Law Without Justice: How Pakistan Failed Dr. Aafia Siddiqui and Qandeel Baloch

In March 2003, a Pakistani neuroscientist, Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, and her three children disappeared from a crowded street in Karachi. Five years later, she mysteriously reappeared, but this time in U.S. custody. She was convicted of killing American personnel in Afghanistan in a trial that raised concerns about due process and Pakistan’s silence in defending its own citizens. Thirteen years later, a young social media star, Fouzia Azeem, known better under her alias Qandeel Baloch, was strangled to death by her brother, Muhammad Waseem Azeem, in an “honor killing” in Multan, Punjab. In 2022, he walked free. Two women. Two different contexts. Yet, both reveal a troubling pattern of the Pakistani state’s failure to protect women’s rights and uphold its legal obligations. 

During her 2010 trial in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Dr. Aafia Siddiqui was charged with attempting to shoot American soldiers while in custody in Afghanistan. [1] She pleaded not guilty and alleged that she was kidnapped and held in secret detention for years while suffering from extreme torture. Many human rights organizations and activists questioned the credibility of the evidence presented against her, yet the Pakistani government did little to intervene. Consequently, Dr. Aafia Siddiqui was sentenced to 86 years in prison. [2] During her time in prison, she has endured rape, sexual assault, torture, and has been denied access to medical care and religious rights, including access to a Quran or an imam. [3] Both internationally and domestically, Pakistan has failed to protect the rights of its citizens, which reflects deeper failures of state responsibility. In United States v. Siddiqui and Muhammad Wasim v. The State, it becomes apparent that Pakistan has failed to meet its legal obligations—under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations internationally and under the 2016 Penal Code Amendment domestically—to protect its citizens and ensure accountability for violence against women. This failure shows that accountability is weak and that legal and human rights protections have been eroded. Nearly a decade after Qandeel Baloch’s murder, enforcement in Pakistan remains inconsistent and often defers to patriarchal norms rather than legal rulings.

Pakistan’s approach to prosecuting honor killings reflects a deeply outdated legal system that prioritizes patriarchal norms over women’s rights. While legislative reforms such as the 2016 Penal Code Amendment were celebrated as a step toward justice, the state’s actual enforcement is weak, allowing men like Baloch’s brother to walk free. [4] The 2016 Amendment was added to ensure that a perpetrator of an honor killing would face mandatory life imprisonment even if the victim’s family forgave him, closing the qisas and diyat loophole that historically allowed perpetrators of honor killings to walk free. [5] Qisas, meaning retribution or an “eye for an eye,” is a concept in Pakistani law that allows the victim’s family to demand punishment for the harm caused, in proportion to the harm inflicted. Diyat, which translates to “blood money,” allows the offender to avoid severe punishment if the victim’s family accepts compensation instead of retribution. In most cases, male relatives often forgave the killer because they shared the reason for the killing. This meant that a murderer could walk free simply because his family pardoned him. For example, in 2022, the Lahore High Court overturned the 2019 conviction in Muhammad Wasim v. The State, thereby allowing Azeem to walk free despite the 2016 Penal Code Amendment. The Lahore High Court claimed that this crime was not an honor killing, despite Azeem’s 2016 confession in which he stated, “he committed the murder of Fozia Azeem alias Qandeel Baloch in the name of Gairat.” [6] Gairat is an Urdu term that translates to honor or shame. Without establishing a new motive, the court argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove the motive was “honor,” removing the case from the scope of the 2016 honor killing amendment and treating it as an ordinary murder. The court thus allowed Azeem to be pardoned under qisas/diyat, and his parents forgave him, claiming they had already lost their daughter and did not want to lose their son too. [7] The contradiction reveals how courts can effectively circumvent the 2016 Amendment by rejecting the honor motive on technical grounds, effectively reopening the loophole the amendment was designed to close. The Baloch case shows Pakistan’s unwillingness to take meaningful action to enforce its own laws. This failure is not an isolated incident and is part of a wider pattern of socially sanctioned and legally tolerated acts of gender-based violence in Pakistan.

On a related note, Pakistan’s refusal to provide diplomatic protection to Dr. Aafia Siddiqui illustrates broader patterns of the state’s neglect of its international legal obligation towards citizens abroad. Under international law, particularly the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963), states are required to protect their nationals through diplomatic channels, consular assistance, and active engagement when due process concerns arise. Despite Article 36(1)(c) of the Convention, which states that “consular officers shall have the right to visit a national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention, to converse and correspond with him and to arrange for his legal representation,” Pakistan failed to advocate for Dr. Siddiqui. [8] According to an official statement released by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and July 2025 reports, the Government of Pakistan has repeatedly affirmed that it continues to raise Dr. Siddiqui’s case with U.S. authorities. [9] The Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a press release in 2018 claiming that it provides periodic consular visits to Dr. Siddiqui and pledges ongoing legal and diplomatic support. [10] In 2024, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif wrote to U.S. President Joe Biden requesting her release, but this was denied. This was one of Biden’s last acts as President. [11] However, all of these diplomatic gestures fall short of the standards required under international law. Under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Pakistan must actively ensure regular access, communication, and legal representation for Dr. Siddiqui throughout her arrest, trial, and imprisonment. Article 36(1)(b) requires that when a national is arrested or detained abroad, the receiving state (the U.S.) must inform the detained person of their right to request consular notification. If requested, the sending state (Pakistan) must be notified “without delay.” However, Pakistan was not informed of Dr. Siddiqui’s whereabouts, while she was kept in secret detention for years, nor did Pakistan demand access. Furthermore, after she reappeared in U.S. custody, Pakistan did not immediately insist on formal consular notification, failing to pursue the mandatory notification and communication rights that Article 36(1)(b) guarantees. Many of the actions taken (or not taken) by Pakistan also violated Articles 5(a) and 5(e) of the Vienna Convention, as well as Article 36(2), all of which require consistent consular notification, legal representation, and diplomatic protection. 

Dr. Siddiqui’s disappearance in 2003 and trial in the U.S. five years later exposed glaring gaps in Pakistan’s judicial system. Despite its obligations under the Vienna Convention to ensure consular access and diplomatic intervention, the Pakistani state did not do so in Dr. Siddiqui’s case. In U.S. v. Siddiqui, due process concerns were well documented, yet Pakistan did not challenge these violations. The due process concerns in Dr. Siddiqui’s case implicate core protections under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), which the U.S. ratified in 1994. Dr. Siddiqui was subjected to prolonged detainment and severe physical and psychological torture. [12] During proceedings in United States v. Siddiqui, Dr. Siddiqui repeatedly asserted that she had been missing for years in custody before the alleged shootout with American officials. This unacknowledged, prolonged detention fundamentally contradicts the rights afforded by CAT and undermines the fairness of any subsequent persecution. The abdication of responsibility undermined Dr. Siddiqui’s individual right to due process. It signaled to the broader international community that Pakistan is unwilling to fully exercise its diplomatic authority on behalf of its nationals, especially women. This pattern of inaction, both domestically and internationally, underscores Pakistan’s broader failure to ensure women meaningful legal protection under the law. According to Article 15 of the UN Convention Against Torture, “Any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings.” During her detainment, she allegedly made several incriminating statements, such as efforts to start biological warfare by “infect[ing] U.S. poultry supply with an antibody that made the animals resistant to salmonella, and thereby sicken Americans who consumed chickens.” [13] In the sealed complaint written by the U.S. Justice Department, similar claims about biological warfare were made, yet these allegations lack evidentiary reliability. She was subjected to enforced disappearance and coercive interrogation, undermining the validity and voluntariness of any statements attributed to her. [14]

Although Pakistan has enacted numerous reforms to promote women’s rights, this progress is symbolic rather than actual. Customary law and patriarchal traditions continue to dominate the justice system, and the government’s legal commitments are not upheld. In rural regions, particularly, customary justice systems override statutory law, with honor killings, child marriages, and denial of inheritance rights running rampant. In addition to the 2016 Penal Code, similar patterns emerge in the Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act of 1976 and its 2016 amendment, which were designed to restrict dowry practices. In Pakistan and many other South Asian Muslim communities, dowry practices don’t precisely align with Islam’s view of dowry. Dowry, better known as jahaiz, is distinct from the Islamic concept of mahr. The dowry refers to cash, furniture, household goods, and other gifts given by the bride’s family to the groom and his family. Women often feel pressured to bring a large dowry to their groom’s family, and a failure to do so can lead to intimidation, harassment, and even refusal of marriage. The Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act, 1976, Section 3(1) was intended to limit the total value of dowry and bridal gifts. It states, “Neither the aggregate value of the dowry and presents given to the bride … nor the aggregate value of the bridal gifts … shall exceed five thousand rupees.” [15] Yet because the Act relies on women themselves, often those with the least social or economic power, to file complaints and provides no meaningful enforcement mechanisms, these protections remain largely inaccessible, allowing exploitation to persist and rendering the law ineffective in practice. Similarly, while child marriage is prohibited under the 1929 and 2016 laws, over 7.5% of women aged 25-49 were married by age 15, revealing that noncompliance with these laws stems from inadequate implementation and oversight. [16] 

Pakistan’s shortcomings in protecting women like Dr. Aafia Siddiqui and Qandeel Baloch are not isolated incidents. Instead, they result from structural conditions that entrench patriarchal power and weaken accountability mechanisms. Pakistan’s legal system is failing, and it reveals deeper political, social, and institutional dynamics that consistently devalue women’s rights and lives. Both Dr. Siddiqui’s extradition and Baloch’s honor killing reveal how patriarchal norms shape the Pakistani state’s engagement with law and justice. Legal reforms domestically intended to protect women from gender-based violence have been undermined by lenient courts, little to no enforcement, and cultural narratives normalizing male control. Pakistan’s passivity in defending Dr. Siddiqui highlights how political interests internationally and gender biases intersect to prioritize women’s rights in foreign policy and diplomatic action. Patriarchal narratives are not merely external to the law but are also codified within it, shaping how legal institutions respond to women’s suffering. Together, these cases illustrate failures within Pakistan’s systems. These embedded patriarchal values override legality both internally and globally, creating a system that perpetuates gender-based violence and erodes public trust in the Pakistani state. 

Edited by Claire Thornhill 

[1] United States v. Siddiqui, No. 10-3916 (2d Cir. 2012).

[2] “Aafia Siddiqui Sentenced in Manhattan Federal Court to 86 Years for Attempting to Murder U.S. Nationals in Afghanistan and Six Additional Crimes,” Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 23, 2010, https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/newyork/press-releases/2010/nyfo092310.htm 

[3] Sarah Booth, “Q&A: Siddiqui family accuses US of torture,” Al Jazeera, October 14, 2014, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2014/10/14/qa-siddiqui-family-accuses-us-of-torture.

[4] Act No. XLIII of 2016: An Act Further to Amend the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. 

[5] Criminal Law (Amendment) (Offences in the Name or Pretext of Honour) Act, 2016.

[6] State v. Muhammad Waseem et al, Sessions Case No. 45/S of 2016/2019, Multan Sessions Court (Pakistan), 27 September 2019.

[7] Muhammad Wasim v. The State & Another, Lahore High Court (Multan Bench), Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2019, February 14, 2022.

[8] “Vienna Convention on Consular Relations,” United Nations, April 24, 1963, https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_2_1963.pdf. 

[9] “Govt to continue assisting in Dr Aafia Siddiqui’s case, PM Shehbaz assures her sister,” Dawn, July 25, 2025, https://www.dawn.com/news/1926537. 

[10] “Press Release,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs, November 7, 2018, https://mofa.gov.pk/press-release-114.

[11] Naimat Khan, “Outgoing US president Biden turns down clemency request for Pakistani neuroscientist,” Arab News, January 21, 2025, https://www.arabnews.com/node/2587212/pakistan.

[12] “Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,” United Nations, June 26, 1987.

[13] “U.S. charges Pakistani scientist with trying to kill U.S. soldiers,” ABC News, August 6, 2008, https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=8015899.

[14] “Criminal Complaint — United States of America v. Aafia Siddiqui,” U.S. Department of Justice, August 22, 2008, https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2008/August/siddiqui-aafia-complaint.pdf.

[15] “The Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act, 1976,” Mumtaz & Associates, https://www.ma-law.org.pk/pdflaw/THE%20DOWRY%20AND%20BRIDAL%20GIFTS.doc 

[16] Simeon Djankov and Emaan Siddique, “The Gap between Law and Practice in Pakistan’s Gender Reform,” July 2023, https://www.fmg.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2023-10/DP882-updated.pdf.