International HR organisations and Western commentators have raised several concerns regarding the trial proceedings against activist Mahrang Baloch.
However, many of these objections mirror controversies that have arisen in Western democracies themselves, particularly in cases involving terrorism, national security and sensitive state matters.
Key Objections Raised:
* Use of video-link hearings, limiting meaningful participation and communication with counsel.
* Restricted public and media access to court proceedings.
* Lack of transparency and open justice.
* Use of secret or classified evidence not fully accessible to defendants.
* National security considerations override ordinary due process guarantees.
Global Response to Terrorism, Insurgency and Organised Crime
A fully open and transparent trial is a cornerstone of modern justice systems.
In practice, however, this ideal often encounters significant limitations when states are confronted with organised violence, insurgency, terrorism, or powerful criminal networks- what emerges is not an anomaly, but a recurring global pattern.
In these circumstances, courts are not operating under normal conditions. Witnesses may be intimidated or murdered, judges and prosecutors can become direct targets, and critical evidence may originate from intelligence sources that cannot be publicly disclosed without compromising ongoing operations or endangering lives.
Origin of Closed and Restricted Judicial Proceedings: Italy’s Anti-Mafia Struggle
Italy’s battle against the Mafia, particularly the notorious Cosa Nostra organisation, offers one of the most compelling examples of these challenges.
During the campaign against organised crime, the justice system itself came under direct attack, with judges, prosecutors and witnesses increasingly becoming targets of intimidation and violence.
Leading anti-Mafia judges Giovanni Falcone and Paolo Borsellino, who were central figures in major prosecutions, were assassinated in 1992.
Prosecutors faced direct threats, while witnesses and informants were subjected to systematic intimidation.
The objective was not merely to evade prosecution but to undermine the functioning of the justice system itself by eliminating those responsible for enforcing it.
In response, Italy developed extensive institutional safeguards:
It established witness-protection mechanisms for “pentiti” (former Mafia members who cooperated with authorities), allowing them to testify under new identities with relocation and long-term security guarantees.
* Judges and prosecutors were provided with extraordinary protective measures, including concealed identities, armed escorts, armoured transport, controlled travel routes, and secure “bunker” court facilities.
U.S. Witness Protection System and Institutionalisation of Protected Testimony
Italy’s response was not unique. In the US, repeated failures of organised-crime prosecution due to witness intimidation and murder led to the creation of the federal witness protection programme, the United States Marshals Service Witness Security Program, in the 1970s.
The programme institutionalised the principle that testimony in high-risk cases often requires comprehensive state protection to be viable.
European Adaptations: UK Closed Material Procedures and Diplock Courts
The United Kingdom employs Closed Material Procedures in national security cases, allowing courts to consider classified intelligence that cannot be fully shared with the defence.
To safeguard the rights of the accused, specially authorised security-cleared advocates may represent their interests during portions of the proceedings that are closed to the public and the defendant.
During the Northern Ireland conflict, the UK also utilised Diplock Courts, which removed juries entirely from terrorism-related trials because of intimidation risks and concerns regarding jury tampering.
Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) Proceedings, United Kingdom, established 1997; expanded post-2001) routinely uses Closed Material Procedures (CMPs), where sensitive intelligence is reviewed without full public disclosure.
Special advocates represent the interests of defendants in closed sessions.
Under Schedule 7 Terrorism Powers (United Kingdom, Terrorism Act 2000; widely used post-2005), authorities can detain and question individuals at ports and borders without standard suspicion thresholds.
In recent times, British courts have dramatically expanded the use of video-link hearings during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
In 2014, British authorities conducted the country’s first entirely secret criminal trial in the terrorism case R v Incedal. Following legal challenges, some parts were opened, but significant portions remained closed to the public on national security grounds.
France, Spain and Specialised Terrorism Court Models
France relies on specialised terrorism courts, where cases are heard by professional judges rather than juries, due to the complexity of intelligence-based evidence and the risks associated with intimidation.
Spain similarly employed witness anonymity, protected testimony, and specialised national-level terrorism courts during ETA-related prosecutions, where intelligence-derived evidence often played a significant role.
Germany’s High-Security Trials and Extremism Prosecutions
Germany is currently conducting major trials involving alleged members of the far-right Reichsbürger network, accused of plotting to overthrow the state.
These proceedings demonstrate the continued use of high-security trial arrangements in cases involving extremism and threats to constitutional order.
Such trials frequently rely on surveillance-derived and intelligence-based evidence, strict courtroom security protocols, and coordinated proceedings involving multiple defendants.
Australia’s Secret Trials
In 2019, a former intelligence officer, known publicly only as “Witness J*”, had been prosecuted, convicted* and imprisoned almost entirely in secret.
The trial remained unknown to the public for years. The case prompted serious concerns about secrecy, judicial accountability and public confidence in the legal system.
In “Jihad Jack” Case* 2003–2007; retrials until 2009), Jack Thomas was prosecuted under Australia’s post-9/11 counterterrorism laws.* The case involved secret evidence, procedural disputes, and multiple appeals.
Courts ultimately upheld the state’s authority to employ exceptional measures in national security cases.
Canada’s Use of Secret Evidence in National Security Cases
Canada has also used secret evidence in cases involving national security. In cases involving espionage and security threats, courts have allowed certain classified information to be withheld from defendants and the public.
In the high-profile case of former intelligence official Cameron Ortis, legal proceedings involved disputes over access to classified information, with defence lawyers arguing that non-disclosure affected fair trial rights.
The tension between national security secrecy and due process is also evident in Canada’s judicial system.
Principle of Controlled Disclosure in Intelligence-Based Prosecutions.
The underlying principle across these systems is straightforward: when evidence is intelligence-based or when intimidation risks are substantial, courts often modify ordinary standards of openness through controlled disclosure, restricted hearings, protected testimony or specialised procedures.
These adaptations are intended to ensure that prosecutions remain possible without compromising public safety, intelligence capabilities or ongoing security operations.
Core Question: Transparency vs Security and the Need for Balance
The question, therefore, is not whether such procedures exist – they clearly do – but whether sufficient safeguards, oversight mechanisms and judicial review accompany their use.
International experience suggests that the challenge lies not in choosing between transparency and security,
but in striking a workable balance between the two when confronted with exceptional threats.
Conclusion
These examples do not negate the importance of safeguarding fair trial rights in any individual case.
They do, however, demonstrate that concerns relating to video-link hearings, restricted access, secret evidence and national security exceptions are not unique to Pakistan.
Democracies across the world, including those frequently critical of others, continue to grapple with the difficult balance between national security imperatives and the principles of transparency, due process and *open justice.
Any discussion on fair trial standards, therefore, should be guided by universal principles and applied consistently rather than selectively.
