Since 1986, 579 people have been charged under Section 295c of the Pakistan Penal Code, 79 of whom are Christians. At least 75 people are currently awaiting trial under the Blasphemy Law, 10 of whom are Christians.They face a possible death sentence or life imprisonment.

Pakistan’s Blasphemy Law, stipulates that any person who ‘defiles’ the name of the Prophet Mohammed is liable for blasphemy, punishable by a fine and either death or imprisonment for life. In 1990 the Federal Shari’ah Court ruled that the penalty should be a mandatory death sentence, with no right to reprieve or pardon.This is binding, but the government is yet to formally amend the law, which means that the provision for life sentence still formally exists, and is used by the government as a concession to critics of the death penalty.

Pakistan was originally created to be a homeland for Indian Muslims, though it was not envisaged by its founders to be an Islamic state, and indeed freedom of religion is provided for in the Constitution. In practice, however, the Blasphemy Law and ‘Hudood’ Ordinances severely limit this freedom.

The recent advancement of the fundamentalist Muttahida Majlis-e- Amal (MMA) alliance, which leads the opposition, has reportedly contributed to a social climate of intolerance against religious minority groups.

The system for prosecution is extremely fluid. Not only is the wording of the law vague and openended, no proof is required of the state of mind of the accused. The law is used regularly against moderate Muslims,Ahmadis, Christians and Hindus, and indeed may be resorted to for the purpose of settling personal scores, such as in the case of Anwar Masih who was accused of blasphemy following a dispute with his grocer. Trials may be conducted in a highly tense atmosphere: courtrooms are often packed with fundamentalist mullahs, sometimes armed.

Although nobody has yet been executed at the hands of the state, the penalty of death is widely denounced as excessive and disproportionate to the crime: the UN has urged the government to amend the law and adhere to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Both the UK and US governments have expressed concern about the human rights situation in Pakistan, not only with respect to the blasphemy laws, but also with discrimination against the Ahmadi community, forced marriages, honour killings, child and bonded labour and the treatment of women in rural communities.

The Constitution demands that legislation be consistent with Islam, and of course applies to both Muslims and non-Muslims. This has fostered a climate of religious intolerance, which itself contributes towards acts of violence perpetrated against religious minorities, and between Sunni and Shia Muslims. Despite encouraging comments from President Musharraf, nothing concrete has yet been done to implement these recommendations.

‘Justice’ outside the courts
It is evident that the exercise of the law is not always in the hands of the authorities. During the April 2000 Convention on Human Rights and Human Dignity President Musharraf proposed a procedural reform for the Blasphemy Law, but when Islamic militants threatened a nationwide strike, the President backtracked on the basis of the ‘unanimous demand of the ulema [Islamic clerics] and the people.’

Muslim teaching in many mosques demands that those who blaspheme deserve to be killed immediately, and that protecting a blasphemer is itself tantamount to blasphemy. This was echoed in 2000 by Lahore High Court Judge Mr Justice Nazir Akhtar, who publicly stated that anyone accused of blasphemy should be killed as a swab [religious obligation], and that legal proceedings were superfluous. Although he later retracted his statement, it clearly shows the extent of judicial bias on this issue.

Death threats may be issued by extremists against judges and lawyers: Justice Arif Ibaql Bhatti acquitted Rehmat Masih, Manzoor Masih and Salmat Masih (12) in a 1994 blasphemy case, but was subsequently murdered. The three vindicated persons were also fired upon and Manzoor was killed, though the other two survived. Although nobody has yet officially been executed under the Blasphemy Law, at least seven Christians are known to have died at the hands of extremists or in police custody. Once accused, then, the alleged blasphemer and his family are very much at risk, even if he is exonerated: this became tragically clear on one occasion when fundamentalists erected a gallows outside the courtroom to signal their intent if the accused was found not guilty.

Pervez Masih
One case that has been pending since April 2001 is that of Pervez Masih, a schoolteacher who was accused of blasphemy in the classroom. His accuser was allegedly a rival Muslim who was maliciously seeking the closure of his school. The local Bar Council announced that any lawyer taking up his case, together with any person pleading for him, would be dealt with severely.

Samuel Masih
Violence and ‘swab’ killings have occurred independently of the state: in May 2004, Samuel Masih died as a result of injuries sustained when in hospital with tuberculosis he was attacked by his police guard with a brick-cutter. He had been held in Lahore Central Jail, charged under Section 295c, but was admitted to hospital two days before the attack. The policeman, a Muslim, said, ‘I have offered my religious duty for killing the man. I’m spiritually satisfied and ready to face the consequences.’

Javed Anjum
A 19 year old boy named Javed Anjum died after receiving substantial injuries from torture at the hands of a group of mullahs for his refusal to convert to Islam. He was searching for water in a madrassa when apprehended by mullahs, who accused him of theft. When they discovered he was a Christian, he was subjected to five days of torture which led to his death.