading to
adoption of specialized laws on the anti -terrorist law that affects the rights of a fair process.
Despite their different legal traditions - common law in the UK and the US and a combination of
general law and Islamic jurisprudence in Pakistan - each country has introduced legislation
aimed at compensating for national security with fundamental human rights. However, the extent
to which these laws are in accordance with the international standards of the fair process,
however, differ considerably, causing a comparative study necessary.

However, the United Kingdom also adopted some of the most extensive laws on the anti -
terrorist law in Europe, such as the 2000 terrorism Act and the counter -terrorism, and the
Capriction Act 2021, which introduces an extended period of detention, secret evidence and
control orders. These measures raise critical concerns about the proper process, which makes the
United Kingdom an important jurisdiction for assessing legal limits on national security
legislation within the democratic framework.

________________

1. Act on Terrorism 2000 (UK), p. 41 (strength of detention free of charge).

2. Act on Antiteroristic and Capriction 2021 (UK)
 9

The United States, with its global initiatives against terrorism and extensive use of military
commissions, is a unique model that emphasizes powerful power in national security matters.
The US Patriot Act and the Military Commission Act made it possible to detention indefinite,
reduce judicial supervision and special military courts, especially in cases concerning the
detained Gulf Guantanamo. The US Supreme Court played a key role in reviewing these
policies, with milestone cases such as Boumediene v. Bush (2008), reaffirming the rights of
Habeas Corpus detained. The US legal framework provides an important contrast to the United
Kingdom because it demonstrates the tension between executive power, judicial review and
human rights protection in counter -terrorist politicians.

The Law against Terrorism of 1997 and the Pakistan Protection Act provides a wide range of
detention and prosecution to the state, often at the expense of proper procedural guarantees. The
use of specialized counter -terrorist courts, secret attempts and forced confessions emphasizes
the calls in ensuring just trials in politically sensitive cases of terrorism. In addition, Pakistani
judiciary faced executive and military pressures and reduced its ability to act as an independent
control of counter -terrorism measures. The comparison of the legal framework of Pakistan with
Great Britain and the US helps to illustrate how fair laws are influenced in jurisdictions with
different levels of judicial independence and institutional forces.

By analyzing these three countries, this study provides a comprehensive evaluation of how
various legal traditions, political systems and security concerns form counter -terrorism laws.
This comparative approach helps to identify proven procedures and reform areas to ensure that
measures against terrorism do not violate the fundamental rights of the fair process.

1.4 Overview of Methodology and Structures of the

Dissertation Thesis
This dissertation accepts a comparative legal analysis that explores the balance between concerns
about national security and the rights of fair court proceedings in the cases of terrorism within
the United Kingdom legal frames (Great Britain), the United States (USA) and Pakistan. The
method of doctrinal research is used to analyze relevant legislation, case -law and international
legal instruments that are managed in these jurisdictions by terrorist court proceedings. This
includes an in -depth examination of primary legal resources, such as the 2000 terrorism Act
(UK), the US Patriot Act (USA) and the 1997 terrorism law (Pakistan). In addition, secondary
 10

resources, including articles of academic magazine, legal comments, government reports and
evaluation of the organization for human rights, are reviewed to provide a critical view of the
effectiveness and restrictions of existing laws. The comparative approach is necessary to
emphasize the key similarities, differences and problems that each country faces in ensuring the
rights of a fair court in solving threats related to terrorism.

The dissertation is structured into several key chapters, starting with Chapter 1, which outlines
the conceptual and legal framework of fair processes. This chapter defines the principles of the
proper process, assumptions of innocence, legal representation and judicial independence,
drawing on international legal standards such as the European Convention on Human Rights
(ECHR) and the International Civil and Political Rights Treaty (ICCPR). It lays down the basic
principles against which laws against terrorism will be evaluated.

Chapter 2 provides a detailed analysis of legal frames against terrorism in the UK, USA and
Pakistan and discusses how specific legislation affects the rights of fair court proceedings. It
examines provisions allowing prolonged detention, secret evidence, military courts and the use
of special courts that evaluate their consequences for justice and human rights. This chapter also
examines the judicial interpretation of these laws and their compliance with international
standards in the field of human rights.

Chapter 3 critically evaluates the tension between national security and human rights in terrorist
processes. It examines the justification used by governments to reduce certain procedural
guarantees and the extent in which the courts have followed or questioned these measures. The
comparative analysis is performed to determine how each country copes with basic rights and
whether there are any emerging legal trends or formulas.

Chapter 4 examines the role of judicial supervision and human rights protection in the protection
of just attempts. It analyzes milestone decisions from the United Kingdom, the US Supreme
Court and higher judiciary in Pakistan and assess their effectiveness in ensuring a proper process,
legal representation and approach to a fair court. This chapter also evaluates the role of
international human rights in influencing national legal frameworks and providing legal
remedies.

________________
 11

1. Dershowitz why terrorism works: understanding of threat, responding to the challenge (Yale University Press,
2002).
2. J. Donohue, the cost of fighting terrorism: Power, Politics and Liberty (Cambridge University Press, 2008).

The last chapter, Chapter 5, represents conclusions and recommendations based on comparative
findings. It summarizes key knowledge gained from research, emphasizes common challenges
and proven procedures. This chapter also provides political recommendations for legal reforms to
strengthen judicial supervision, procedural guarantees and adherence to international standards
of fair court proceedings in cases of terrorism.

This structured approach ensures a systematic and comprehensive analysis of the protection of a
fair process in various legal systems and offers valuable knowledge of the effectiveness of the
anti -terrorist laws and their impact on human rights.

Chapter 1: Conceptual and Legal Framework

of Righteous Exams
1.1 Introduction
The right to a fair trial is the fundamental principle of justice recognized in national and
international legal frameworks. It serves as a protection against arbitrary prosecution, unlawful
condemnation and abuse of state power (DWORKIN, 2011). This chapter examines the
conceptual basis of righteous attempts, including key principles, such as a proper process,
assumption of innocence, legal representation and judicial independence. It also examines
international legal standards, including the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and
the International Civil and Political Rights Treaties (ICCPR), which lays down the global
benchmarks for just judicial proceedings.

1.2 Definitions and key principles of righteous attempts

The fair process is defined as a legal process in which all parties receive the same and impartial
treatment, ensuring that justice is delivered in accordance with the law (Fenwick, 2020). The
concept is rooted in natural justice, which orders each accused to hear fairly, judged impartially
 12

and get a reasonable opportunity to defend himself (Roach, 2011). The following key principles
form the basis of righteous attempts:

1.2.1 a proper process

The proper process concerns legal procedures that need to be followed to ensure justice and
protect the individual from any state action (Cole & Dempsey, 2006). Has two main components:

 Procedural proper process: ensures fair and transparent procedures in court

proceedings, including the right to inform the accusation, the evidence and cross tests
(Walker, 2021).
 The foundation proper process: protects individuals from laws that violate
fundamental rights, ensure justice in the legislative choir and in the court application
(Davis, 2019).
 In Article 14 of ICCPR and Article 6 of the Echr, it is enshrined in Article 14 of
ICCPR and emphasizes the importance of fair legal proceedings in criminal matters
(Amnesty International, 2018).

1.2.2 assumption of innocence

The assumption of innocence is the basic principle that states that the accused is considered
innocent until it is proven guilty of adequate doubt (DWORKIN, 2011). This principle prevents
the state from considering individuals as criminals without sufficient and legal evidence.

 International recognition: Universal Human Rights Statement (UDHR, 1948, Article 11)
and ICCPR (Article 14 (2)) confirm this principle and undertake states to ensure evidence
(Roach, 2011).
 Legal implementation: in Judications such as the United Kingdom and the US, the courts
have decided that the assumption of innocence must be maintained in all court
proceedings, which ensures that the defendants are not subject to prejudice treatment
before the judgment (Walker, 2021).
 However, laws against terrorism often undermine this principle by allowing long -term
preliminary detention, preventive detention and reverse burden (Cole & Dempsey, 2006).
 13

1.2.3 Right to legal representation

The right to the Legal Council ensures that individuals accused of crimes have access to
competent legal assistance (Davis, 2019). Legal representation is necessary to ensure fair
processes, especially in complex cases such as terrorist proceedings, where the defendants may
face serious sanctions (Fenwick, 2020).

• International Standards:

On ICCPR (Article 14 (3) (b)) - guarantees the right to reasonable legal defense.

On ECHR (Article 6 (3) (c))) - ensures the right to the legal council in interim and court
proceedings.

On the protection of the US and the UK: Miranda (USA) and PACE (UK) law protects legal
representation during police interrogations (Walker, 2021).

However, the laws on terrorism in some jurisdictions, including the Act on the Counter -Terrorist
Act of Pakistan (1997), limit access to a legal advisor and increase concerns about the rights of
the fair court (Rehman, 2017).

1.2.4 Judicial Independence

Judicial independence is the principle that the courts must function without external pressures,
including government influence, political interference and public opinion (DWORKIN, 2011). It
ensures that judges can take decisions on the basis of law and evidence rather than on political
considerations.

• International protection:

On ICCPR (Article 14 (1)) - orders independent and impartial tribunals.

On ECHR (Article 6 (1)) - requires the courts to be independent of the executive and legislative
corps.

• Calls in court proceedings against terrorism:

In the US, the use of military tribunals for suspicious terrorism (eg Guantanamo Bay Trials) was
concerned about judicial impartiality (Cole & Dempsey, 2006).
 14

The counterterrorism courts (ATC) and military courts were criticized for the lack of
independence from the powerful branch (ICJ, 2016).

1.3 International legal standards concerning fair tests

1.3.1 The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
The European Convention on Human Rights (1950) provides a comprehensive framework for the
rights of fair court proceedings.

Article 6: Right to a fair trial

• about a fair and public hearing in front of an independent and impartial tribunal.
• on the assumption of innocence and reasonable time to prepare defense.
• on the right to legal assistance, especially in criminal matters.
• a ban on secret evidence that cannot be thought of in court.

The European Court of Human Rights (ESTR) has strengthened these principles in cases such as
al-Nashiri v. Poland (2014), decision against the extradition and secret detention of suspects from
terrorism (Fenwick, 2020).

1.3.2 International Treaty on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

ICCPR (1966), ratified by more than 170 countries, sets universal standards of fair process:

Article 14:
 15

The independent and impartial tribunal guarantees.

• Of ensuring the right to be heard, to submit evidence and question witnesses.

• Prohibits the use of forced confessions or evidence obtained by torture (Davis, 2019).

1.3.3 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

UDHR (1948, Article 10-11) confirms:

Right to fair and public hearing.

The assumption of innocence and the same legal protection.

1.3.4 Other international tools

The basic principles of the UN on the task of lawyers (1990) - ensures access to an independent
legal representative.

• Convention against torture (1984) - prohibits the use of forced confessions in attempts.
• The Roman Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) - sets standards of fair
court proceedings for international criminal proceedings.

Chapter 2: Legal framework for terrorist

proceedings in the UK, USA and Pakistan
2.1 Introduction
The legal framework regulating terrorist processes differ significantly in individual jurisdictions,
reflecting the approach of each country to balance national security with fundamental human
rights (Fenwick, 2020). While the United Kingdom, the US and Pakistan have adopted all
specialized anti -terrorism laws, concerns persist over the erosion of the rights of fair court
proceedings, including the proper trial, judicial independence and access to legal representation
(Cole & Dempsey, 2006). This chapter examines key laws against terrorism in these three
jurisdictions and analyzes their consequences for the rights of a fair court.
 16

2.2 Legal framework of the United Kingdom for Terrorism

Examination
The legal framework for the United Kingdom's anti-terrorism is one of the largest in the world,
shaped by historical threats from IRA, al-Qaeda and ISIS (Walker, 2021). The key legislative
measures include:

2.2.1 Terrorism Act 2000

The 2000 terrorism Act (Ta 2000) was the first main legislative reaction to modern terrorism in
the UK. The key provisions include:

A wide definition of terrorism (Section 1): It extends to the threats of serious violence for
political, religious or ideological causes.

Extended retention of preliminary charge (Section 41): Allows detention of suspects for up to 14
days free of charge-not running than standard criminal cases.

Proposal of organizations (Section 3): It allows a prohibition of organization associated with

terrorism and limits their activities and rights to express.

Financial restrictions (part III): Provision of authorities by freezing the activation of suspicious
terrorists.

Impact on fair tests:

The impact of the laws on the counter -terrorist law on the rights of a fair trial

The laws against terrorism in the UK, the US and Pakistan had deep consequences for the rights
of fair court proceedings, which often led to compromises in due trial, judicial independence and
legal representation. Although these laws are designed to effectively fight terrorism, they often
undermine key legal protection on behalf of National Security. This part analyzes how legislation
against terrorism affects the assumption of innocence, access to justice, the right to legal
advisors, judicial impartiality and the use of secret evidence.
 17

1. Erosion of the assumption of innocence

The basic principle of righteous processes is the assumption of innocence - the idea that the
accused is innocent until the wine certificate (ICCPR, Article 14 (2)). However, the laws against
terrorism in all three countries move the burden of proof to the defendants.

United Kingdom
The Counter -Association and Capriction Act 2021 imposes measures of preventive detention,
such as measures for the prevention of terrorism and investigation (TPIM), which can reduce the
movement, communication and financial transactions of the individual without requireing
criminal convictions (Walker, 2021).

Individuals subject to TPIMs must prove their innocence and turn the traditional burden of proof.

The Military Commission Act (2006) allows the Gulf's detention to be held unlimited free of
charge (DWORKIN, 2011).

The detention must prove that they are not "hostile warriors" rather than prosecution, which
shows their involvement in terrorism.

Pakistan
The Pakistani Act on Protection (2014) shifts the burden of the defendant in the cases of
terrorism and contradicts the international standard of the fair court (Amnesty International,
2018).

Military courts often assume guilt, especially in cases of suspicious militants or political
dissidents (HRCP, 2019).

⮚ Impact: These measures undermine the proper process, increase the risk of incorrect beliefs
and weaken confidence in the judicial system.

2. Restrictions of legal representation and defense rights

The right to legal advisor and effective defense is the cornerstone of fair processes (ICCPR,
Article 14 (3) (b)). However, laws against terrorism often impose a restriction on access to
lawyers, especially in national security cases.
 18

United Kingdom
 The Terrorism Act of 2000 allows the authorities to deny access to a lawyer for up to 48
hours (Liberty, 2021).
 In some cases, the defendants do not see all the evidence against them because they can
be classified.
 Military commissions allow the use of secret evidence often detained from the
defendant's lawyer (HRW, 2020).
 The detention of Guantanamo has limited access to legal representation and
communication with lawyers is subject to supervision (Roach, 2011).

Pakistan
Counter -terrorism courts (ATC) often deny the advocates of sufficient time to prepare cases, as
the tests must be closed within seven days (Rehman, 2017).

Military courts often carry out court proceedings without civilian lawyers or independent
supervision (Ungrc, 2021).

⮚ Impact: These restrictions weaken the right to fair defense, reduce the possibilities of appeal
and increase the risk of unfair beliefs.

3. Using secret and forced evidence

The use of secret or forced evidence in terrorist trials raises serious concerns about transparency
and justice.

United Kingdom
• Courts may use classified intelligence as evidence without publishing it to the defendant and
violating the right to question the evidence (Fenwick, 2020).

• Special Commission for Releasing for Immigration (SIAC) allows deportation on the basis of
evidence of the detained accused.

• Military commissions allow evidence and statement heard by coercion or torture such as those
that are extracted from the detained Guantanamo in the 'increased interrogation' (DWORKIN,
2011).
 19

• In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), the US Supreme Court ruled that the Guantanamo courts had
violated the Geneva Convention, but the secret evidence continues.

Pakistan
• Police admission is permissible in terrorism (ATC) courts, despite the high risk of coercion and
torture (HRCP, 2018).

• Military courts do not publish evidence used to convict the defendants and reduce transparency
(Amnesty International, 2018).

⮚ Impact: relies on secret and forced evidence undermines judicial integrity, increases the
likelihood of incorrect condemnation and violates international obligations in human rights.

4. Threats for judicial independence

Judicial independence is essential for fair trials, but laws against terrorism often provide
excessive power to the powerful and military authorities and undermine non -partisanism.

United Kingdom
• Cases of terrorism are sometimes heard on closed sessions where judges rely on classified
evidence provided by intelligence agencies (Walker, 2021).

• Military commissions lack independent judicial supervision and operate under executive
control, raise concerns about political intervention (HRW, 2020).

• The Gulf's Legal System Guantanamo Bay outside the US federal courts, which reduces the
liability.

Pakistan
• Military courts are trying civilians and violate international standards of fair court proceedings
(ICCPR, Article 14).

• In 2019, the Pakistani Supreme Court ruled that military courts lack transparency, but still
operate according to the laws on counter -terrorism (Rehman, 2017).

⮚ Impact: Lack of judicial independence increases the risk of politically motivated courts,
controls and balance of restrictions and disrupts trust in the legal system.

This act introduced harder punishments and measures of preventive detention.

 20

• Longer sentences: Removes premature release for serious terrorism perpetrators.

• Measures to prevent and investigate terrorism (TPIMS): Allows supervision and reduction of
movement without complete attempt.

• Serious terrorism punishment: requires a minimum 14 -year sentence for offenses for grave
offenses.

Impact on fair tests:

• Independent sentences violate the principle of proportionality (Walker, 2021).

• TPIMS imposes serious restrictions without judicial supervision (Liberty, 2021).

2.3 US legal framework for terrorism exams

The US has developed a double trace system for terrorist tests:

1. Federal Criminal Courts (application of the US Constitution).

2.3.1 The US Patriot Act (2001)

1. The patriot, which was adopted after 11 September, significantly expanded state
supervision and prosecutor. The key provisions include:
2. Extended supervision: Allows monitoring of communication without order (Section 215).
3. Provision on material support: Criminalizes the provision of any support to the
designated terrorist organizations (Section 805).
4. Detention without accusations: permits indefinite detention of non-lines suspected of
terrorism.

Impact on fair tests:

1. The wide definition of "material support" can criminalize non -violent activities (Roach,
2011).
2. Habeas corpus (Cole & Dempsey, 2006) violates indefinite detainees.
3. Bulk supervision undermines privacy protection (ACLU, 2019).

2.3.2 Act on Military Commission (2006)

This act proposed to detain Guantanamo Bay:

1. It excludes detention from US constitutional protection.

 21

2. Allows the use of forced confessions obtained by increased interrogation.

3. Allows evidence that the defendant has not been published.

Impact on fair tests:

• The use of secret evidence violates the rights of proper processes (ICCPR, Article 14).
• Forced confessions undermine the right to fair defense (DWORKIN, 2011).
• The lack of independent judicial review limits legal disability (HRW, 2020).

2.3.3 Courts Guantanamo

1. Guantanamo Bay remains a symbol of out -of -court detention.
2. Dance is denied access to civilian courts.
3. Military commissions allow you to hear evidence and forced testimony.
4. Long -term detention remains free of charge.

Impact on fair tests:

• It violates the assumption of innocence and rights to legal representation (Fenwick,
2020).
• Prohibition claims Habeas Corpus in federal courts (Boumediene v. Bush, 2008).

2.4 Pakistani legal framework for terrorist courts

Pakistan faces important terrorist threats, leading to a militarized anti -terrorist approach.
Primary laws governing terrorist courts include:

2.4.1 Law against Terrorism (ATA) 1997

Pakistani ATA 1997 founded the anti -terrorist courts (ATC) with special powers:

• Accelerated attempts: Cases must be closed within 7 days.

• The admissibility of the return: allows the police a statement as evidence.
• Military connection: Safety forces can under special circumstances to try civilians.

Impact on fair tests:

• Quick tests undermine the right legal defense (HRCP, 2018).
• Police confession may be forced (Ungrc, 2021).
• Political abuse ATC is common (Rehman, 2017).
• 2.4.2 Pakistani Protection Act (PPA) 2014
 22

In the middle of growing terrorist attacks, PPA 2014 grants:

• Detention without order for 90 days.

• Secret military courts for certain crimes.
• The burden of proof has shifted to the accused.

Impact on fair tests:

• It violates the proper process and assumption of innocence (ICCPR, Article 14).
• Allows out -of -court executions and forced disappearance (Amnesty International,
2018).

2.5 Comparative analysis of the right of a fair trial

Principle of Charles University (Terrorism Act 2000, CTS 2021 Act) US (Patriot Act, Military
commissions) Pakistan (ATA 1997, PPA 2014)

Detention
Using secret evidence allowed in special cases of the Commission for Immigration (SIAC)
permitted in military commissions (Guantanamo) permitted in military courts

Legal Representation Limited according to TPIMS limited for detention of Guantanamo limited
within ATCS

Court independence of ATC is increasing concerns about the independence of military

commissions missing the judicial supervision of military courts missing transparency

Chapter 3: National Security vs. Human Rights

- Comparative Analysis
1. Introduction
The conflict between national security and human rights has intensified in the era after 11
September, leading to government to adopting strict anti -terrorism measures that often violate
fundamental rights. In their efforts in the fight against terrorism, countries such as the United
Kingdom (United Kingdom), the United States (USA) and Pakistan, various laws that increase
state power, but sometimes endanger the proper process, judiciary and legal representation. This
chapter provides a comparative analysis of how these three nations equalize security and human
 23

rights, evaluate their anti -terrorist frameworks and their consequences on the rights of the fair
court. While concerns about national security justify increased supervision and stricter laws,
excessive restrictions often violate basic freedoms, leading to international criticism.

2. Theoretical views of national security vs. human rights

The debate on national security and human rights is rooted in two contrasting perspectives. The
approach of national security associated with realism claims that extraordinary legal measures
are necessary to prevent terrorism. This perspective supports practices such as preventive
detention, widespread supervision and military tribunals, as shown in the American patriot ACT
(2001), the British Terrorism Act and Pakistani Protiterrorism of 1997. Proponents of this view
emphasize the judicial supervision, legal representation,While many democratic nations are
trying to balance these competitive interests, historical patterns indicate frequent preference for
security over civil freedoms, especially during national crises.

Theoretical views of the national security vs. human rights

The tension between national security and human rights is a long -term debate in legal and
political theory. Governments often justify restrictive anti -terrorism measures as needed to
protect national security, while human rights supporters claim that such measures often violate
fundamental rights. This part examines the theoretical perspectives that shape this debate, in
particular the realistic security approach and the approach of liberal human rights, and their
influence on the laws of terrorism in the UK, the US and Pakistan.

Realistic approach: Priority of National Security

The realistic perspective in international relations and legal studies emphasizes the superiority of
the State Security regarding individual rights, especially during crises, such as the threats of
 24

terrorism. In this opinion, extraordinary measures, including prolonged detention, mass

supervision and limited legal rights, are entitled to protect national interests (Buzan, 2007).
Realists claim that governments must definitely act at a time of security threats, although it
means suspending certain rights.

This approach is evident in the US Patriot Act (2001), which has expanded government
supervisory powers and enabled the indeterminate detainment of foreigners free of charge
(DWorkin, 2011). Similarly, the British counter on the anti -terrorism and conviction 2021
introduced stricter convictions and preventive retention measures and strengthened state power
in terrorist cases (Fenwick, 2020). The Pakistani Act on Antiteroristic Terrorism (1997) is
governed by even more security, which provides a wide range of law enforcement, including the
use of military courts for terrorist courts (Rehman, 2017).

Realists justify these measures by provoking the theory of the "state of exception" (Agamben,
2005), which claims that at the time of crisis states must operate outside of common legal
frameworks to ensure safety. This perspective was widely criticized for authoritarian tendencies,
as shown in the frequent use of forced disappearances and out -of -court killing under counter -
terrorism laws (HRCP, 2019).

Liberal Approach: Human Rights Protection

The perspective of liberal human rights, rooted in legal positivism and constitutional democracy,
claims that national security should not suppress fundamental human rights. Schools such as
Rawls (1999) and Habermas (2001) emphasize that rule of law must be observed by the rule of
law, ensure a proper process, legal representation and judicial supervision even in times of crisis.
This view is in accordance with international instruments for human rights, such as the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the International Treaty on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), which emphasize undetectable rights such as protection .

In the UK, the 1998 Human Rights Act attempts to compensate for security and rights by
submitting laws against terrorism judges (Fenwick, 2020). However, measures such as control
orders and concluded hearing on evidence have been criticized for a violation of the right to a
fair trial under Article 6 Echr (Liberty, 2021). In the US, court decisions, such as Hamdi v.
Rumsfeld (2004), questioned the powerful power to detain suspicious terrorism indefinitely and
 25

strengthen the protection of the proper process. Meanwhile, in Pakistan, the Organization for
Human Rights claims that military courts and extended detention according to the laws on anti -
terrorism violate ICCPR obligations (Ungrc, 2021).

Finding
The conflict between security and human rights reflects a wider debate between authoritarian
control and democratic responsibility. While governments have to protect citizens from
terrorism, excessive restrictions risk the eroding of democratic values. A balanced approach -
maintaining judicial supervision, limiting the overlap of executive manager and harmonizing
with international human rights law - is essential for maintaining national security and civil
freedoms.

Laws against terrorism and human rights: a comparative overview

Each country implements anti -terrorist laws differently, with different impacts on human rights.
The legal framework of the United Kingdom is designed to act against terrorism while
maintaining legal guarantees. The Terrorism Act of 2000 provides extensive powers of stops and
searching for authorities and enables detention for free for up to 14 days, which is a provision
that caused concerns about any detention (Liberty, 2021). In addition, the Counter -Terrorism Act
and convict 2021 introduced vague punishment for crimes related to terrorism and expanded
measures for the prevention and investigation of terrorism (TPIMS) imposing restrictions on the
movement and communication of the suspects. However, judicial supervision in the UK remains
strong, and the courts often review laws against terrorism. The ECHR criticized the aspects of
these laws, in particular the use of concluded evidence in special cases of the SIAC Commission
(SIAC), which limits the ability of the defendants to question the accusations (Fenwick, 2020).

On the other hand, the US adopted the first security approach and provided wide powers to news
agencies and a powerful branch. The US Patriot Act (2001) has expanded the supervisor's
capabilities and allowed perfect eavesdropping and metadata collection (HRW, 2020). The law
also allows preventive detention of non-citizens free of charge for indefinite periods
(DWORKIN, 2011). The establishment of military commissions pursuant to the Military
Commission Act (2006) further raised concerns about the rights of a fair court. These
commissions allow the use of classified evidence without full disclosure to the defendant and
detention in Guantanamo Bay are often denied access to the Federal Courts (Amnesty
 26

International, 2018). The US Supreme Court sometimes hit to limit the executive power, as seen
in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), who decided that US citizens marked as "hostile fighters" retain
the rights to the proper process. Concerns for national security, however, continue to justify
indefinite retention, supervision programs and military proceedings, often at the expense of civil
freedoms.

Pakistani anti -terrorist framework reflects an authoritarian approach with minimal legal
warranties. The Act against Terrorism (1997) founded the anti -terrorist courts (ATC), which
accelerate experiments, but often lack proper processes (Rehman, 2017). The Pakistani
Protection Act (2014) granted coercive forces of recovering the right to kill and allowed a 90 -
day preventive detention without court supervision. Perhaps most of them are the revival of
military courts from 2015 to 2019, which were founded after an attack on Peshawar (2014) to
prosecute suspicious terrorism.

Comparative analysis: Finding balance

These three countries differ significantly in how they equalize national security and human
rights. The United Kingdom maintains a relatively slight balance, because the judicial
supervision and intervention helps to alleviate the impact of restrictive laws. However, the
expansion of TPIMS and the indeterminate conviction raises concerns about excessive executive
authority. The US accepts a more aggressive security approach and grants extensive powers of
supervision to intelligence agencies and restrict the rights of just judicial proceedings in cases of
terrorism. The use of military commissions and indeterminate detention in the Gulf Guantanamo
emphasizes the priority of national security over proper procedural rights. Meanwhile, the
Pakistani framework is strongly focused on safety, while military courts and laws against
terrorism often violate basic rights. The lack of judicial independence and transparency further
worsens the situation in the area of human rights.
 27

From a comparative point of view, the United Kingdom offers the most balanced approach,
because strong judicial supervision and international commitments in human rights help protect
civil freedoms. The US model favors security over rights with wide powerful powers and limited
supervision. The Pakistani model strongly prefers state security, often at the cost of human rights
and guarantees of fair court proceedings.

Chapter 4: Judicial Overview and Protection of

Human Rights
The judiciary plays a key role in compliance with the rights of a fair court and ensures that the
laws on counter -terrorism do not violate fundamental human rights. Courts in the UK,

The judicial supervision serves as a control of executive and legislative powers and ensures that
measures against terrorism are in accordance with constitutional and human rights. The courts
evaluate whether detention, supervision, military proceedings and secret proceedings violate the
rights of proper processes. The role of the judiciary becomes particularly important in terrorism,
where governments justify extraordinary measures due to national security.

In the UK, the 1998 Human Rights Act (Game) allows courts to review laws against terrorism
against the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), in particular Article 6 (the Right to
the Just Process) and Article 5 (protection against any detention). Similarly, in the US, the
Supreme Court interprets the constitution, especially the fifth and sixth amendments, to protect
the proper process and legal representation. In Pakistan, the judiciary has the power of
 28

constitutional review, although its effectiveness is often limited by executive and military
influence.

The judiciary serves as a guardian of constitutional rights and the rule of law and ensures that the
principles of fair court proceedings are observed, even in the face of national security. Courts
play a key role in interpreting laws, review of executive measures and control of legislative
excesses to prevent human rights violations. In cases related to terrorism, where governments
often introduce exceptional legal measures, it becomes necessary to protect the rights of proper
processes and prevent any retention, torture and unfair proceedings.

Independent judiciary is essential to ensure fair trials. Judicial independence means that the
courts are without executive or political interventions, allowing them to impartially assess cases
and adhere to constitutional protection.

Judicial review and legality of measures against terrorism

The court review allows courts to assess whether the laws and policies of anti -terrorism in
accordance with institutional and human rights. This function is critical for the prevention of the
overlap of executive and ensuring that security measures do not violate fundamental rights, such
as the assumption of innocence, legal representation and access to evidence.

In the UK, the courts have reviewed laws against terrorism under the Human Rights Act of 1998
(play). For example, in the State Secretary for the Domestic Department (2004), the House of
Lords decided that the indefinite detainment of suspicious foreign terrorism under the Act on the
Antiteroristic and Security of 2001 violated the ECHR. The decision forced the United
Kingdom's government to replace this policy with control orders, although they also faced court
checks (Fenwick, 2020).

In the US, the Supreme Court hit several important cases to check the executive power.
Similarly, in Boumediene v. Bush (2008), the court struck part of the Military Commission Act
and confirmed that the detention of Guantanamo had the right to review Habeas Corpus
(Dworkin, 2011).

However, the US judicial review remains limited in cases concerning the confidentiality of the
National Security, where the Executive Director can trigger the privilege to protect certain
 29

counter -terrorism operations from court supervision. This raises concerns about liability and
transparency in the courts against terrorism (Cole, 2018).

In Pakistan, the judicial review is less effective due to weak judiciary and military influence.
While the courts in some cases intervened - such as the cases of missing persons, when the
Supreme Court ordered the government to reveal the place of residence of the detainees - many
laws on anti -terrorist terrorism remain uncontrolled. The Pakistan Act of 2014 and the 1997
terrorism Act provides extensive powers to security forces, often leading to secret military courts
and prolonged detention without judicial review (Rehman, 2017).

Calls in the court supervision

Despite their authority, the courts face several challenges in ensuring just processes in cases of
terrorism:

• Using secret evidence: Many cases of anti -terrorism include classified intelligence that
defendants and their lawyers cannot obtain. In the UK, a special commission for appeal
for immigration (SIAC) enables closed hearing, where the defendants are not informed of
complete evidence against them and raise concerns about equality of weapons and
defense rights (Fenwick, 2020).
• Emergency powers and executive pressure: At the time of the government crisis, they
cause emergency powers to circumvent courtesy. American measures against terrorism
after September 11, such as the American Patriot Act, have significantly expanded their
executive authority, limited a judicial review of supervision, retention and prosecution
(DWORKIN, 2011).

Strengthening the judicial supervision of fair exams

The following reforms are necessary to increase the judicial supervision and compliance

1. Ensuring full judicial independence: Courts must be without political and executive pressure
to impartially review cases of counter -terrorism. Stronger constitutional protection for judicial
independence is required, especially in countries where the Executive Director is dominated by
judges.
 30

2. Reform of the legislation of anti -terrorism: Governments should revise anti -terrorist laws to
ensure that the mechanisms of judicial review are built into security policies in accordance with
international human rights standards.

3 .. Increasing transparency in terrorist processes: the use of secret evidence and closed material
procedures must be limited to exceptional cases. The defendants should have at least a summary
of evidence against them to ensure fair defense.

4. The abolition of military courts for civilians: suspects from civil terrorism should be tried in
ordinary courts where standards of just judgment are more robust and judicial supervision is
stronger.

Forensic supervision in the UK

The UK Supreme Court played an important role in examining the laws on counter -terrorism. In
the State Secretary for the Domestic Department (2004), the court ruled that indeterminate
detainees without court proceedings under the Act on Course, Criminal and Security and Security
of 2001 were incompatible with ECHR, which led to its annulment. Similarly, in the case of
Belmarsh Detainees (2005) the House of Lords said that the detainment of foreigners without
accusations violates human rights and forces the government instead to introduce control orders.

Despite these decisions, some anti -terrorism measures, such as secret evidence proceedings
according to the SPEC for the appeal for immigration (SIAC), remain controversial. The courts
have confirmed the use of closed material procedures, where suspicions and their lawyers are
denied access to evidence against them and raises concerns about the rights of fair court
proceedings (Fenwick, 2020).

Judicial supervision in the US

The US Supreme Court has reviewed several counter -terrorist policies, balancing executive
power and individual rights. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), the Court decided that US citizens of
detention as hostile warriors have the right to challenge their detention and strengthen the
protection of a proper process. Similarly, in Boumediene v. Bush (2008), the court canceled the
provisions of the Military Commission Act and confirmed that the detention of Guantanamo Bay
had the right to review Corpus Habeas.
 31

However, judicial supervision has a restriction. While the courts have decided to oppose
indeterminate retention and military commissions, they are followed by measures to monitor,
such as the Foreign Intelligence Act (FISA), which allows secret court proceedings to allow
interceptions for suspicious terrorism (DWORKIN, 2011).

Judicial supervision in Pakistan

In Pakistan, there was a judicial supervision of measures against terrorism weaker due to
executive and military dominance. Pakistani Supreme Court sometimes affected to question
human rights violations, as seen in the SUO Moto No. 1 from 2014, where the court ordered the
government to be responsible for the missing persons forced.

In many cases, however, the judiciary has confirmed controversial anti -terrorism laws, such as
the Pakistan Protection Act and the 1997 terrorism law, which enable military courts for
suspicious civil terrorism. These courts have been criticized for secret court proceedings, lack of
legal representation and forced confessions and raises concerns about judicial independence
(Rehman, 2017).

Despite judicial interventions, legal guarantees often cannot fully protect the rights of fair court
proceedings in cases of terrorism. In the UK, control orders and prevention of strategies continue
to impose suspicious restrictions without criminal charges. In the US, while the detention gained
the right to Habeas Corpus, Guantanamo Bay remains functional, with a limited court review of
the retained treatment. In Pakistan, military courts and forced disappearance persist, which limits
judicial effectiveness.

To strengthen the judicial supervision, the courts must be taken to review the executive
measures, and the governments must be considered responsible for human rights violations and
international standards for human rights should be conducted by domestic legal frameworks.
Strengthening of judicial independence, protection of proper processes and access to legal
representation is necessary to comply with the rights of a fair court in addressing national
security concerns.

Summary
This study has explored a gentle balance between national security and human rights in
connection with terrorist processes in the UK, USA and Pakistan. The research emphasized
 32

significant legal and procedural calls that have an impact on the rights of fair court proceedings,
including a proper process, legal representation, judicial independence and approach to evidence.
While all three jurisdictions have adopted laws against terrorism to resolve security threats, these
measures often contrary to international standards of fair court proceedings, such as those
established under the International Civil and Political Rights Treaty (ASCPR) and the European
Convention on Human Rights (ESHR).

In the UK, laws, such as the 2000 terrorism Act and the Act on Antiteroristic Terrorism and Cjust
Convousing, allow extensive preliminary detention, control orders and closed material
procedures that limit the ability of the defendants to question evidence. In the US, the US Act on
Patriot Act and the Military Commission Act for indeterminate detention, secret courts and the
use of military tribunals, especially in cases of Guantanamo Gulf. Meanwhile, in Pakistan, laws,
such as the 1997 Anti -Ferrorist Act and the Pakistan Protection Act, facilitated military court
proceedings, enforced disappearances and extended detention without court supervision.

The judicial supervision has played a decisive role in limiting the overlap of executive in cases of
terrorism, but the extent of judicial independence and effectiveness varies. The UK Supreme
Court and the European Court of Human Rights (ESTR) were assisted in complying with the
rights to just judicial proceedings, as seen in the state secretary of the Ministry of the Interior
(2004). Similarly, the US Supreme Court ruled against an executive overlap in cases such as
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) and Boumediene v. Bush (2008). In Pakistan, however, the judiciary
faced significant challenges as a result of political influence, military dominance and lack of
institutional autonomy, which reduced its ability to provide effective remedial measures for
human rights violations.

Key similarities and differences between legal systems

Similarity:
1. Extended executive powers: All three countries have expanded their executive power through
laws against terrorism and provided governments to detain, survey and prosecute suspicious
terrorist.

2. The use of special courts and procedures: the US (Military Commission), Great Britain
(Special Immigration Readials Commission) and Pakistan (Military Courts) have introduced
 33

specialized judicial mechanisms for solving terrorist cases. These stands often work under
reduced evidence and allow secret tests.

3. Calls in maintaining judicial independence: Judicial in all three countries faces challenges in
promoting their independence in cases of national security. While the British and American
courts have issued an orientation decision to limit the overlap of executive, Pakistani judiciary
fought for institutional weaknesses and military influence.

4. Restrictions on the Right Court's Rights: Each country has introduced deviations from the
guarantees of a fair court, such as retention before court free of charge, the use of secret evidence
and restrictions on legal representation.

Differences:
1. Legal and constitutional guarantees: The United Kingdom and the US have stronger legal
guarantees through their constitutional frames and human rights laws (eg the 1998 Human Rights
Act), while Pakistan lacks robust institutional protection against human rights violations.

2. Judicial supervision and protection of human rights: The United Kingdom and the US courts
have greater autonomy to question the policy of government counter -terrorism policies, while
Pakistani judiciary is more limited due to military and political pressures.

3. In Pakistan, military courts deal with a large number of cases of terrorism, often with limited
transparency and responsibility.
 34

4. Compliance with International Law: Great Britain, as a member of the European Court of
Human Rights, faces greater control of its counter -terrorism policies. The US often resisted
international supervision, especially in Guantanamo Bay cases, while Pakistan faces criticism of
UN bodies for human rights for their military courts and enforced disappearance.

Political recommendations for ensuring just tests in cases of terrorism

In order for governments to be balanced between national security and human rights, they must
accept reforms that strengthen the rights of just judgment and at the same time to address
legitimate security concerns. The following policy recommendations are designed:

1. Strengthening legal protection for fair exams

• The United Kingdom: The government should reduce the use of secret evidence in
special cases of the SIAC Commission (SIAC) of special immigration and ensure that the
defendants have full access to evidence against them.
• USA: Congress should cancel the retention provisions under the National Defense Act
(NDAA) and ensure that the Military Commission is in accordance with the standards of
the fair court.
• Pakistan: The government must cancel the military courts for civilians and ensure that all
cases of terrorism are tested in civil courts with proper process protection.

2. Strengthening of judicial supervision and independence

• Reforming legislation against terrorism: Governments should revise counter -terrorist
laws to ensure that the mechanisms of judicial review are enshrined in security policies.
• Restrictions on powerful powers: Courts should have stronger review mechanisms that
would question the power of executive, especially in cases related to preventive
detention, secret evidence and supervision.
• Ensuring transparency in terrorist processes: Governments should accept greater
transparency by allowing public hearing and independent monitoring of terrorist court
proceedings.
 35

3. Protection of rights of detained and suspects from terrorism

• Burns of torture and inhuman treatment: Laws against terrorism must expressly prohibit
torture and states should perform stronger liability mechanisms to explore the accusation
of poor handling in retention centers.
• Right to legal representation: The suspect must have immediate access to the legal
council when arresting. Governments should provide specialized public defenders in
cases of terrorism.
• Rights to Habeas Corpus: The detention should have the right to question their detention
before an independent court without unnecessary delay.

4. Reforming special courts and military tribunals

• Great Britain and USA: The use of special tribunals and closed material procedures
should be limited to exceptional cases where concerns about national security are
demonstrable and adequate.
• Pakistan: The government should exclude military courts and transfer terrorism cases to
regular criminal courts and ensure that the defendants receive proper processes.

5. Strengthening of international commitments in the field of human rights

• The United Kingdom: The government should remain determined by the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and avoid the weakening of the protection of the
Human Rights Act.
• US: The government should enable independent UN monitors for human rights to review
policies of detainment in the Gulf Guantanamo and other retention centers against
terrorism.
• Pakistan: Pakistan should ratify an optional protocol to the Convention against Torture
(OPCAT) and allow international supervision of its retention facilities against terrorism.
 36

Conclusions and recommendations

The balance between national security and human rights remains one of the most prominent
issues of modern legal and political discourse. This study has explored the conceptual and legal
framework of fair processes, specific legal provisions for the Great Britain, USA and Pakistan
terrorist processes, and wider tensions between national security and human rights. The analysis
emphasizes that while the rights of the righteous court proceedings are enshrined in international
legal frames, such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the International
Civil and Political Rights Treaty (ICCPR), laws against terrorism in various jurisdictions often
represent significant restrictions. The study finds that justification of these restrictions is often
based on the need to protect national security, prevent terrorism and ensure public security.
However, the extent in which these restrictions are in accordance with the rule of law and
fundamental rights remain the subject of a significant debate.

The key finding of this research is that legal frameworks related to terrorism in the UK, US and
Pakistan show similarities and differences in their approaches to fair experiments. The British
Antiterrorism Framework, in particular the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Counter -Terrorism Act
and convict 2021, focuses on preventive measures, extended periods of detention and control
orders. While these measures strengthen the ability to enforce law, they raise serious concerns
about the proper trial, judicial supervision and assumptions of innocence. The US legal system,
through laws such as the US Patriot Act and the Military Commission Act, adopted an aggressive
attitude to terrorism, especially in cases concerning the detained Gulf of Guantanamo. Research
will find that military tribunals and retention policies seriously undermine judicial independence
and rights to legal representation. Pakistan, according to the Act on the Anti -Ferrorist Act of
1997 and the Pakistan Act, introduced specialized courts against terrorism, rapid monitored
courts and in some cases of military tribunals. These measures, although focused on effectively
fighting terrorism, have led to concerns about politicized court proceedings, forced confessions
and limited access to the defense counsel.

Wider comparative analysis of these three legal systems suggests that while terrorism laws are
often framed as exceptional measures necessary for state security, they had a profound impact on
the integrity of the trial. Research emphasizes the four main areas of concerns that affect the
 37

rights of fair court proceedings: (1) Extended detention by court, (2) restrictions on legal
representation, (3) secret evidence and concluded court proceedings and (4) use of military
tribunals. In all three jurisdictions, the legislation of anti -terrorism has introduced extended
detention without accusation, raised questions about Habeas Corpus and potential for arbitrary
detention. The use of secret evidence, especially in the British Special Commission for
Immigration (SIAC) and US military tribunals, also limits the defendant's ability to attack the
case against them and undermines the principle of equality of weapons. In addition, the study
finds that military and special courts against terrorism, especially in the US and Pakistan, act
under less strict procedural guarantees, which makes them susceptible to political and efficient
influence.

The judiciary plays a decisive role in the protection of the rights to fair court proceedings, but the
effectiveness of judicial supervision differs significantly in these three jurisdictions. In the UK,
the courts sometimes acted as a control of a powerful overlap, especially in cases concerning
control orders and extended detention. For example, in the State Minister for the Ministry of the
Interior (2004), the House of Lords decided that indeterminate detainees according to the counter
-terrorism, crime and security law of 2001 was incompatible with human rights. Similarly, in the
US, the Supreme Court occasionally decided against government overlap, as seen in Boumediene
in Bush (2008), where the court reaffirmed the rights to Habeas Corpus detained. Despite these
court interventions, however, executive dominance in the creation of anti -terrorism policy has
often led to legal gaps that weaken judicial guarantees. Pakistani judiciary, albeit theoretically
independent, was often limited by a politician

Bibliography (Oscola format)

Legislation
• Act on Anti-Terorism 1997 (Pakistan) https://www.refworld.org/docid/3e8A8F1C4.html
• •The Counter -Terrorist and Capriction Act 2021 (UK)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukppg/2021/11/contents/enacted
• Act on Military Commands 2006 (USA)
https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-conGress/senate-bill/3930
 38

• Pakistani Protection Act 2014 (Pakistan)

https://www.na.gov.pk/uploads/documents/1404714927_922.pdf
• Terrorism Act 2000 (UK) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/contents
• USA Patriot ACT 2001 (USA) https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-conGress/house-
bill/3162

Cases
• State Secretary in the Domestic Department [2004] OVHL 56
https://www.baili.org/uk/cases/ukl/2004/56.html
• Hamdan in Rumsfeld 548 US 557 (2006) https://www.oyez.org/cases/2005/05-184
• Boumediene in Bush 553 US 723 (2008) https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/06-1195

International Treaty and Convention

• European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) 1950
https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/Convention_eng.pdf
• International Treaty on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1966
https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cpr.aspx
• UN Congress against torture and other cruel, inhuman or humiliating treatment or
punishment 1984
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/Convention-against-
torture-and-other-cruel-ingrading

Book
• Roach K, Effect 9/11: Comparative Antiterrorism
• Walker C, Terrorism and Law (Oxford University Press 2015)
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/terrorism-and-law-9780199677920
• Zedner L, Counter-Terorism and Criminal Law (Routledge 2018)
https://www.routledge.com/counter-terrorism-and-the-criminal-law/zedner/p/book/
9781138694395
• Reports and political documents
 39

• The European Court of Human Rights, "Just Judicial Rights under Article 6 of the
European Convention on Human Rights" (2020)
https://www.ochr.coe.int/documents/fs_fair_trial_eng.pdf
• Human Rights Watch, "Pakistani military courts and their impact on human rights"
(2016) https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/01/07/this-shameful-trial/pakistans-milritary-
cort-and-fir-trial
• UN Council for Human Rights, "Antiterorism and Human Rights" (2021)
https://undocs.org/a/hrc/46/36

Bibliography (Harvard format)

Book
• Roach, K. (2011) Effect 9/11: Comparative counter -terrorism. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511977023 [accessible
March 15, 2025].
• Walker, C. (2015) Terrorism and law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at:
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/terrorisma-and-law-978019967920 [accessible
March 15, 2025].
• Zedner, L. (2018) Counter -terrorism and criminal law. London: Routledge. Available at:
https://www.routledge.com/counter-terrorism-and-the-criminal-law/zedner/p/book/
9781138694395 [access to March 15, 2025].

Magazine articles
• Donohue, L.K. (2007) "Terrorism and court by a jury: vices and virtues of British and US
criminal law", Stanford Law Review, 59 (6), pp. 1321–1400. Available at:
https://law.stanford.edu/publications/terrorism-and-tial- jury-the-vices-and-virtes-of-
british-and-american-criminal-law/[Access 15 March 2025].
• Steyn, J. (2004) "Guantanamo Bay: Legal Black Hole", International and Comparative
Act quarterly, 53 (1), pp. 1–17. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/iclq/53.1.1 [Access
15 March 2025].
 40

• Tushnet, M. (2007) "Political Constitution of emergency powers: some lessons from

Hamdan", Minnesota Law Review, 91, pp. 1451–1500. Available at:
https://scholarship.law.umm.edu/mlr/1206 [Access 15 March 2025].

Reports and political documents

• The European Court of Human Rights (2020) "Just Judicial Rights under Article 6 of the
European Convention on Human Rights". Available at:
https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/fs_fair_trial_eng.pdf [Access 15 March 2025].
• Human Rights Watch (2016) "Pakistani military courts and their impact on human
rights". Available at:
https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/01/07/this-shameful-trial/pakistans-military-court-and-
right-fair-trial [Access 15 March 2025].
• UN Human Rights Council (2021) "Propororism and Human Rights". Available at:
https://undocs.org/a/hrc/46/36 [Access 15 March 2025].