Following the rejection of the mercy petitions of convicted terrorists involved in the Army Public School (APS) massacre last year in December, COAS General Raheel Sharif has signed the black warrant of four members of Toheed wal Jihad (TWJ) after the completion of their legal process. The men were not only known facilitators, hosts and financers of the APS attack but are in addition guilty of being involved in other attacks on the security forces. This is the first conviction endorsed by the newly set up military courts following the Supreme Court’s August 25 judgment, providing a canopy of legitimacy to the military courts. As a result of a unanimous all-party decision taken earlier this year in January, parliament passed the 21st Amendment that sought speedy trials under a military set up against offences related to terrorism, waging of war against Pakistan and the prevention of acts threatening the security of the country. The sunset clause for these courts restricts their life to two years. In a statement by the Prime Minister’s House, the death sentence awarded to the four terrorists is in fact ‘the will of the entire nation’. Following the gruesome APS attack, the pendulum of public sentiment has insisted on a legal remedy for retribution. At a time when the country is gearing up to observe the first anniversary of the attack on December 16, the news remains bitter sweet. These signed and sealed death sentences are the first fruits of this new anti-terror regime. It will be well to remember that these are not ordinary courts with an outlined procedural plan; military court trials are not only watertight but follow relatively summary procedures that many in the country feel do not fulfil the requirements of due process and an adequate defence. The fact that there is no certainty whether convicts receive a free and fair trial feeds into grave reservations surrounding the set up of military courts. It often becomes difficult to remain rational after a tragedy like the APS massacre. Where the setting up of extralegal courts can ensure a speedy trial, it can also often lead to a miscarriage of justice. It is important for the state to retain the moral high ground, especially when dealing with terrorists who don’t have an ethical compass. Justice should not be dispensed in a spirit of revenge or else this judicial efficacy can be called into question. The convicted terrorists deserve not even an ounce of sympathy, yet we cannot hold on to our own humanity whilst simply dispossessing someone else’s. *