Mahrang Baloch

Cases
Location of case in SG report
2025-089-001
Year of the report
2025
Country Geolocation

Latitude: 30.375321

Longitude: 69.3451159999999

Country Geolocation (linked Cases)
Pakistan
From Region
UN body that raised the case prior to the SG report
  • UN Special Procedures: Thematic
Dates of prior UN action
29 April 2025
Type of record
Named individual
Gender
Female
Was the victim a foreign national?
No
Was the victim a minor?
No
Individual's/organization's activity

Leader of Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC), a network advocating for the rights of the minority Baloch community.

Type of rights defended
  • Caste/Ethnic minorities' rights/Racism
Was the victim a civil servant or member of the security forces or of the judiciary?
No
Reported trigger of reprisal

protested police violence against the Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC)

Engagement with UN body
  • Unclear
Type of attempted engagement
  • Unclear
Location of mentioned reprisals
Pakistan
Reprisal information

On 26 March 2025, mandate holders issued a press release mentioning that two days earlier, Ms. Sammi Deen Baloch had been arrested alongside other human rights defenders by the Karachi Police as they protested police violence against the Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC), a network advocating for the rights of the minority Baloch community. Her detention was allegedly ordered for 30 days under the Sindh Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (MPO). Mandate holders called for the immediate release of. Ms. Saami Deen Baloch and other activists, including human rights defender Ms. Mahrang Baloch, leader of BYC. In a 26 March press release replying to the statement of mandate holders, the government alleged that “these elements are not mere protesters but active participants in a broader campaign of lawlessness and violence (...), operating in collusion with terrorists.”

Types of reprisals suffered
  • Charge/Investigation/Prosecution: Charge/Investigation/Prosecution - General
  • Detention/Imprisonment: Detention/Imprisonment - General
Alleged/likely perpetrators
State actors
Was the reprisal based on new legislation?
No
Does the report make general comment about country’s environment for engagement with UN?
No
Further case development

On 29 April 2025, mandate holders publicly stated that Pakistan appears to conflate legitimate human and minority rights advocacy and public demonstrations with terrorism, threatening freedoms of expression, assembly, and association. They expressed concern at the detention of BYC leaders and their supporters and actions against their family members and lawyers, noting these may amount to reprisals for their interaction with United Nations mechanisms.
91. During the reporting period, mandate holders had also addressed other allegations concerning Ms. Sammi Deen Baloch, Ms. Marangh Baloch and BYC (PAK 6-2024, PAK 1/2025). Specifically, mandate holders raised concerns over the alleged use of force against peaceful demonstrations organised by the BYC, the misuse of certain administrative and legal counter-terrorism measures against Baloch activists and organizations, including the alleged designation of activists and individuals associated with BYC as “proscribed persons,” as well as allegations of internet blackouts in Balochistan in response to the activities of BYC activists (PAK 1/2025).

  1. According to information received by OHCHR, Ms. Sammi Deen Baloch was released from detention on 1 April 2025 without charges. At the time of writing, Ms. Mahrang Baloch remained in detention at Huda Prison under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance. She is reportedly facing other charges including sedition, murder and terrorism related charges.
Government response dates
26 March 2025; 23 July 2025
Government response content

In a 26 March press release replying to the statement of mandate holders, the government alleged that “these elements are not mere protesters but active participants in a broader campaign of lawlessness and violence (...), operating in collusion with terrorists.”

On 23 July 2025, the Government responded to the note verbale sent in connection to the present report, stating that the allegation of intimidation and reprisals was unfounded. It further asserted that the actions of the relevant authorities were consistent with the law and Pakistan’s obligations under international human rights law, and that domestic remedies remained available and were being applied. The Government also reaffirmed its commitment to freedom of movement and noted that international human rights law permitted restrictions necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others.

Is the country cited for a "pattern of reprisal" in the context of this case?
No
Is a pattern of reprisals mentioned otherwise in the context of this case?
No
Does the report cite "self-censorship" as an issue in the context of this case?
No