Adil Ghaffar

Cases
Location of case in SG report
2018-044-901
Relevant SG report
Year of the report
2018
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
26 July 2017
Type of record
Named individual
Gender
Male
Was the victim a foreign national?
No
Was the victim a minor?
No
Individual's/organization's activity

lawyer and human rights defender

Type of rights defended
  • Civil/political rights
Was the victim a civil servant or member of the security forces or of the judiciary?
No
Reported trigger of reprisal

has brought to the attention of the United Nations human rights mechanisms, cases of extrajudicial killings, torture, and enforced disappearances allegedly committed by State agents against members of the political party and movement Muttahida Quami Movement, including persons belonging to the Mohajirs community

Engagement with UN body
  • Unclear
Dates of engagement
Unclear
Type of attempted engagement
  • Unclear
Dates of mentioned reprisals
1 July 2017; 14 July 2017
Reprisal information

According to the information received, Mr. Ghaffar’s home has been monitored and he has received direct death threats from the twitter account @PakRangersFreePress. This account reportedly belongs to Pakistani Paramilitary Rangers, who have been accused of of serious human rights violations against MQM workers and ethnic Mohajirs. 46. The first threat received was on 1 July 2017, from a tweet referring to Mr. Ghaffar as a “traitor of Pakistan.” It stated that if someone needs his residential address and details about his family they should contact the sender. On 14 July 2017, Mr. Ghaffar received another message from the social media account @PakRangersFreePress, which asked “what punishment is fit for the traitor.”

Types of reprisals suffered
  • Threats/Intimidations (incl. "fear of reprisal")
Alleged/likely perpetrators
Non-state actor(s)
Was the reprisal based on new legislation?
No
Does the report make general comment about country’s environment for engagement with UN?
No
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
How many times has the case been followed up in subsequent SG reports?
0