Who Answers for the Conviction Gap? External Oversight of Gender-Based Violence Case Handling in Pakistan

Abstract

Though Pakistan has adopted various legal measures for improving the handling of gender-based violence (GBV) cases, the statistics of convictions remain worryingly low, and available institutional information suggests inefficiencies within the process from reporting of a case to its adjudication. The question raised by this paper is “Whom should one hold accountable in case the case of GBV falls through on account of non-reporting, wrong classification, improper investigation, forensic failure, poor prosecution, witness intimidation, or inexplicable delay?” Through doctrinal and socio-legal analysis of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act 2021, the National Commission for Human Rights Act 2012, the Police Order 2002 regime, and witness protection legislations at federal and provincial levels, as well as through examining the Canadian experience of third-party review of sexual assault investigations, this paper explores the issue in light of available empirical data on case attrition in Pakistan. The paper concludes that the accountability system in Pakistan is not absent; however, it is fragmented and uneven, and not based on the lifecycle of a GBV case. It further indicates that the headline conviction percentages, as well as the national rape conviction rate of 0.5% produced by the Sustainable Social Development Organization (SSDO) for 2024, cannot be interpreted as cohort-specific conviction rates, and that the reported statistics include unreconciled totals. The paper suggests, on a conditional and pilot-tested basis, the establishment of a statutory and independent GBV Case Review and Accountability Commission (GBV-CRAC) with provincial review committees, standardized stage-specific information, complaint mechanisms that are safe for the survivors and referrals to existing bodies of discipline, prosecution, human rights and courts. The proposed institution shall not adjudicate on guilt, influence court judgments or replace police investigations. It argues that external review should function as a preventive and procedural accountability mechanism, which has been conceived with provisions of due process, privacy, institutional independence and federal/provincial jurisdiction, and that its implementation should follow institutional mapping, file audit and evaluation