ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has stayed the execution of five ex-Navy officers who were previously sentenced to death through a general court martial decree, it emerged.

IHC’s Justice Babar Sattar issued a written order hearing on the request of Navy officers who said they were not provided legal assistance during the general court martial order.

The court order, a copy of which is available with Dawn.com, said the counsels for the petitioners argued that the documents permissible to be shared with their clients, such as the abstract of evidence and court of inquiry, were also not shared with them.

The lawyers asserted that an appeal was filed against the death sentence without access to these documents and was dismissed, adding that the reasons for the appeal court upholding the sentence were not shared with the petitioners.

Furthermore, the lawyers said that they were given limited access to documents despite a court order and this prevented the petitioners from defending their rights.

Meanwhile, Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Akeel Akhtar Raja said that Chief of the Naval Staff Admiral Naveed Ashraf had the authority to access the documents and according to rule 193 of the Pakistan Navy Rules, 1961, discretion was vested with him to form “an opinion that supply of any proceedings may be prejudicial to the safety or interests of the state”.

The AAG that in terms of the above rule, the naval chief had formed an opinion in the cases that sharing details of the proceedings, including the findings recorded by the general court martial and the order passed in appeal upholding the death penalty, “would be detrimental to the safety or the interests of the state”.

When asked as to whether the naval chief’s opinion was placed on file, the AAG replied in the negative and Deputy Judge Advocate General Hamid Hayat said that it would be available with the Pakistan Navy headquarters.

“The question before the court is as to how the interests of the state are to be balanced against the interests of an individual to his right to live as well as his right to due process guaranteed by Articles 9 and 10A of the Constitution.